Erin O'Toole

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for providing time for me to ask him about his last exchange with the member for Fredericton.

I find it the height of hubris for Liberals to be talking about innovation and the innovation budget when they acknowledge the minister in charge of ACOA is not from Atlantic Canada. The 32 members of Parliament he mentioned being consulted were being consulted by a member of Parliament from Mississauga who occasionally visits that region.

I know the member is proud of St. FX and some of the amazing academic institutions and entrepreneurs we have coming out those institutions in Atlantic Canada, but I would like to see, in a budget that the Liberals called the “#innovationbudget”, a real commitment to Atlantic Canada. I would like to see a stand-alone minister for that important agency, working on employment and opportunities for the future.

I hope that the member and his 31 friends demand that in the coming shuffle this summer.

[June 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was similar to the messaging we have heard from most government MPs on the subject of the Canadian infrastructure bank. The real question is this: what is the need for this bank? We have five of the most respected financial institutions in the world, six or seven that finance infrastructure projects already in Canada and around the world. We have pension funds from the CPPIB to teachers to OMERS across the country that are already engaged in this as well. PPP Canada was already doing groundbreaking work on public-private partnerships. What is the need for this bank?

The last budget also includes the invest Canada office. The government will hire another CEO and staff up yet another government office to do what three departments of the federal government are already doing. It reminds me of the McGuinty-Wynne government in Ontario that would create more and more bureaucracy. We need less government.

Why can the Canadian banks' pension funds, working within the existing PPP Canada public-private partnership structure, not provide this same element of private investment in infrastructure? There is absolutely no need for this bank.

[Points of Order, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. We have a very unusual situation where, on the evidentiary record before you today in this House, we have the minister's comments to the House and the member for Chilliwack—Hope reciting into the record in this House the committee report and the witness testimony of Madam Meilleur. Therefore, I would ask you, in light of the evidentiary record before you as Speaker of this chamber, to make a prima facie finding of contempt today in this House, because the minister refuses to correct the record.

[National Defence, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in military planning terms, that response would be called a delay tactic.

First the Liberals withdrew our CF-18s; now they are withdrawing our CP-140 surveillance aircraft, the same week that NATO is stepping up its efforts to fight ISIS. Why are the Liberals running from Canada's fight against ISIS?

[National Defence, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, some things have changed since the last time I rose in the House, but one thing that has not changed is the Liberal government's steady withdrawal of Canada's fight against ISIS. In the last few days, we have learned that we are withdrawing our Aurora surveillance aircraft.

My question is for the minister, who is now known as a military planner. Who is the architect of this withdrawal from the fight against ISIS? Is it you, Minister, or is it the Prime Minister?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for being brave enough to read some of those passages of horrific hate speech, which I think every member of the House of Commons, regardless what side of the House, condemns. In fact, in some cases, they would appear to violate Criminal Code provisions on hate speech, absolutely.

I appreciated the member taking my call to discuss her motion and the e-petition. While I am concerned that this issue has been politicized, perhaps the wider debate is a good one. It is good for us to have these debates in a country where debates can take place like this in our Commons, where free speech is embraced.

I got the sense during our conversation that the member understood some of the points I made. In her first reference to this issue at committee, when a witness talks about how this definition of Islamophobia could be taken in some countries to mean one thing and in regimes to mean another, is it not fair to say that there might be some concern about the term and that it does not then mean people are xenophobic or racist, but means we should have a talk about the term in the context of the debate today?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question based on the confusion it seems the member for Parkdale—High Park has about the opposition day motion today and Motion No. 103.

I want to thank his colleague, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills, for taking my call on this subject. What I am confused by are the PMO talking points we hear from that side today about confusion, which seem to conflict with the evidentiary record of the committee on human rights of this Parliament. The first time the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills used the term “Islamophobia” as a member of Parliament, it led to a comment by the witness, Hossein Raeesi, who said that the definition can change, depending on where one is in the world.

What we are talking about is a reasonable debate to ask for some certainty. That is what I suggested to the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills, to clarify that there was no conflict with free speech provisions. It is unfortunate that the PMO would not allow her to make a slight amendment.

I wonder if my colleague has any comment on the testimony heard that day, including by those members, on the issue of this definition on a global basis.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for wishing me well.

I was in the member's city a week or so ago with my friends from Interlake and Brandon at the Free Press News Cafe. People were quite open with their concerns about the carbon tax, and the farmers in the Interlake know they will be paying thousands more just for diesel. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses have little margin and the current government is going after their margins. It does not want them to take anything home and put it in their jeans at the end of the day. This is what I heard loud and clear in friendly Manitoba, and I trust he is hearing the same.

What I would remind the member of, and no one reminds the House of good Liberal virtues more than that member does, because he is up quite regularly, is the incessant call for evidence-based decision-making. When the member goes into his caucus this Wednesday, I ask him to stand up to the Prime Minister and say, “Prime Minister, Morneau Shepell's chief actuary has told us that this bill will lead to job losses while only targeting a small percentage of people, fewer than 5% of middle-class Canadians decades from now.”

If that is what we are trying to do, at the risk of potentially losing 10,000-plus jobs, why would we be doing this in the middle of a jobs crisis? It is time for the member to stand up in caucus and ask the Prime Minister to stop waging a war on job creation.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most alarming absences of leadership on the government's side has been in response to my friend's questions about the closure of an old processing facility in his riding that has employed people for two centuries. Yet, because the minister will not grant an exemption to that heritage property, it will be another example of a dozen or so jobs lost.

We are in a jobs crisis. We bring that to the floor of the House every day, my colleagues from Alberta, my colleagues from Ontario, on both a small and a large level, and the government is disconnected with how that affects families.

My friend is right. The premiums paid are both by people and by businesses. The major business groups have told us that in this slow economy right now, businesses will not hire people, or will freeze wages, as a result of this premium, and younger people will not see a benefit for decades.

Fred Vettese, the chief actuary of a firm called Morneau Shepell—I can say that name in the House; I cannot say the name of his co-author, the finance minister—has said there is no retirement crisis and that even this perceived CPP enhancement would help fewer than 5% of Canadians, because only 8% or so of the middle class need an enhancement. There is no retirement crisis.

If they are trying to do something for a very small subset of Canadians that would result in the unemployment of tens of thousands, that is the wrong decision and we have time to stop it.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking at the annual dinner in the riding of my friend, the member for West Nova, in a week and a half. I look forward to being back there.

The CPP is a good thing. None of us is saying it is not. However, if he noticed, in the last minute of my speech I spent time dissecting the crisis in retirement. There is no crisis. Who said there is no crisis? The finance minister said so in his book he was selling to Canadians. Now he is selling them something else entirely. I tried to focus my remarks on that, using Finance Canada's own statistics.

We have a government that loved to get elected in saying, “We're all about evidence-based decision-making”.

What does the evidence say? Finance Canada says that 10,000 jobs will be lost as a direct result of this bill in the midst of a jobs crisis already gripping this country, for a perceived retirement shortfall of a small group of middle-income Canadians who could be helped through TFSA enhancements, through home sales, through RRSPs, through the economy doing better and wages rising.

This bill would likely lead to a wage freeze and fewer jobs.