Erin O'Toole

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain how this is another area where the Liberal Party is misleading Canadians in how it defines and reaches out to the middle class.

The Prime Minister is a little older than I am. However, both our families were recipients of the baby bonus, as were all members of the House. It was a universal program that recognized the universality and importance of children and family. That is what our universal child care benefit did. It was for everyone.

There were also benefits to families for income splitting, for children's fitness, and for children's arts. The Liberals are removing all of these programs that apply to all families and they do not want to tell people the result. In Ontario, if there is a family with a nurse, firefighter or police officer in the GTA, it is likely worse off under this new plan. Certainly, those families took advantage of the tax credits for university, books, arts and fitness.

This is what is happening. There is a lot of talk and window dressing by the Liberal government. However, when we search for the reality, it is not there. That is why the parliamentary budget officer said that this budget was the least open and transparent in 15 years.

The member and his colleagues should tell their constituents why they have kept elements out of the budget. That is very concerning.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, having served in Winnipeg, and knowing the tremendous history of aviation and of the jobs in that province, it is not something to heckle about. Rather, it is something to support. I believe the F-35 the member references is being cancelled. However, that decade of darkness, is the sequel of the F-35 replacing the old Sea King that Jean Chrétien cancelled, which I flew on and which put lives at risk. That ill-timed decision to cancel cost $500 million in penalties, and we still needed a new helicopter. Those are the types of decisions that the $3.7 billion cut to new equipment will mean for our men and women.

There is also a cut between the estimates of 2015-16 and the next main estimates of $400 million in operational spending. That means the Canadian Armed Forces will go through the exact same thing as it did when the Liberal government came in under Prime Minister Chrétien. Then there was a defence white paper of 1994. We now have a defence review. It was the same sort of window dressing to cut and slash.

With respect to old age security, rolling back the modest reforms to ensure that this program, which is not a pension but a program financed by the government, addresses demographic change is the best example of no plan at all. Our allies have made similar reforms, as have most of the countries in Europe. In the U.K. it is age 67. In Australia it is age 70. This is a responsible and sensible, evidence-based decision.

David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada who was quoted today, called this move in the government's budget “a backwards step.”

In a book called, The Real Retirement, it states, “Canada will not have enough workers in the years ahead, and various incentives, government policies, and employment practices to encourage early retirement will make little sense.” Who wrote that? The finance minister. He is not even following his own advice.

Governing is hard. It is about making decisions in the long term. It is ensuring there are job opportunities for everyone in Canada, for all families. It is about not burdening our children with debts piled up with overspending. We have seen that in Ontario with the McGuinty and Wynne governments. The federal Liberal government needs to recognize this and change its course before subsequent budgets put us on the economic shoals and put our future at risk.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today as the member of Parliament for Durham to speak in this important budget debate. What is most important about this debate is it is the first budget for the new Liberal government. It shows areas that it will focus on and as an opposition member, it shows areas that I am concerned about for our economic future. My remarks will be about that.

I will start off in a manner that my mother always taught me to do. She used to tell me that if I did not have anything nice to say, then I should not say anything at all. However, I will say something.

I was proud to see the government continue the legacy of Jim Flaherty, who recognized the unique strain placed on families dealing with young children with disabilities. I applaud the government for continuing the practice he started and for including extra support in its new child benefit for families with disabilities. I know first hand the late Jim Flaherty's passion on that subject and the impact it has had on families. The Liberals will continue that tradition and I salute them for it.

However, with that out of the way, the budget is built on a house of cards. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the third party, he did not support running a deficit. We have heard speeches from some of his brand new Liberal MPs, and I congratulate them on being here, but they do not know the position the Prime Minister took previously. For many years, he indicated the importance of a balanced budget. That was his position. That was the legacy he tried to take from Paul Martin and people like David Dodge. Members will hear them mentioned a lot. His position was that it was the responsibility of a government to keep a balanced budget.

