Erin O'Toole

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the debate here today, and after the question from my friend from Scarborough, to hopefully elevate the debate to reality for a few moments.

This is a quintessential, classic, political tactic. When a new government comes into office, it usually spends its first number of months blaming the last group of people for all of its woes. We have seen this repeatedly. All parties have engaged in it to a certain degree.

What is unique about the debate before us today is that the Liberal Party, the new government, actually does not have support from the very departments that oversee the finances of the nation.

Normally, if a new government tries to blame the old guys for the problem, it has some form of evidence provided by the departments. It is usually last-minute spending for an election or that sort of thing. However, this is a case where it is a bridge too far. They are trying the old Liberal tactic, but they do not have the data to support it.

What is important to note about this motion is that if anyone in this House is disparaging the work of our professional public service, it is actually the government, because its own officials in Finance Canada and in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer have confirmed that the previous government left Canada in a small surplus position.

Everyone knows that for the last number of years, the global economy has been tight. There was not a tremendous surplus, but it was a surplus. In fact, the revenue stream was positive enough that despite early spending commitments and a willingness for the government to spend, each month is clicking away, and it is still gaining between $500 million and $1 billion in surplus. We saw that when the finance department confirmed a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars in November.

This is one of the cases when the old and tried political trick does not work when its professional departments release information that shows that the trick is a phantom.

I would like to say that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I should have mentioned it off the top.

It is important for Canadians, because this is a government that has a lot of new, eager, and capable members of Parliament. I know that they are here to do the best for the country. Many of them were not here when their leader was leader of the third party.

I said this last week in debate about the energy east pipeline. For several years, the Prime Minister, who at the time led the third party in this place, did not support running a deficit at all. In fact, knowing that the Conservative government had set a plan in place during the global recession to get Canada back to a balanced budget position by 2014-15, and seeing that Canadians were behind that position, the Liberal Party, at that time, took a position that they would not run deficits. As I said last week, it took an election campaign for that fundamental principle of the fiscal plan of a party to change. The Prime Minister, during the election, said that he would run, for a couple of years, a modest deficit of up to $10 billion. That was certainly very different from the approach of the Conservative government, which had worked in a steadfast manner to get to balance.

After the election, after telling Canadians that it would be one or two years of modest deficits in the $10-billion range, in the first few days of this new Parliament the government's number changed to $20 billion per year. Canadians did not vote for that. Then, if anyone has been following in recent weeks, speculation is coming out that those numbers will be more like $25 billion to $30 billion for two to three years.

The real underpinning of the motion before the House today is not just to show that we cannot use the age-old game of blaming the last team. It is that the Liberals are changing their fundamental financial plan for Canada's future by the week. That is deeply concerning.

I suggested some time ago in a column I wrote that excessive spending is not sunny ways. When we are dishing out the dough, there may be some sunshine, but if we are putting Canada's financial position in a precarious situation, those are storm clouds on the horizon.

What we hear from the government already, in preparation for the budget, is the potential for a $60 billion to $90 billion deficit over the course of its four years. That is certainly different from a year ago, when the Prime Minister said no deficits. Then, during the election campaign, he said up to $20 billion over the first two years, and then they would balance. Now we are in the $60-billion range at a time when the Liberals are also putting so many hurdles in the path of resource projects, or stopping them, that capital is fleeing Canada. Depressed resource prices and our dollar are compounding this, yet they are not changing this reckless plan.

The motion today is to set a stark line between the last government in this place and the present government. The Conservative Party believes that a balanced budget should be achieved whenever possible, that stimulus should be limited, and that a plan to end the deficit caused by stimulus in a recession should be clear and attainable.

Sometimes I say to my wife that I feel too young to be a “former”. I am a former air force person, a former lawyer, and a former minister. I am a young “former”. Many of the former ministers in this place have talked about the decisions of governing, and this is where I am very concerned that the Prime Minister is not ready to govern, because it takes decisions.

A minister in his government is famous for saying that it is not easy to make priorities. That is what Canadians elected them to do. Those priorities need to be getting a proper world price, or better than current price, for our resources. That includes budgets that do not put our future at risk. That includes not eliminating a popular measure for saving, the TFSA, or reducing it dramatically. That includes not driving out talent and our creative class by taxing stock options as income and by raising taxes on those very people.

