Erin O'Toole

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. What I found most interesting is that he spoke of the need for truth in talking about our border system and our asylum system, yet he seemed to gloss over the fact that the spike in illegal crossings really occurred after the Prime Minister's grandstanding tweet suggesting that anyone could come and just cross in and be welcomed to Canada.

The member talked about hiring an agency to send emails and to use social media to correct incomplete information in the United States about the asylum process. The government has sent ministers of the crown down to U.S. cities to try to correct the lack of knowledge about how immigration works in Canada. However, the Liberals will not ask the Prime Minister to actually provide clarity. Canadians know that he did it following a decision in the United States that most of us disagreed with, but the Prime Minister decided to grandstand.

Will that member commit to going into the Liberal caucus meeting tomorrow and saying, “Prime Minister, given what the provinces are absorbing, will you finally clarify or retract that tweet?”

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 23rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, what is missing from my colleague's speech is any critical analysis. What is interesting is that he made reference to the move of benefits for old age security from age 67 to age 65. What he does not understand is that our economy actually needs people to stay in the workplace longer. That political move made for the election has actually been criticized by Dominic Barton, the chief economist on the finance minister's advisory council.

An analysis of the expansion of the CPP he talked about said that it will actually lead to thousands of job losses, because it is a tax on small business, an input tax. It predicted that in the future, only five per cent of Canadians would be helped by those changes. Much like we heard in the House today, there would be extra spending, extra tax on businesses, and the loss of jobs to help only a very small number of people.

When Dominic Barton himself and the chief actuary of Morneau Shepell, Fred Vettese, criticize the move from 67 to 65, does that member not agree that the government needs to think better about Canada's long term?

[Public Safety, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. The national security adviser testified, after two months of asking, and after all-night votes in this chamber. The government was blocking that, only to have the national security adviser confirm that the suggestion by the government that there was an Indian conspiracy was not true. Yesterday, the government refused to be transparent and release a full list of the Prime Minister's itinerary, events, and guests in India.

We know that one former convicted terrorist made his way onto that invitation list. Is the government's unwillingness to release the full list a sign that there are more?

[Public Safety, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22, the foreign affairs minister apologized to her Indian counterpart for Canada's honest mistake in inviting Jaspal Atwal to the Prime Minister's event. Now Mr. Atwal says the Liberal MP for Surrey Centre warned him he would need security clearance before he could attend.

Was the honest mistake the invitation itself, or the department's failure to vet the invitation for security and protocol concerns?

[Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my friend in full rhetorical flight, but he is not debating relevant points to the motion today.

The Liberal Party used to run on slogans like “Better is always possible.” What is being debated here is the suggestion that we could be better with the ethics laws in Canada. We could learn from the findings of the last Ethics Commissioner with respect to the Prime Minister and certain loopholes. That is what this is about. I have not heard the member refer to that. I have heard him complain a lot about this debate. He seems to have glossed over the fact that the House leader of our party asked for unanimous consent to move forward. If he is going to speak, he should at least speak to the relevance of what is before the chamber.

If the member thinks the ethics report against the Prime Minister's conduct is a waste of time, he should tell us why. Canadians want to know that the Prime Minister will learn from the finding, the first finding of this kind against a sitting Prime Minister in the history of our country. It is the position of the opposition that we could actually learn from that and close some of the loopholes that were identified as a result of this long investigation. We now know that the veterans affairs minister is entangled in this crisis as well.

If the member does not want to speak to ethics, and considering he is a Liberal MP I am not surprised he does not want to, he should at least try to speak to some element of this debate.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the only revisionist history is coming from my friend from the Green Party, who is usually much more up to date on things. I was not elected in 2011. I know she knows that. I was elected in a by-election in 2012. Nevertheless, I quoted Keystone XL, which I am sure the member opposed because it is in some way tangentially connected with the resource economy.

