Ted Opitz

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I consider aid to the civil power a government use. I consider the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family in transit a government purpose. I consider an international request for the use of our aircraft and military personnel in dire circumstances, where people in various nations are at risk, to be both a government and humanitarian purpose, in accordance with the values of Canada. I know that the member is new and does not understand the Canadian Armed Forces, but hopefully that clarifies it.

In that situation, transport was also provided by one of the Challengers, a Polaris, and three of our new Globemaster aircraft. Also three CH-146 Griffin helicopters were on the ground for medical evacuation, mobility, and coordination, which is a government purpose in a humanitarian cause overseas. However, I do not want to put too fine a point on the notion of government purpose here. Humanitarian operations, such as those in the Philippines, show that Canada is a global player and that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are prepared for a vast range of missions.

As we know, one of our military's defining contributions to international peace and security was in Afghanistan, where our armed forces were employed for more than a decade. We will always remember their efforts and their sacrifices. We know these would not have been possible without the right equipment provided by our government.

One of the shining examples was the 429 Transport Squadron, which was an integral part of our military's mission in Afghanistan since 2002. As part of the squadron, the CC-130 Hercules tactical airlift detachment logged over 1,800 operational flying hours on more than 320 missions in the Arabian Gulf from January to August of 2002. In 2003, the squadron successfully delivered 30,000 pounds of materials to a bombed-out runway in Kandahar while under direct small arms and rocket fire. With the introduction of the Globemaster in 2007, the squadron began to deliver troops and trade to Kabul, Kandahar, and Bagram, making a vital contribution to the Canadian and international efforts there.

When we discuss the use of government aircraft we should understand how they enable the Canadian Armed Forces to do their incredible work and in effect project Canada around the world to our allies in a very positive light. This work is crucial to the security of Canadians, whether they are assisting civilian authorities in response to floods at home, helping local authorities rescue Canadians in danger, providing humanitarian relief to those in need around the world, or contributing to security abroad with our international partners. The Canadian Armed Forces help keep Canada and Canadians safe every single day. They use the right equipment to do it, whether on the ground, sea, or air.

The stories I have shared today are just some of the examples of how our military aircraft contribute at home and abroad. They transport representatives of the government on government business and are indispensable to helping our men and women in uniform keep Canada strong and free.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize the member is new in his role, but I am speaking on a relevant topic, in that this is about our Canadian Armed Forces, our Royal Canadian Air Force, and their value to Canada, and I appreciate not being interrupted.

—and as that hurricane slammed into the Philippines, many people lost their lives and sustained life-threatening injuries; millions of people needed humanitarian support; and power and communications were cut in several provinces across the country. I think we all watched, astounded at the impact that storm had on the Philippines.

As part of the Government of Canada response, the Canadian Armed Forces provided just that. At the height, the Canadian response was 319 military personnel, with diverse specialities, who were part of the operation. Their work included purifying nearly--

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to be able to rise today and participate in the debate on the use of government aircraft and, in particular, on Canada's Royal Canadian Air Force. There is not a day that goes by when its members are not standing on guard for us, both here and around the world. Their job is to ensure Canadians are safe and to make a meaningful contribution abroad and on behalf of Canada, and they so proudly do that.

As part of this important contribution, the Department of National Defence operates flight services for representatives of the government on government business in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada's guidelines and its policy. This flight service operates throughout the year, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. As with all its activities, National Defence strives to use resources in the most economical, efficient, and cost-effective manner when it comes to the use of the aircraft. It is appropriate, however, to put this debate into context.

The efforts of our men and women in uniform begin right here at home, and their top priority is the security of Canada and of all Canadians. Additionally, another key role of the Armed Forces is supporting civilian authorities during a crisis such as a national disaster, which is one of its additional core missions. The devastating floods that hit Alberta in June 2013, for example, are still fresh in our memories. That flash flooding was extremely dangerous, put the lives of Canadians at risk, forced road closures, damaged the infrastructure, and isolated entire communities. When the Province of Alberta asked the Canadian Armed Forces for assistance, our military responded by deploying approximately 2,300 personnel to save lives, reduce any human suffering, and mitigate property damage. Our men and women in uniform made Albertans and all of Canada proud.