When I was veterans affairs minister, we steadily increased and modernized the department. It is important to note, despite a lot of the rhetoric we hear on this, that the Chrétien government and the Martin government ended with a $2.9 billion budget for Veterans Affairs Canada, and we ended with an approximately $3.4 billion budget. Any way we slice it, despite a global recession and despite our pledge to balance the budget, which we did, we increased that budget by 15%. We spent in different areas, because post-Korean War and during 30 years of the Cold War, PTSD was not even discussed in a responsible way. The previous government went from the two operational stress injury clinics it opened to 27 by the time we left office, addressing a new need. That new spending went to areas of need.

We created a family caregiver relief benefit. We created the retirement income security benefit. We created the critical injury benefit, all new benefits passed in the last Parliament to address some of the gaps in the new Veterans Charter, which the previous government created. In fact, it was the now Minister of Immigration. All parliamentarians voted for it, and our government implemented it and fixed it along the way.

That took decisions, because when we want to balance the books, when we do not want to raise taxes on Canadians, when we want to lower them, it means making priorities.

The motion before the House today draws a line in the sand. The previous government planned; spent in priority areas; tried to get jobs created through innovative new sectors and by supporting our resource sector; spent prudently; created retirement tax planning, with the tax-free savings account; and allowed all families a benefit with the universal child care benefit.

We made those decisions and balanced the budget. The Department of Finance officials confirm that. It is about time that the new government recognizes that, and starts a new course to make sure the sunny ways do not turn into storm clouds on the horizon.

[Public Safety, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Senate hearing on Canadian fast-tracking of Syrian refugees heard yesterday that it would almost be impossible for Canadian officials to acquire the specialized skills needed to screen refugees under the pressure of the Liberal election timeline.

My question is for the chair of the public safety committee.

This morning, Liberals on that committee blocked a study on refugee security screening. Why is the safety of Canadians not important enough for the committee to study it immediately?

[Canada Labour Code, February 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, at times there are speeches in this place that are passionate but are also bordering on absurd. I heard terms in the member's speech of “destruction”, “dismantling of rights”, but she did not go into the specifics of the content of those bills.

Bill C-525 is a secret ballot. Is that a destructive right? Canadians have enjoyed that since 1874. That is a right.

The second bill, Bill C-377, deals with disclosure. The Access to Information Act was brought to the House in 1983 by Pierre Trudeau. The member's province had the same legislation in 1991. Politicians on all levels expect, and it is on my website, if people pay taxes or anything by compulsion like union dues, they should be able to know easily where it goes. This goes for charities. The member used to run the United Way. I can check what it spent online. These are reasonable measures and it is 2016.

Why is the only section of Canadian society that is resisting disclosure the labour movement?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned at times that in the member's speech he appeared to leave an impression the previous government did not hold the same ideals that I think all members of this House hold, in terms of equality of opportunity.

He may have missed the speech from his colleague, the minister, earlier today, where she recounted a number of exceptional programs that her department has been running and facilitating, working with a lot of partnership organizations across the country in recent years, that were all creations of the previous government.

Would it not be fair to say, if his minister is highlighting the exceptional work done by some of these programs to get women on corporate boards, get women into diverse trades and opportunities, that the last government did indeed do a lot on this very important topic?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her work for vulnerable people, prior to coming to this place, which is admirable.

A number of the important programs to promote diversity and equal opportunity women outlined in her remarks today were in fact started by the previous Conservative government, and made much headway, which was not mentioned in the speech. In fact, one of the programs in the networking and promotion of higher membership on corporate boards was an initiative by the former minister, who is now leader of the official opposition of Canada.

On this important issue, and since the minister has not been long in this portfolio to chart a course that the government will set to build upon the previous work, could she highlight this for the House? Of all of the programs the Conservative government brought in to increase women in the trades and membership on boards, which one in particular does she feel has made the best progress and which one does she feel she will build upon under her mandate?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome another new friend to this place and thank him for his question. To him as a member of the New Democratic Party, now that we are talking about the tax-and-spend concept, I would say that nothing underscores the difference between the three parties in this place better than this question. He looked at the TFSA changes and our increase causing a hole in revenues.

On this side in this party we do not see that as the government's money. Tax and spend decisions to us should be made in a way that takes the minimal amount possible from Canadians to give us the opportunity and the great services and quality of life we have here, while recognizing the trust that we are held to spend that wisely and only take what is needed. This is not a hole in our revenue. This is Canadians' money. TFSAs are an example where we are saying,“You have made this money, you can save it and earn some income from investments without our taxing it again”. Or in the RRSP option, we defer that taxation.