We have supported all lines that will allow for Canadian resources. This is just as much a resource of someone in Saanich—Gulf Islands as it is of someone who lives where it is extracted. It is the largest single contributor to our public health system. All I am asking is for the government to stand up for it a bit. I quoted in my speech the debates from 1956. I would refer the member to those comments. This is an important debate in the national interest. The Conservatives have brought it here, and we will continue to fight for these jobs.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am certain I will not agree. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister of Canada defend or stand up for the jobs in our resource sector. In fact, we have all heard quotes from the Prime Minister over the course of his time in that leadership position, or as an MP, mocking it or suggesting we need to move past it. My friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and some of the NDP members have reminded members of the House that during the election the Prime Minister said different things on Vancouver Island than what he might say in Calgary. It is not in the national interest when the Prime Minister changes his promises and tone.

Let us go even further. I have talked about the failure of the Liberal government with respect to energy east and northern gateway, and the risk to Trans Mountain. Let us not forget Keystone. Remember that when President Obama was in office, we heard a lot about the bromance between our Prime Minister and Mr. Obama, the “dudeplomacy”, which is the Prime Minister's term, I am sad to say. President Obama cancelled Keystone, which was not based on any science, and the Prime Minister basically nodded along with it. Then the Prime Minister of Canada introduced a carbon tax, making our entire economy uncompetitive, versus Michigan, which is a few hours away from the plants in Ontario that compete against Michigan's plants. Obama praised Trudeau's carbon tax, but certainly did not follow him.

The Prime Minister of Canada has been played by the Americans. Thank goodness a change in office led to the resurgence of Keystone, because this Prime Minister was certainly allowing that to die too. That is three pipelines down and one on the edge. It is time for that member to start standing up.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to divide my time tonight with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Tonight we appear to be the central Canadian connection here in a debate that many Canadians believe is exclusive to Alberta and British Columbia, but I am here tonight, as a proud Ontario MP who has had the honour of serving and working across the country, to say that debates like this are critical to the future of our country. Pipelines are as much in the national interest of my constituents in Ontario as they are in Lakeland and Peace River, or in British Columbia, or in Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I would remind people in my riding all the time, when we are looking at regulatory reviews like the line 9 reversal and other things accomplished under the government of Stephen Harper, that the present government has to bend over backwards to hide the fact that many pipeline projects were approved under the previous government. All were reviewed appropriately, but the last government recognized and was proud to stand in the House and proud to stand on any street corner in the country and say that resource development is in Canada's national interest. The Liberal government will not do that.

Here we have a Conservative caucus from across the country. I, with my time representing Durham, and my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent will remind people that the jobs in Ontario are due to the success and wealth of Canada as a resource country, and getting our products to market through pipelines allows us the best world price, the best royalties, and the best economic activity possible. We need to remind Ontarians of that.

I am proud that my dad worked for General Motors when I was a kid. Ontario is still known for vehicle manufacturing and auto parts. In the last decade, there have been more jobs created in Ontario as a result of the resource economy in Alberta than through automobile assembly. When I tell that to auto workers in my area or retired GM workers, they are astounded, because they do not hear that enough. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to remind Canadians that when we say something is in the national interest, it is in their interest, at their kitchen table in southern Ontario, just as much as it is around a very concerned kitchen table in Edmonton or Calgary.

These debates are important. What troubles me to no end about the Liberal government is a Minister of Natural Resources heckling my colleague from Peace Country when he was talking about personal stories. The minister from Edmonton is laughing now. We are here to tell those stories, to talk about the concerns. I have spoken to the Edmonton chamber, and it is worried.

Canada is not open for business under the present Prime Minister. We are closed for business. Capital is fleeing Canada, not because we are the safest, most prosperous, and most well-educated and well-trained country in the world, but because of the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister from day one.

On his first trip abroad to sell Canada at Davos, the Prime Minister said that we are not just resources now; we are resourceful. He mocked the entire resource industry by suggesting that. Maybe the Prime Minister should learn a bit about steam-assisted gravity drainage, or slant drilling, or shale deposit exploration and extraction, or minimizing water usage in the resource industry in Alberta. The innovation in our resource economy has been astounding, yet on his first trip to Davos, the Prime Minister just wiped it away: “We are resourceful now. We do not need resources.” Certainly, the government's plan for pipelines means we are not going to sell our resources.

