Rona Ambrose

[National Defence, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, last night President Obama also said that his closest allies had stepped up their air strikes. Then he went on to name France, Germany, and the U.K., but no mention of Canada.

Stepping back from the fight against terrorists is not stepping up. Will the Prime Minister just admit that he is more committed to his ideology than he is to our allies in the fight against ISIS?

[National Defence, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let us just be clear about what ISIS is. It is a death cult that sells children and women into sexual slavery. It targets and kills gays and lesbians, and it has murdered thousands of Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities. Yet the Prime Minister says he is going to take our CF-18s out of the fight.

Just how bad does it have to be in Iraq and Syria for him to leave our CF-18s there?

[National Defence, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, last night, President Obama stated that air strikes were a key pillar in the fight against ISIS. In the last week, we have seen the Obama administration, Germany, France, and the U.K. step up their efforts in their air strikes. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has ordered our CF-18s to stand down.

Why is the Prime Minister stepping back from the fight when our allies are stepping up?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from “sunny ways” for his question. I will remind him that while we were also struggling against a recession—and yes, we did invest in Canada—we never made cuts to health care. In fact, we increased funding to health care.

We will be watching the new Liberal government to make sure it does not act like the last Liberal government, which when it did need to cut, it cut health care.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Shepard for his hard work and for representing his constituents. I know that his constituents, like mine, are suffering.

Mr. Speaker, in my first conversation with the Prime Minister, we spoke about working together to find solutions to the job losses in Alberta. I will be holding him to that.

The estimate is that there could be close to 110,000 direct and indirect job losses in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the energy sector. I hope that everyone in the House recognizes that if 110,000 job losses had happened in the manufacturing sector, the auto sector, or the aerospace sector, it would have warranted a mention in the Speech from the Throne. However, there was not a word. There was not a word in the Speech from the Throne. In fact, there has not been a word out of the government to date.

However, I will be patient. I hope that the government will work constructively with us, and the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan, to find solutions for the thousands of families who are going into Christmas without a job.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the New Democrats say that they want to work with the Conservatives. We are off to a good start.

It is a new Parliament. I will say to the member that I have always been an advocate of civil liberties. What we saw under the Conservatives was a balance between that and the real threat of terrorism in this country and abroad, and a government that brought forward solutions to balance civil liberties.

I hope that the NDP will work with us. I assume that they will press the government across the way for bigger and bigger government. I can assure the member that we will be pressing in a different way. We will be asking the government to reduce its deficit. We will be asking the government to bring in tax cuts for Canadians. That is exactly what our government did for 10 years, to the point where we had the lowest tax burden on Canadians in 50 years. As they watch their spending go up, their taxes go up, deficits increase, and their benefits being clawed back, they will remember the lowest tax burden in 50 years, brought to them by the Conservative Party of Canada

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been 25 minutes and the sunny ways are over. Let the record show that at 11:26 a.m., the sunny ways were over.

The member brings up a good point, but in terms of what is important to Canadians and to taxpayers, under our watch the size of government spending shrunk as a percentage of GDP. That is what Canadians care about. That is what Canadians are watching for, and we will be holding this new government across the way to account.

The Liberal government has promised a $10 billion deficit. Apparently it is already backing away from that. Of course it is, because within the first 30 days it has already blown that budget.

The C.D. Howe Institute recently said that the Liberals' new tax measures will cost Canadians. Only the Liberals could have a tax cut that costs people money. We are now up to $14 billion and counting, and we will be holding them to account.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing that yesterday was the anniversary of the Montreal massacre. It is a day that we should never forget because it reminds us all of the need to work together to end violence against women. There is still much work to be done, and our party wants to work with all members in this area.

I want to welcome back to the House my colleagues in all parties and acknowledge that despite the disagreements we have had in the past, and I am sure that we will have in the future, we all share a deep and abiding love, a true patriot love, for our country.

We wish our colleagues across the floor well and we respectfully remind them that in their new role they must govern responsibly for all Canadians, not only for the millions who voted for them but also for the millions who did not.

On a personal note, I want to thank the voters of Sturgeon River—Parkland for their vote of confidence in me on October 19. I love the region that I represent and I love the people who I represent, many of whom are going through tough times right now. I want them to know that the challenges they face are top of mind for me. I will be pressing the government on finding solutions to help the thousands of Albertans who are going into Christmas without a job.

As Her Majesty's official opposition, our role in Parliament is to hold the new government to account, particularly with regard to its management of the public purse. We will be the taxpayers' watchdog.

It is already abundantly clear that we have our work cut out for us.

If there is a common thread woven throughout everything that we heard on Friday, it is that the Liberal devotion to big activist government is alive and well. We on this side of the House find this disturbing for the following two reasons.

First, big government is expensive government. It makes an assumption that runs counter to one of the most deeply held beliefs we have as Conservatives. We trust Canadians and the money they work so hard for is better left in their own pockets than in the hands of politicians here.

Second, activist government is often intrusive government. It restricts our personal and our financial liberty. It operates under the assumption that important decisions, decisions about everything from how we raise our children to how we go about our business, to how we spend our golden years, are best made by the state rather than by an individual. We disagree with that.

Therefore, we will be steadfast in our efforts to hold the government to account and we will be generous with constructive and respectful advice when we see it going astray. We hope in turn that the government will listen.

An example was the plans for resettling refugees. We are encouraged that Canadians were able to convince the government of the errors in its original plans, that it was willing to embrace a more sensible approach that reflected our ability to help the most desperate people from a war-torn region, while minimizing the risks of the safety and security of Canadians. So many questions still remain about this process, and let us face it, the Liberal Party had a promise but not a plan. However, as I said, we are encouraged that it listened and it has revised its approach.

