Erin O'Toole

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative member of the opposition, I guess I should be glad that this is the most ineffective majority government in the history of Canada's Parliament. It has only passed 19 pieces of legislation. To do that, it has introduced closure 23 times, more than it has passed, and here we are again. The minister should be embarrassed that she is stifling debate on such a transformative bill.

The government is failing public health. The CMA is critical of what the government is rushing into. It is failing our provincial partners. Quebec has told it to slow down. It is failing public safety. Chiefs of police and Attorneys General are saying that there is no test for roadside impairment.

The government is failing public safety, public health, and stifling debate on all subjects.

When provinces, physicians, and Canadians are complaining, how can the minister stand before the House and say that the government is limiting debate and that it is over?

[Carbon Pricing, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, very rarely do we get to compliment a member. My colleague from Oshawa, probably more than anyone else, helped save the auto industry in the last Parliament, in the depths of the global recession.

Now with an integrated North American economy and the lack of realization that our economy is integrated, the input cost of the carbon tax or the cap and trade is not going to be transparent. We are seeing manufacturers, like Procter & Gamble, already leave and go to the United States.

Could the member comment, particularly on how the auto industry will be uncompetitive in Ontario versus the plants in Michigan or Pennsylvania, where there is no carbon tax?

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I had the good fortune of spending the last seven months speaking with a lot of Canadians in all parts of this country. I have to say that they are very worried about the government's carbon tax plan and scheme across this country. At a time where manufacturers in Ontario are already facing high electricity costs, they are worried about input costs related to pricing carbon.

Making our Paris commitments is important. What I said on the road is that having a tailored plan of innovation and tax reductions for our 30 largest emitters would mean we are targeting 25% of our nation's emissions, if we took a pragmatic approach like that. Instead, the government is spreading the hurt across all companies and all families across this country, to not even meet its targets.

My question for the minister is this. A few weeks ago, 500 families in Brockville learned that the production at Procter & Gamble will be moving to West Virginia, a state in the integrated North American economy that does not have a carbon tax. The government's conduct is putting a dagger in the heart of manufacturing in Ontario. What will the minister say to those 500 families who are seeing those jobs flee as a result of the Ontario government's hydro prices, and as a result of its federal carbon tax scheme?

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2017]

On May 31, I rose in the House on a point of order asking you to make a prima facie finding of contempt on the Minister of Canadian Heritage with respect to her evidentiary record, her testimony before this chamber. At the time, I mentioned the member for Chilliwack—Hope had entered into the record the testimony of Madam Meilleur, which conflicted directly with the minister's comments.

Today, I would ask you to also enter into your reflection on my point of order, the evidence provided today by the member of Parliament for Outremont, which confirms a second time that Madam Meilleur's direct testimony to a standing committee of Parliament and to the Senate conflict with the minister's comments in the House.

As you are considering my request for a prima facie finding of contempt, I would ask that you would add to your evidentiary record the remarks today by the member for Outremont.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in this House. I missed it for several months. I saw some amazing parts of this country, including Winnipeg. The member from Winnipeg is my friend. I was using a term in jest in my speech. However, I used the term “hubris” and to hear that speech just underscored the hubris that member is displaying.

I could refer to multiple quotes from the last Parliament where he criticized the use of omnibus legislation and time allocation when the Conservatives used them. He is now suggesting that he criticized it because it was an NDP failure, that of the official opposition. Only the Liberals are allowed to use time allocation and omnibus legislation. That is what I discerned from his speech.

If Conservatives use it, bad. If the NDP use it, bad. Only the enlightened Liberals, the natural governing party, can use it. It is that hubris that sets in and allows them to vote down the Canadian autism partnership, the national donor registry, and to cut the forces.

Could the hon. member tell us why he voted against the autism partnership funding? I would like a simple answer.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt my hon. colleague, because I know he does not get enough chances to speak in the House, but he suggested that I was lying in his remarks, and I would like him to clarify the record. Some of the remarks, which in jest I was having fun with him on, were quotes from his previous appearances in Hansard. On a personal point of order, I and my intern spent time researching those quotes, and I want to make sure he is not suggesting that I was lying in my speech.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted in my remarks, what is astonishing about the sunny ways government that was going to do everything differently is that it has used closure on more occasions in the chamber than it has actually been able to produce bills in Parliament. It is astounding.