Search and rescue aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force are generally the first military assets involved in the assistance effort. They provide evacuation and aeromedical support to people in need. The Royal Canadian Air Force participated in Alberta with six Griffon helicopters as well as two CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and one Hercules aircraft, as well as the Aurora. About 100 personnel from the RCAF were part of these operations. One of the most amazing efforts was in the Kananaskis area west of Calgary, where two Griffon helicopters and one Cormorant evacuated more than 200 people from hotels impacted by the floods.

These kinds of rescues are remarkable, and they also remind us that the Canadian Armed Forces makes search and rescue a priority every day across this country. An incredible search and rescue operation happened just this past December when a fire broke out at a student residence in Kingston and a crane worker was stranded about 100 metres above the blaze. The Kingston fire department and police requested search and rescue assistance to save the man, and a CH-146 Griffon was launched from Trenton, complete with a search and rescue crew. In a brave and very delicate operation, as I am sure members can imagine, the search and rescue technician and crew helped hoist the crane worker into the helicopter and quickly airlifted him to a hospital where he was treated for burns. That rescue clearly was a great success, and yet another of those examples of how the Canadian Armed Forces uses military aircraft to keep Canadians safe each and every day.

Of course, our military has a long history of contributing to peace and stability abroad, and that is why deploying in response to crises around the world is one of the six core missions of our Armed Forces and why our military maintains contingency plans for rapid deployment to the scene of a disaster overseas. A recent example, which has already been cited, is of the Armed Forces' incredible work when a devastating typhoon hit the Philippines in November 2013. Typhoon Haiyan was one of the strongest storms of its kind ever—

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words from members on the other side about respecting the Canadian Armed Forces, but they certainly do not understand them.

It was the Liberal Party that plunged us into the decade of darkness, and I remember those years very well. We did not have the equipment we needed, the boots, the uniforms. It is thanks to this government that the Canadian Armed Forces has the major equipment pieces it needs. This government rebuilt the respect and the pride and the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces around the world.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the utility of the Polaris and its role in security and domestic operations, its international roles, and its impact on the morale of people around the world. When I speak of its impact on the morale of people around the world I am referring to people in the Philippines who saw this aircraft land in their airport with Canada written on its side.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, good policy is that all Canadians understand their democratic system. Good policy is that they understand where to vote, how to vote, and be able to participate fully in that process with the full confidence of knowing that their electoral system and their nation are based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which their vote helps contribute to. I am disappointed that my hon. friends opposite cannot see that.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but an honest comparison between our and the American systems clearly shows there are vast differences in the way we both conduct elections. The point in my speech was to mention the simple turnout in those elections, which is something comparable in both of our nations.

We did cite this particular example, but there are all kinds of data for all kinds of other things on this. I would encourage the hon. member to occasionally sit at our committee meetings if he would like, and he would hear some of those things being debated back and forth.

As I said, this government has an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that they understand how their system of democracy works; how they can contribute to it; how they can come out to vote, where, how, and when, and the options available. It is our responsibility to make sure that they do that. Through this proposed act and the minister's good work, we are going to make sure that all Canadians have a better understanding of their democracy and how to participate in it in the next general election.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree with my hon. friend more. This government has an obligation to all Canadians to ensure that elections across this land are fair and free, and that those who violate the principles and laws of our Elections Act are punished to the full extent of the law. It is important to do that.

We have looked around the world at what has occurred in other places and have taken those lessons into account. This government has shown tremendous wisdom. The minister is a considerate and thoughtful minister who has put a great deal of time and effort into looking into all of aspects of this.

The fundamentals and the basics are important. Dealing with the fundamentals of voting, of educating voters with respect to where to go, how to vote, when to vote, what their abilities and options are when voting, is what will allow a higher voter turnout in Canada. It will allow all members, especially our youth, to understand that they have a role and a responsibility. With citizenship go responsibilities. One of those is to vote. That is a basic fundamental that we need to communicate to all Canadians. This government is doing that in a comprehensive way that will reach all citizens of Canada. This will be implemented in the next general election, which will allow for a far better election.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member rightly points out the issues that occurred in my riding. The Supreme Court upheld the results four to three, and I remain in my seat.