We would like to think that the same is possible when it comes to the government's election promise to remove the Royal Canadian Air Force and our CF-18s from the bombing mission against ISIS.

It is alarming that the threat of ISIS, as well as the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in the fight against ISIS, did not warrant a mention in the throne speech.

Unlike the Liberal government, President Obama did talk about the threat of ISIS last night.

He told the American people:

In Iraq and Syria, air strikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies—including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

President Obama did not mention Canada because it is clear that we have scaled back our contribution since November 4.

The Prime Minister has told our allies that we will be pulling out our CF-18s in the fight against, what President Obama called “cult of death”, ISIS.

While on the international stage we saw leaders of the western world come together, coalescing around the fight against ISIS. The impression that was left with Canadians and the international community was that our prime minister was consumed with taking selfies. I mention this because it was mentioned to me many times by constituents. It was not that we had a leader who was going to step up and stand resolutely shoulder to shoulder with our allies, but one who consistently reminded Canadians of an election promise, even after the attacks in Paris and Beirut.

The Prime Minister has offered no sensible argument for pulling our air force out of this fight because, frankly, there is not one. Meanwhile, President Obama made clear last evening that the reasons for remaining part of the bombing mission were clear and unambiguous.

It is not too late for the Prime Minister to change course. The reality is that when we talk about Canada's new approach to fighting ISIS, Canada is not back, Canada is backing away. Our offer stands. Should the government change its position and allow our air force to continue bombing ISIS along with our allies, it would have our full support.

We heard a long list of promises on Friday, but where are the plans for fulfilling them? We certainly heard nothing about an economic plan.

The government was silent on support for private sector businesses and industries, which actually create the good, stable, well-paying jobs on which Canadian families depend. There was no mention of the auto, forestry, or energy sectors. There was no mention of a plan to help the more than 60,000 Albertans who would be facing Christmas without a job. It was silent on the role of the agricultural industry and farmers from coast to coast in Canada. It was silent on whether it would leave us on the outside looking in when our friends and partners ratify the trans-Pacific partnership, the biggest trade deal in history.

What we did hear was a recipe for big government and big spending. Therefore, the question that every taxpayer wants us to ask the government is where the money will come from to pay for all of this. It comes from one place, and that is out of the pockets of Canadians.

We know that the government plans to grab as much money as it can by ending tax fairness for families with its plans to take away the universal child care benefit and income splitting for couples.

All of that will come out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

We have no indication to date that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have a plan beyond hoping that the budgets will finally balance themselves after years of high spending. Rather, if left unchecked, every indication is that the Liberals will run massive deficits, raise taxes, and in the end will cut programs and benefits because they cannot tax their way to prosperity and spend their way out of debt. This is the choice facing all governments: responsible fiscal management in the present or painful austerity in the future; living within our means today or leaving our children and grandchildren to pay the bills for years to come.

In conclusion, we will continue to demand at every turn a fiscally responsible approach that is fair to all Canadians. We will be a voice for taxpayers as we believe, and we are confident most Canadians share this belief, that is the best path forward for our country.

We believe and we are confident that most Canadians share the belief that Canadians know how to manage their money. They know how to go about their lives, how to manage their own families and businesses, and how to achieve their goals. They do not need the government to do it for them. They want their government to create an environment in which all Canadians can turn their dreams into reality.

These are our Conservative values. They have always been our values and they will continue to guide us as we fulfill the time-honoured responsibility of our current office as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Given our values and our position, the official opposition cannot support the throne speech as it is presently written.

With that, I propose the following amendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government has not acknowledged that many of its promises do not provide transparent cost estimates, implementation plans, or consider cost burdens to the provinces, and as such your government should put the best interests of Canadians first by reversing its plan to deliberately put Canada back into deficit, since such a move would ultimately lead to a higher tax burden for Canadians, just as it reversed its unrealistic promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada before the end of 2015; and

further regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government has failed to outline a plan to create jobs in Canada's private sector, and has ignored important economic drivers such as the agricultural, energy and manufacturing sectors, despite the billions of dollars in economic activity they produce every year; and your government has also failed to mention Canada's responsibility to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against ISIS at a time when they are stepping up their fight against terrorism.

[Speech from the Throne, December 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who moved and seconded the motion for their speeches. When the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne resumes, I will continue my speech and give the other version of the story.

I now have a spoiler alert. When we return next week, I will be giving my response to the Speech from the Throne. It may not be quite as sunny as what we have heard on the other side. However, I look forward to that.

To that end, and to what everyone has been waiting for, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

(On the motion of Ms. Ambrose the debate was adjourned)

[Election of Speaker, December 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the members of the Conservative caucus, I would like to sincerely congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House of Commons.

Also, happy anniversary to you and Kelly. You get extra brownie points for that one.

Mr. Speaker, you now hold an office that is almost as old as Parliament itself. The earliest year for which a presiding officer has been identified is 1258. In that year, Peter de Montfort presided over the parliament held in Oxford.

The uninterrupted history of the office of Speaker began in 1376 when Sir Peter de la Mare presided over what is known as the “Good Parliament”. The next parliament was styled the “Bad Parliament”. Of course, the titles “Good” and “Bad” had nothing to do with the performance of the administrations of the day, but were more a reflection on the efforts of the members of those parliaments to keep the government in check.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that my colleagues and I, who make up Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, will work hard to earn you the reputation of the Speaker of what historians will one day refer to as “the great Parliament”. That means that you can count on our co-operation at all times and in all circumstances.

On that same note, I would like to tell the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he too can also count on our co-operation and support when he is acting in the best interest of Canadians.

What is more, if the Prime Minister is wondering what I am prepared to do if he does not act in the best interest of Canadians, then I would tell him to “just watch me”.

Congratulations once again, Mr. Speaker.