The due diligence the member is talking about is also not taking place. The government said that parliamentary secretaries would not sit on committees and committees would be free to operate, and we have seen how it has used the committees to stifle debate.

We have seen how some of its members will show up at a World Autism Day event to support the great work done by many on this issue, our friend from Edmonton, in particular, and then they are whipped to not support that same measure. I am talking about a measure, and I think the member for Windsor West would agree, that cost $3 million. This is at a time when the Liberals are running an almost $30-billion deficit virtually creating new departments in Ottawa, yet it is whipping the vote to do that.

It is the same government that whipped the vote for another great piece of legislation, from another MP from Edmonton, on a national registry for organ donations. It is whipping their votes in the chamber far more than any government I have ever seen or read about, but it masquerades it in nice socks and slogans. Canadians will soon learn the truth, because it is now starting to impact their pocketbooks and jobs, such as with Procter & Gamble, in Brockville, moving to the U.S. The sunny ways sunburn is already setting in.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that was, sadly, a feeble attempt by the member for Spadina—Fort York to defend the high commissioner of hubris, the member for Winnipeg North, because he called what is happening today an assault on democracy. They would change 30 acts of Parliament through this one bill, which is more than twice the size of the first budget implementation act he would have witnessed as a brand new member of Parliament after his by-election win. How can he possibly stand in the House and suggest that this is not an omnibus bill? I always thought he was the one that might not drink the Kool-Aid. I think he is making it now. He could very well replace the member for Winnipeg North and be the adjunct high commissioner of hubris.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues in the House. I did note more applause on this side of the House than from some of my friends on the government side. I know they have missed me, because they have told me that in private. It is good to be back here.

I still see a government relishing patting itself on the back. That is after almost two years of a stunning display of broken promises, so much so that it reminds me of a quote attributed to Churchill. It has been used so many times that it has become part of his canon of quotations. It reminds me of how the Liberals define success. They define success as going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.

Whether it is broken promises to veterans, to taxpayers, to exporters or to our farmers, they are seeing a litany of broken promises that have really hit small businesses particularly badly. Seniors and families are tight with a dollar. I have met many of them in the last number of months across the country. They are already feeling the higher tax burden with the carbon tax schemes being implemented across the country.

We are debating a budget and budget implementation. As my colleague from the NDP so rightly commented, the irony of this debate was not lost on me. I want to thank my Jaimie's intern, for helping me prepare some remarks today. I want to anoint a certain member of the House, someone I will call the high commissioner of hubris. We see him regularly. He is a nice guy. He is a friend to us all. He talks a lot in the House. I am going to pull back a few nuggets from his speeches in the past to just show the hubris of the government after less than two years.

Why am I doing this? It is because today the Liberals brought in a time allocation motion, closure, on the debate with respect to budget implementation. Let me point out what someone said a number of years ago in the House on this time allocation practice. He said, “Never before have I ever experienced a government that is so persistent in using time allocation, a form of closure, using it as frequently as [it does].” He went on to say:

Why has the Government House Leader not recognized the value of sitting down with opposition House leaders and trying to work through House business in a fashion in which the government would not be so dependent on having to bring in time allocation on virtually every piece of legislation?

Who said that? The member for Winnipeg North, who is now the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Does he forget those comments from a few years ago, where he decried this practice?

What is ironic is this is the least ambitious government in the history of Canada. After only two years, the Liberals have only received royal assent on 19 bills. How many times have they introduced motions for time allocation? It has been 23 times. They have used closure, or tried to, more than they have passed legislation through the Parliament of Canada, yet in the last Parliament, the member from Winnipeg North would howl at the moon if it was used. The Liberals are using closure more than they are passing bills. That is why I have anointed him today the high commissioner of hubris.

Let us hear a little more of that hubris. What is the budget implementation bill? It is an omnibus bill, the dreaded omnibus bills that the Liberals would go around the country saying that the last government was using to destroy democracy as we knew it. What did the member for Winnipeg North say about this type of omnibus bill? He called it “an assault on democracy”. He went on to say, “It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority... government has brought forward budget legislation.”