Let me tell the House how much the Liberal Party has changed. My friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised the issue that the Prime Minister got elected by pretending to be a New Democrat when he was in British Columbia, and then pretending to be a Liberal when he was in Ontario or Quebec. Now it is coming home to roost. He has to pick a side. He has to defend Trans Mountain as being in our national interest, which it is. The B.C. premier has no mandate. He lost the last election in popular vote and seat count.

He is being held hostage by a couple of radical Green MLAs to cause a constitutional crisis. That is what he is allowing to happen. It is terrible, and we have heard virtual silence from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Let us see how much the Liberal Party has changed. One of the most raucous debates in this chamber took place in May 1956, when the Right Hon. C.D. Howe stood up and said this about pipelines, “The building of the trans-Canada pipe line is a great national project, comparable in importance and magnitude to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.” He went on to say, “The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada...” That was when they were rushing through a pipeline debate.

This Prime Minister has been avoiding selling pipelines and resources to Canadians and around the world. This Prime Minister waited for a constitutional crisis before he had meetings and started speaking about it being in the national interest. Why is it a crisis? Because he has already dropped the ball.

A few years ago, former Liberal premier Frank McKenna said this about energy east: “The Energy East project represents one of those rare opportunities to bring all provinces and regions of this country together to support a project that will benefit us all, and that is truly in the national interest.”

Well, certainly that aspirational national interest language by a prominent former Liberal politician was quashed when the actions of the current government led TransCanada to cancel the energy east pipeline. Previous to that, this Prime Minister had already cancelled the northern gateway pipeline that had been reviewed. What did some Canadians say about that? Chief Elmer Derrick, Dale Swampy, and Elmer Ghostkeeper, three first nation leaders, said that they were very disappointed from the unilateral cancellation of northern gateway. That was a $2-billion opportunity for first nations in British Columbia that was cancelled because of a unilateral anti-resource decision by this Prime Minister.

We now have Bill C-69. We have a track record in two and a half years of saying not just to the global capital markets that Canada is closed, but we have had the Prime Minister and members of his own caucus say that we need to prepare for closing down our resources. We need to move beyond it. Tonight, they heckled when they heard about the concern that causes at a lot of kitchen tables around our country.

Why I am so passionate as an Ontario MP is that my first job before going to college was inspecting TransCanada pipelines, the pipeline inspection crew between Belleville and Ottawa. I have seen the economic activity first-hand. I have also seen the manufacturing industry during the global recession when oil prices were still high. Contracts for the oil sands and exploration in Saskatchewan and Manitoba was the lifeline for manufacturing. It kept us afloat. That is the national interest.

The fact that we have to bring an emergency debate and the Prime Minister had to have a stopover meeting between his global jet-setting to bring a few premiers together means he has let this crisis happen. He has cancelled northern gateway, and through his actions he has cancelled energy east. The one pipeline he thought he could let go is sliding off the table, with Kinder Morgan now suggesting all this uncertainty is leading them to question their investment. They are in Hail Mary pass mode when they suggest that they will buy the line or pay for part of it. That desperation is not needed.

For a change, I would like the Prime Minister to go to Davos and talk about the importance of our resource industry. I would like him to showcase the innovation brought by these men and women who work in our oil patch, the pipeline industry, and the jobs that supply it. It is sad that we have to bring an emergency debate to remind the Liberals that jobs in the resource industry from coast to coast are in all Canadians' national interest.

[Public Safety, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today the minister has suggested that the opposition is on a misguided path. Well, the tour guide on that misguided path is the Prime Minister and this minister.

I would put it back to him. If a Liberal MP invited Mr. Atwal, a convicted terrorist, to the Prime Minister's events, and they cancelled that, and that is the only possible explanation for the India scandal, why do we need a classified briefing?

[Public Safety, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22, in India, the Prime Minister acknowledged that one of his MPs invited Jaspal Atwal to his events. On February 27 in this place, the Prime Minister acknowledged claims by his security adviser that the Indian government's conspiracy was a possible route to the invitation as well. Today the minister is suggesting that it is us making this claim, when he, in this House, refused to talk about classified information. If an invitation from his own MP is classified, why do we need a special investigation if it is all unclassified?