My riding is not all of Canada. Right now, there are 307 other ridings aside from my own. As I pointed out in my speech, there are already incidents captured on TV of individuals in Montreal, and Elections Canada has a compliance agreement in force with those particular individuals. There will be other statistics, but those are the two that I used today to highlight the fact that this is an incident that does happen across Canada.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on today's opposition day motion. The NDP is asking the House to consider several important aspects of the fair elections act. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to demonstrate how the fair elections act would strengthen our democracy. I will therefore be opposing the motion and encouraging other members to do the same.

In their motion before the House today, New Democrats ask that three elements of the fair elections act be amended through the end of vouching, the use of voter information cards in place of legitimate identification, and the refocusing of Elections Canada's education function.

I will address each of these provisions of the bill, but they do not exist in isolation. They are pieces of a broader piece of legislation that proposes comprehensive changes to the Canada Elections Act.

The fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business. The bill would also make it harder to break elections laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would protect voters from rogue calls with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties. It would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering that individual to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

It would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules and would repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, upholding free speech. It would provide better customer service to voters and would establish an extra day of polling.

In the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow MPs to present the disputed case to the courts and have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO would seek the MP's suspension. It would make the rules for fair elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow. Finally, the fair elections act would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of ID.

This last provision, cracking down on voter fraud by eliminating vouching, is an area of disagreement between the government and the NDP. I am not sure why, frankly, because each time someone votes fraudulently, that person cancels out the vote of an honest citizen. How many honest votes would the NDP accept being cancelled? In other words, what cancellation rate does it consider to be acceptable?

This is a vitally important question. It is not just good enough for legitimate voters to say, “As long as I can cast my ballot, why should I care if other illegitimate voters cast theirs?” The reason is that illegitimate votes cancel out legitimate ones. Every time a fraudulent vote is cast, a legitimate vote is not counted.

How seriously, then, should we take the issue of fraudulent voting?

Voter fraud is not a victimless crime. Its victims are legitimate voters who cast a ballot believing that they should have the same voice in the decision as their neighbour, but whose votes are stolen by voter fraud.

The NDP is fond of saying that there is no voter fraud. New Democrats say we have to prove it. They say we cannot point to anyone ever having voted fraudulently, but we have and I will.

The television show Infoman showed that two Montrealers were each able to vote twice. It demonstrated how easy it was to use voter information cards or identity fraud. The case is even documented on Elections Canada's own website, where the individuals in question had to sign compliance agreements.

Although no one condones these actions, the example is illustrative, and it shows just how easy voter fraud can be. The fair elections act would stop fraud of this kind by eliminating the use of inaccurate voter information cards as a replacement for acceptable forms of ID. The statistics on irregularities in the use of vouching and the high rates of inaccuracy in voter information cards are well established. I do not need to repeat them here.

I just want to remind honest, unsuspecting voters that their vote is denied every time a fraudulent vote is cast. In fact, there would be little difference between a fraudulent voter casting a ballot and a legitimate voter being turned away. Why will the NDP not take this threat seriously?

Voter fraud and developing ways to combat it are important, so I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on another element of the NDP motion: Election Canada's education function.

Just over 20 years ago, in 1993, the Canada Elections Act was amended to give Elections Canada its current mandate to educate Canadians on democracy and to encourage voter participation. What was the budget for this mandate? It was limitless. You heard me, Mr. Speaker: Elections Canada was not given a specific budget for this activity. Instead, it was told to spend whatever it needed, drawing directly from the fiscal framework in order to educate Canadians about democracy, just as long as it reported back to the procedure and House affairs committee after the fact.

How has this approach, without a budgetary limit, been working? What results do we have to show for it? Surely voter turnout must have increased. Surely Canadians must have had an excellent grasp of the basics of voting, including what ID to bring.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Canadian voter turnout has plunged in the past two decades, and Canadians cite the lack of information as a reason for not voting.

In 1988, the last general election before Elections Canada had its current education mandate, voter turnout was 75%. In a previous election in 1984, voter turnout was also 75%. In fact, voter turnout in Canada dipped below 70% only twice between the end of World War II and the time when Elections Canada was given its current mandate to voter education. Voter turnout in the last general election was 61%. This is actually an increase of 3% over the previous election in 2008. If that is success, I would hate to see what failure looks like.