For the member of Winnipeg North, the high commissioner of hubris, I do feel assaulted. The irony is clear. The last budget implementation bill of the Conservative government was 172 draconian pages, to use the types of words the member would use.

What is this budget implementation bill? It is 308 pages affecting 30 acts of Parliament. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation from the high commissioner of hubris? I do not see it. In fact, he is directing this right now in this House. He is in charge of the record use of time allocation and omnibus bills that are approaching the sky in length.

I would note that there is a certain irony that the Prime Minister said, just a few months ago, in response to talking about reforming and making this place better, because when he does come, he answers a lot of questions, “I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.”

The member for Winnipeg North should tell his Prime Minister that they have used closure motions more times than they have passed bills through this House of Commons. It is almost a ridiculous record of failure. In some ways, as a Conservative, I am glad the Liberals are so lacking in ambition, because they would be doing more damage if they had more than 19 bills receiving royal assent.

Why are we here? I have to also comment on the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. He said earlier in this House, and then recited a bunch of things going back to Mackenzie King, “We are proceeding exactly the way we said we would.” He talked about being a Conservative and all that stuff.

What did the Liberal platform say with respect to budgeting? I am going to remind the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that it said:

With the Liberal plan, the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years.... After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our...plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019/20.

Someone should ask the member for Kelowna—Lake Country if $28.5 billion is more than $10 billion, because he broke his promise to the voters of his riding. The record cuts to the Department of National Defence under his watch are also a broken promise, so he is proceeding exactly how he said he would, I guess.

I said several times across this country that it saddens me profoundly that the finance minister's own department projects that the Liberals will not return to balance until 2055. As I often said as I was travelling across this country, my daughter Mollie, who is 10 years old, will be older than I am by the time the Liberals' plan can get to balance. That is a failure for a generation of Canadians, at a time when the global economy is not in massive recession, as it was in 2008-09. There is not a need for stimulus and growing every part of government, yet the reckless spending means future taxes for our children and more taxes in the future for small business.

They have to look at this astounding record. I do not know how a single government member could defend this in his or her riding. The Liberals have raised taxes on families. They have raised taxes on small business. They brought in a nationalized carbon tax. They brought in a payroll tax on CPP reform, yet the benefits of the reform would help fewer than 5% of Canadians. They brought in an excise tax on ride sharing in this bill. The Liberals are taxing sharing. That is what they have resorted to. They will tax our beer, they will tax our wine, they will tax our income, and now they will tax us if we are going to share. A government budget entitled, “the innovation budget” is taxing and hindering the sharing, innovation economy. The irony is stunning.

The final thing is the infrastructure bank and the so-called invest in Canada department. The Liberals would spend over $200 million on a department that is already done by the Canadian Trade Commissioner. Our new commissioner is an excellent Canadian and outstanding at her job. Global Affairs does that. Finance Canada does that. The government is already encouraging investment in Canada. We do not need an office tower and $200 million. The infrastructure bank we do not need either. We do not need Ottawa to build up another department of bureaucrats and more Liberal appointees to build infrastructure, Canadians' pension plans, and banks. We are doing it already.

I hope one of my questions will come from the high commissioner of hubris, the member for Winnipeg North.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member for Fredericton is probably not surprised that I am up speaking. I am very much a fan of his community, and am particularly very thankful for the work done by the men and women and the families of CFB Gagetown. I am also very good friends with the hardest-working MLA in New Brunswick, Brian Macdonald, whom he knows well.

I am going to address the member's question, because the Liberals' work on veterans, which he talked about, is two things. Sadly, it is the dressing up with new names the programs we had started, all the programs at military family resource centres. They have renamed the family caregiver relief benefit to the caregiver recognition benefit. The renaming and moving around of chairs is one thing, but the disaster at Veterans Affairs that I would like the member to address is that most of that allocated $5 billion was not well spent.

The way they looked at all injuries was to include thousands of people who had more minor injuries and who have already transitioned well after the military. That money, those resources, should have been focused at the medium to severely injured veterans who need care for their lives.

However, by spreading a lot of money around, it is having less impact. Liberals promised to return to the lifetime pension, and now they are backing away. Is the member going to commit to fulfilling that promise for the veterans who live in and around CFB Gagetown?