That is what was so exciting about the TFSA. The fact that we have Bill C-2 and the fact that I have this question about holes in revenue underscores that only the Conservative Party really looks at this as Canadians' money that we were entrusted to spend on priorities and make decisions to make sure that we do not take too much.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to answer that question from someone who indeed is a friend. We were all very happy to see him get through a difficult personal challenge with his health and return to the last Parliament and then get re-elected. I have a lot of time for the member and, as I said, nicknames are often terms of endearment. It is because we like Liberals that at the end of the day the tax-and-spend nickname is a nickname, but my goodness, with Bill C-2 they are confirming tax-and-spend as their strategy.

When it comes to the global recession of 2008-09, out of which Canada led the G7 in job growth and recovery, certainly we did run deficits. No one has hidden that at all, but we set a course to balance the books by fiscal year 2014-15, which takes decisions. As I said, leadership is not about always saying yes. Tony Blair was famous for saying that leadership is at times about saying no. My father who was a provincial member at Queen's Park coined that phrase long before Tony Blair, that sometimes it means saying no and saying why by setting priorities.

I hope with subsequent bills that come before this place that my friend and my friends will bring forward a plan that is more than just taxing Canadians, more than just reducing their ability to save for retirement. We need a vision that includes resources, that includes new Canadians, that includes a diverse economy to make sure that Canada stays on top.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to get up after my friend, the long-serving MP for Malpeque, who never lets the facts interrupt his rhetorical flights in this place.

I enjoyed the fact that he said, mere days after the revenue department confirmed a $1 billion surplus for November, that he still thinks that is fiction, even though the parliamentary budget officer has confirmed that the previous government certainly left a surplus. It was so good in a tight global economy that despite the Liberals' best efforts, they are still accruing the surpluses in their first few months of government. The facts state that quite clearly.

I am very pleased to rise here today in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

It is Bill C-2 for a reason. Probably the majority of members of the House are new members of Parliament. They may now know that the first bill, “an act respecting the administration of oaths of office”, is a formulaic standard bill that starts off a session. Therefore, Bill C-2 represents the top priority of a new government coming to office.

Bill C-2 would codify what the Liberals brought Parliament together for six days after they won the election in October of last year, which was to raise taxes on Canadians. Nothing suggests the priority of the current government better than Bill C-2, which is why I thought I would rise in the House.

What I find most ironic about Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, or an act to raise taxes, is that it confirms the age-old nickname for the Liberal Party in this place. A nickname is a term of endearment. I respect anyone who comes to Canada's Parliament, doing their best for the country, but Conservatives for generations, long before my colleagues or I have been here, have accused the Liberal Party of being the tax-and-spend party. What has happened is that the Liberals' early record in their first few months of government confirms that.

My friend from Malpeque confirmed that. He tried to suggest that it was fiction that the last government, the Conservative government, left Canada in a surplus position, but that is exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed last fall. In fact, the Finance Department confirmed the numbers from November of another surplus month. Therefore, the country was left with a modestly growing economy and a surplus.

The two things the government did in the short period of time it governed in 2015 were to make massive commitments for deficits, well above what the Liberals spoke to Canadians about during the election, and they raised taxes. This is one of those occasions for the pundits who often ask why the Conservatives call the Liberal Party the tax-and-spend party. It is because in the first three months of government, the Liberals are raising taxes and spending out of control. That is just the record that we are debating here today with their first bill coming to the House of Commons.

Why I think this is important is that it is setting a tone. This is not a bill that debates assistance or investments in a resource sector that needs some help, as well as the families affected by the downturn in resources prices. They desperately need help, and see mortgage payments on the horizon that scare them. It is not a bill about that.

The bill is about taking more from Canadians in the form of creating a new tax bracket in an already fairly complex tax code by taxing Canadians in the highest bracket more for income over $200,000. It is also a procedure to lower the amount that Canadians can shield from tax through the tax-free savings account by reducing the amount that people can contribute to that very popular device brought in by our previous government and my friend, the late Jim Flaherty, who was finance minister. This vehicle not only allows families of all income levels to save free of tax, but it is also very helpful for people approaching retirement. I heard that and still hear that daily. These are the two measures that are before us in Bill C-2.

