Erin O'Toole

[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. So if an invitation from his own MP is classified, why do we need a special investigation if it is all unclassified?

[Privilege, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to the question of privilege brought by the opposition House leader. I have an addition to her question of parliamentary privilege, which relates not only to the point she raised based on the previous Eggleton ruling.

I have read into the record, for the Chair's decision with respect to this question of privilege, the question from question period that was posed by the deputy leader of the Conservative Party today, where she directly refuted comments with respect to the briefing by Mr. Jean.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the public safety minister suggested, or left open the possibility, that there was classified information in that judgment. Today, the Prime Minister seemed very clear that there was no such classified information in that judgment, as was the case with the public safety minister.

In response to questions for the public safety minister, the deputy leader of the Conservatives read into the record in this place, so it is before you as Chair, Mr. Speaker, the evidence provided by one of the journalists who was given the briefing by Mr. Jean. He said that certain things he was being told could not be reported. Therefore, the original question of privilege brought by my colleague, the House leader for the opposition, was based on the fact that the opposition, in our individual and collective ability to hold the government to account, have freedom of speech, conduct inquiries, and call witnesses, was based in part on the fact there were two responses coming from the government. I would add to her question of privilege today's evidentiary record, which shows, once again, that there were two different versions coming from two separate members of the government with respect to whether all parts of the briefing by the national security adviser Daniel Jean to journalists were classified or were not classified. We have heard various versions of this.

Unlike my friend, who brought up several Speakers' rulings with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, not being in a position to ascertain the quality or accuracy of the responses, I agree with that precedent. This is not about accuracy; this is about a question of privilege where the members of the opposition, in our ability to do our job, are being told two different stories, two different responses. It is not the quality of them; it is which response is the response of the Government of Canada.

One would think it should come from the Prime Minister, as the leader of the government in the chamber. However, even today his response with respect to whether the information in the Jean briefing was classified or not, as the evidence from the deputy Conservative leader shows, was being refuted within minutes by members of the media who participated in the briefing.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would like to add to the question of privilege not just the issue of two different responses with respect to the Atwal India affair, but we now have for your consideration two different responses as to whether the briefing by Mr. Jean was classified or was not classified.

[Oceans Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I love how the Liberals will often try and play the Goldilocks approach to government in that they are right in the middle where the porridge is perfect. They are actually not even on the kitchen table.

The member just said that they are so progressive and that is what Canadians want. Well, Canadians would like to hear from Daniel Jean. Where is that? They are muzzling Daniel Jean. Do Canadians want to pay Omar Khadr $10.5 million? Do Canadians want to remove words like “Mr.”, “Mrs.”, or “mom” and “dad” and start referring to people as “peoplekind”? Do Canadians want summer jobs for university students to have to go through a screen to screen out churches and faith organizations? No, Canadians actually do not want any of the ideological drivel from the government. That is why in 2019 they are going to replace them with the Conservatives.

[Oceans Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his nice words and comments.

He is absolutely right. The example he is raising from committee is yet another example of the government, particularly a few people in the Prime Minister's Office, making decisions that are having terrible consequences on Atlantic Canada and western Canada, and affecting jobs at the kitchen table. If we dare suggest that those decisions are poor ones in Canada's national interest, they say that we do not understand Canada or that we do not have the right values. Our deputy leader had the gall to ask a few questions of the finance minister, and he said that people who did not agree with him were going to be dragged along and called her a neanderthal. This is the approach, and I have seen it countless times.

The Canada summer jobs values test is an example. They do not want faith organizations from other groups to participate in this program and so they are going to design a way to exclude them. It is terrible, and I think Canadians are starting to catch on, and the Liberals are seeing that Canadians are trying to catch on.

I am hoping that, by raising this with respect to the Oceans Act, we start tackling it every time the Liberals do this virtue signalling, value judgment division, dividing Canadians, and dropping job opportunities for Atlantic Canada.

[Oceans Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I make my responses formed in evidence-based responses and because I do not know enough of the specifics about the terminal at Cacouna, I do not feel I am in a position to answer that. I do admire how my colleague is bringing in a regional issue to questions and comments.

No one would dispute the fact that the Oceans Act and other forms of regulation have regulated based on science, based on making sure that the integrity, whether it is a national marine area or others, is safeguarded. It has always been done with science at the centre of the decision-making.

Why, other than ideology, would the government be inserting these principles to say that it is not going to wait for science to move forward? That is an ideological flag. These acts have operated without that flag. The government is doing it to signal to people. Canadians should be concerned, given the track record of the government from NAFTA through to everything else.

[Oceans Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member I did mention that Canada, the United States, and other western democratic countries have used an approach on regulation that allows the best available science to be used to regulate. There has been no stop to regulation. We do need some science. By inserting provisions with respect to the precautionary principle, the Liberals are saying science is a back seat. They have regulated before. Why do they need this principle inserted directly in? It is because they are going to lean forward without the science.

The approach in the past with respect to fisheries regulation, with respect to environmental regulation both in Canada and the United States, goes right back to when the first Rio climate change conference was in place, which Prime Minister Mulroney helped to lead. It was about having a reasonable belief based on the best science available. What the Liberals are doing is the opposite.

Another one of the myths that the Liberals developed in the last Parliament was the so-called war on science. More scientific scholarly articles were published under the Harper government than under the previous Chrétien government, with one difference being that as the government went forward, a minister would speak on behalf of policy direction for the Government of Canada and a lead scientist would speak.

It was like when I was in the military. I could comment on the operations of the Sea King helicopter, and I did all the time, but I could not comment on the operations of the CF-18s in Cold Lake. Just because I was in the air force did not mean I could comment outside the areas I specifically worked on. It was common sense.

The trouble now is that all the Liberal slogans, like evidence-based decision-making, are catching up and conflicting with what they are actually doing.