In the middle of an election campaign, really to take advantage of a weak position of a party on the left, the Liberals started saying that they would run a modest deficit of no more than $10 billion. In reality, there will not be a deficit lower than $10 billion over the course of four years. In the first two years, the deficit will be roughly $30 billion and around $14 billion in the final year. Not only does this break his promise about no more than $10 billion; it also breaks the promise about balancing the budget within his four-year term. My remarks will show that some of that spending will have no long-term job creation impact on Canada at a time when that has to be a priority.

The other house of cards is this. The budget is built upon an election document. All senior civil servants have essentially been given their marching orders from an election document. The Liberal government brought in a senior member to the Privy Council who wrote the election document. Had the last government done any of that, there would have been riots on the streets of Ottawa, but it seems to be acceptable by the Liberal team. The other fallacy was that Canada was in a recession and that was why the government needed to do it. That was not true.

We saw that just a few weeks ago when job numbers and GDP numbers were announced. We would all like to see more jobs, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, provinces that have been impacted by resource prices. The economy is growing modestly so the whole premise for running that no more than $10 billion deficit was also false. Why is that so important? Because it is building an economic plan for the new government that is built on a house of cards. The Liberal government is putting my children's future at risk by making poor economic decisions.

A deficit in the midst of a global recession with a plan to get back to balance is prudent. A massive deficit during a time when the economy is growing with no real emphasis on job creation is reckless. In fact, very little of the infrastructure money will stimulate job creation. Most observers have been profoundly disappointed.

I am happy there is some infrastructure spending, building upon the build Canada plan of the last government. However, virtually none of that spending will be stimulative, so there will be no jobs from it. There is no extension of the auto innovation fund or the parts innovation fund brought forward by the previous government to help Southern Ontario, to help areas in Oshawa and my riding of Durham, working with industry to modernize, to increase productivity, and to create jobs. There is none of that.

That is a broken promise on the job front to small business by reversing their position on the small business tax rate, another broken promise, in fact almost the unheralded or unheard of position of not meeting with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and getting direct budgetary input amid the consultations the Liberals claim to have, I guess on Facebook, to help the hundreds of thousands of independent and small businesses in Canada.

In fact, leading economists will say that amid those tough global years of the recession, it was small to medium-sized employers that helped us make it through, which was why the previous government had a strategic plan to do away with some regulation and red tape for small business, but, more important, make their tax rates competitive and incent them to hire. If every small business hired two people, that is equal to a new shift at a plant in Oshawa or Windsor, or more. Therefore, letting down small business and having no plan for jobs is a profound concern when running billions upon billions of dollars in deficit financing for Canada.

I will now speak for a few minutes about a few areas of particular concern. I am the public safety critic. It was shocking to have a budget delivered the day of the terrible terror attacks in Brussels. The finance minister was gracious enough to acknowledge that terrible attack on our friend and ally at the beginning of his speech, but with $30 billion in new spending, how much is there for front-line public safety and security? There is zero, nothing.

There has been some talk about a few good initiatives such countering radicalization, those sorts of things, which the Conservatives support, even though we have not heard anything from the minister. However, there is nothing for front-line members of the RCMP, CSIS, CSC to keep us safe. That was very concerning, and the minister has not explained why.

Now I will move to the Canadian Armed Forces. I am proudly wearing my RCAF pin. There was an RCAF reception on the Hill this week and I was proud that a lot of members attended. We have entered another decade of darkness. I had dinner last night with some friends of mine who I went to military college with and we called it “decade of darkness II”, like the sequel we never wanted to be made.

Why is it as bad as the 1990s? Because there is a $3.7 billion cut to the procurement budget. One of the members from Winnipeg is laughing. The aerospace industry in Winnipeg is looking to him and the government for some leadership. The F-35—

[Presence in Gallery, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an important point of order seeking unanimous consent of the House, and I will tell the House why. It is to confirm our collective intention that no RCMP member be prevented from communicating with his or her member of Parliament on Bill C-7, and that no discipline be enforced upon a member who has responded to the call of the public safety committee to appear before it as a witness.