The opposition and Elections Canada often point to declining voter turnout around the world as a justification for continuing the current approach to voter education. Now let us examine the statistics a little more closely.

I have just shown the record of declining voter turnout in Canada. Is it a similar story in presidential elections in the U.S.? The 2008 election that made Barack Obama president saw the highest voter participation since 1968. That is worth repeating. It was the highest voter turnout in 2008 in the U.S. since 1968, but in Canada, it was the lowest in our history. That hardly proves that declining voter turnout is a global phenomenon.

Some might suggest that the election was unique and historic, given that it was the first time an African American was a nominee for a major party. If that is the only reason, then what explains the fact that voter turnout in the next presidential election, in 2012, was actually higher than in the election in 2008?

Again, voter turnout in the last two presidential elections in the United States was the highest that it has been since 1968. Not only does this not support the suggestion that decline in voter turnout is a global phenomenon, it absolutely disproves it. Voter turnout in Canada has declined since Elections Canada began its current approach to voter education. The facts prove that.

After the last election, young non-voters reported that not knowing where, at 25%, when, at 26%, or how, at 19%, to vote played a role in their decision not to vote. Half of Canada's youth and three-quarters of aboriginal youth were unaware that they can vote early if they are not available on election day. The same report states:

The most important access barrier

—to youth voting—

was lack of knowledge about the electoral process, including not knowing about different ways to vote...

This is a result of Elections Canada's current approach to voter education: spend, spend, spend, and hope there will be something to show for it. It has not worked.

Young people are not the only ones confused by Elections Canada's ID requirements. In fact, I would like to quote a press release from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This press release, incidentally, is still on her party's website. In it, the leader of the Green Party states:

To improve voter turnout, we should repeal all the changes, including the photo ID requirement, that make it harder for young people, First Nations, the poor, and seniors to vote.

That sounds a lot like the motion we are debating today. There is just one problem: no photo ID requirement exists in the current Elections Canada Act, and the fair elections act does not propose it.

Have members heard a media outcry demanding the leader of the Green Party retract this factually inaccurate information? Have they heard the opposition demand that the record be corrected? Of course not, because it plays into a deliberately misleading narrative that critics of the bill are seeking to advance.

Today voters have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove identity and residence, and government-issued ID, photo or otherwise, is not required. The fair elections act would not change that in any way.

In fact, it is understandable that Canadians are confused about what forms of ID are acceptable in order to vote. After all, if an elected member in this House and the leader of a national party do not know which forms of ID are required and which are not, then how would we expect Canadians to know?

The fair elections act would respond to this by requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate to Canadians the forms of ID that are acceptable in order to vote. That is a change we are proposing to the education function. It is a return to the basics.

If Canadians knew that they could vote using a bank statement and a student card, would they be concerned about the end of vouching?

In my time in the military, one thing we always returned to in training was the fundamentals. The fundamentals absolutely work, and this is something we should absolutely focus on here.

If Canadians knew that they could vote at a long-term care facility using a health card and an attestation of residence, would they be concerned about the end of vouching? I do not think so.

Education is essential, but Elections Canada has not met the grade. It is time that the current approach to education be replaced by a return to the basics.

In conclusion, Canadians must have confidence in the democratic process. Not only do they need to know how to cast a ballot, but Canadians also want to be sure that legitimate votes are not cancelled by illegitimate ones. As I demonstrated today, the fair elections act would go a long way to ensuring that Canadians would have the confidence in the electoral process that they want and deserve.

With the measures to eliminate vouching and communicate the many types of voter identification that are acceptable at the polls, I believe that the risk of voter fraud would be greatly reduced. Together, all of these initiatives would advance the voter identification process significantly from what it was a decade ago.

It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion, and, once again, I call upon all members to oppose the motion.

[Foreign Affairs, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two weeks the situation in Ukraine escalated rapidly. A referendum was held in Crimea, which is still under illegal military occupation. The Russian Duma passed a subversive law that illegally absorbed Crimea into the Russian Federation.

Acts of provocation and violence are being committed by pro-Russian groups in eastern Ukraine. Religious minorities are continuously targeted in eastern Ukraine, in particular in the Crimean region. Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity continue to be trampled by Russia.

Can the parliamentary secretary update the House on our government's actions concerning the troubling situation in Ukraine?