Nothing concerns me more, not just as a Conservative but as a member of Parliament who came out of the business community before I was elected to office, than the new government's apparent lack of direction for our economy, even in its first few months.

Many of the members who were elected in October did not get a chance to see their Prime Minister when he was a third party leader. About a year ago, he refused to ever commit to running deficits. In fact, he took a position that was somewhat similar to what the government had adopted, because Conservatives worked hard over the course of many years, following the global recession, to balance Canada's books. Doing that requires decisions by government. Government is not intended to just say yes to everything, increase every budget line, and hire more people in every department. It has to set priorities, make decisions on spending, and look at the tax base to determine if Canadians can afford higher taxes in order to pay for more people in a certain department. These are the decisions of government.

A year ago the Prime Minister, then the third party leader, was committed to running a balanced budget, as was, of course, the Conservative government at the time, and it was not until an election campaign that it changed. For a few years, the fundamental economic position of the Liberal Party was one of fiscal prudence. In the middle of an election, there was a change in direction, a considerable change, perhaps for election advantage, perhaps because of a philosophical change, but it changed to running a $10-billion deficit. That was the commitment that the party talked about with Canadians. It was a temporary deficit of only $10 billion so that the government could fulfill some commitments and add some additional infrastructure money on top of the already substantial building Canada plan that the previous government had put in place.

Within the first few weeks of government, before the House was even called back in session and before you had the honour of occupying that chair, Mr. Speaker, that $10-billion commitment was already $20 billion. If we read the papers, as many members of the House did, a week or so ago, we now see the finance minister hedging perhaps two years of $25-billion deficits. Did Canadians vote for that? Did Canadians vote for the first two moves of the new government to go from a probably improper $20-billion deficit commitment to a $50-billion deficit commitment?

The new government's first act in this place was to raise taxes on Canadians, a tax increase that Liberals told Canadians would be revenue neutral. That is yet another promise that appeased people during the election campaign but was not met and has already been abandoned. Ironically, it was the C.D. Howe Institute, a think tank that the finance minister once chaired, that said that these tax increases would not be revenue neutral for a variety of reasons. From a public policy standpoint, those in the higher tax brackets are more mobile, so there could be a risk of driving more people out of Canada, out of our system of taxation.

I was reading just this morning in The Globe and Mail the great column by Konrad Yakabuski, who identified this tax increase as a risk to a lot of the tech entrepreneurs and growing sectors, as well as the fact they are going to treat stock options as income, which is another thing. Compounded with the fact that our dollar is going down, the government seems to be set on driving talent out of this country at a time when a lot of people are looking for an economic plan that is far more than a Keynesian tax-and-spend approach, with no strategic direction and at a time when it is actually hampering the increased revenues that are possible if we could get our resources to tidewater with energy east. There was a debate in the House last week when the Prime Minister seemed to be putting in place a system and series of consultations and reviews that would essentially mean that capital leaves Canada because of the uncertainty of our business climate.

It is with sadness that I rise today to say that Bill C-2 confirms the nickname of the Liberals as the tax-and-spenders of Canada. I certainly hope that subsequent bills start showing some real direction for the Canada of the future.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, that was a passionate discussion of nation building from one of our great new members from the province of Quebec. He laid out the benefits of some of these resource opportunities by energy east for the entire country.

Coming from the Quebec City region, he reminds me how nation-building projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway went through many communities and impacted the environment, communities, coastal villages, and so forth, but had a tremendous impact on such a nation-building exercise.

I would like the member to review for the House how, with the proper consultations that we have in Canada, this project will not just bring jobs and opportunities to western Canada, or importantly to New Brunswick, but also to the Quebec City region, to Quebec, and indeed to all of Canada.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend on his speech and remind him of what big shoes he fills. The hon. Laurie Hawn was the previous MP for his riding. He was a friend and mentor to me in the House of Commons and my former RCAF MP seat mate, so he is dearly missed. However, I welcome this member.

We are talking about the economy, energy, and the future of Canada's economy. The member talked about there being a new attitude in town. It is that attitude that concerns me. The Prime Minister attended Davos, the most important meeting in the world, and made light of our resource economy, which probably fuels most of the economic development in the member's city. He mocked it by saying that we are resourceful now, that we do not need that dirty stuff in the ground. Why does the member not speak up to the Prime Minister, tell him the importance of this project not just for western Canada but for Atlantic Canada, and follow Frank McKenna's guidance when he said that energy east is nation building at its best? Will the member do that?