I am sure it is the intention of all of us to make sure that members affected by laws in front of this place have the right to communicate in a responsible way with their elected representatives and to respond to give testimony before the committee considering that bill.

Why is unanimous consent required? It is because a letter was shared today that would suggest that some members could not appear and that some members may be disciplined for giving testimony this morning at committee.

I would ask for unanimous consent so that, as a collective, we can exercise our right to call witnesses on important matters affecting this country.

[Public Safety, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, troubling reports out of the United Kingdom indicate that a Canadian terror suspect is being pursued with respect to possible risks to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge travelling in India.

I ask that the Minister of Public Safety update the House and confirm that CSIS and all of our security agencies are providing co-operation in this international investigation.

[Public Safety, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister began his budget speech acknowledging the terrible attack in Belgium, which shows the risks that countries like Canada face from global terror. He then went on to announce billions in new spending: $12 million for lawyers to sue the federal government, $85 million for union managers, $675 million for the CBC, but how much for front-line public safety agencies keeping us safe? It was zero.

When will the Liberal government make the safety of Canadians a priority?

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is customary in the House when a minister of the crown inadvertently misspeaks or misleads the House that there is an opportunity to correct the record.

Earlier today, the President of the Treasury Board, in response to a question from the leader of the third party, said that the government never interfered in provincial elections and provincial affairs. However, in the House, all of us, especially the member for Whitby, remember the Prime Minister's jet-set trip to Whitby, Oshawa to stand alongside the premier. Therefore, I would like to request unanimous consent to table the document outlining—

[Rob Ford, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, like my friend, I rise in the House today to offer deepest condolences on behalf of the House to the Ford family on the passing of Toronto city councillor and former mayor Rob Ford.

Today the Ford family lost a father, a husband, a brother and a son to cancer, and the city lost a passionate servant.

Years ago, I met Doug Ford Senior when he worked alongside my father as a member of provincial Parliament at Queen's Park. Like many sons and daughters who inherit their parents' passion for public service, like you did, Mr. Speaker, Rob Ford continued his father's dedication to Etobicoke and the city of Toronto by serving the public, first as a city councillor and ultimately as the mayor of Toronto.

While his term as mayor was often a difficult time, nobody could dispute Rob Ford's passion for the city and what he thought was best for it. He was legendary for phoning people personally on issues and for visiting people to see their challenges first-hand.

Today the Ford family lost one of their own and the city of Toronto lost a passionate booster. He will be dearly missed.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. We are both missing being at committee because of this debate, and I am sure we will both scurry over there shortly afterward.

I think he is right. Bill C-7 is the government's response. I rose in January to say that the government was taking more time to correct a flaw. However, I will say again that the court's first and fundamental tenet of the charter right is employee choice, and that is not reflected in the bill. What is catching the government in an awkward position is that Bill C-4, which was an election promise it made to get support from labour in the election, conflicts with Bill C-7 and what the charter expects. They will have to reconcile that before the House.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her interventions, which are always very on the mark in this place, and for her support for our men and women in uniform, the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and our veterans.

Today is indeed budget day. I did a poll yesterday. It is now going to be known as “red Tuesday“ because the red team is taking us into the red in a dramatic fashion. That needs to be part of the background to Bill C-7, because any analysis will show that this would put more pressure on the framework, in the range of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars potentially per year. Therefore, we need to get this right by providing employee choice first.

As I said in my remarks, we should be looking at the unique needs of policing, and the court has said the unique needs of a workplace must be reflected in its bargaining agent. We should be looking at health care, mental health support, and a whole range of service conditions and issues, apart from just the salary piece, given the unique role of the RCMP and some of the impacts on our men and women with respect to their front-line service.

Therefore, I hope that the government recognizes its omission of true employee choice in Bill C-7 and makes that fix, and that it and the minister work alongside the commissioner of the RCMP to ensure that bargaining, and the well-being of our people, are not just with respect to salary negotiations but also in terms of safeguarding the employees' wellness in uniform and afterward.