Most toxic speeches
Madam Speaker, October 22 marks two years since a jihadist terrorist struck at the heart of our freedom and democracy. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was brutally gunned down just steps from here. The thickness of a door and the brave actions of our Hill security staff saved members here a similar fate. It was two days after a jihadist murdered Warrant Office Patrice Vincent. Last year, our government honoured the sacrifice of these men, but this year the Liberals want Canadians to forget. There will be no memorial. Why are the Liberals dishonouring these fallen men and trying to pretend that these jihadist attacks never happened?
Mr. Speaker, the spending decisions of the current government and the resulting deficits are dragging down the economy and killing jobs. So are Liberal policy decisions. The Liberals have shut down the Billy Bishop runway expansion, and with it $2 billion in plane orders to Bombardier are gone. The Liberals are costing jobs and killing choice and competition in Toronto for travellers, tourism and businesses. Why the reckless attack on Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector?
Mr. Speaker, closing Canada's only museum dedicated to Confederation, cutting Confederation out as the theme of the 150th anniversary, writing the War of 1812 out of the citizenship guide, rejecting the donation of John Diefenbaker's birthplace, the Liberal government is engaged in an all-out work on Canadian history.Now the Liberals are shutting down proposals for a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.Why do the Liberals want to mark this anniversary by killing a tradition as old as our country, that of recognizing worthy citizens with a commemorative medal? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Liberals' war on history is going according to plan. First, they ordered the citizenship guide to be rewritten so that new Canadians would learn less about Canadian history. The government then announced that Confederation and Canadian history will not be themes of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Now we have learned that Canada's only museum that is fully dedicated to Confederation is being shut down due to a lack of federal support, this on the very eve of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why this ruthless Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal war on history is marching relentlessly forward. The most recent victim is a Canadian crusader for human rights, a pioneer in the global struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A champion of the little guy, he gave us our Canadian Bill of Rights. This is why the Government of Canada honoured his legacy by establishing the John Diefenbaker Defender of Human Rights and Freedom Award. The award has recognized individuals fighting for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, as it did with the Canada 150 medals, the Liberal government is in the process of abolishing that John Diefenbaker award. Why is there this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?
Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when Liberals are trying to think up new ways to tax Canadians. By that, I mean a day ending in the letter y.That has Canadians asking why. Why is the Liberal innovation agenda now being led by a new tax on hard-pressed middle-class Canadians for their Internet use? Last week it was a carbon tax on everything. This comes after tax hikes on textbooks, children's sports, music lessons, income taxes, and more.Why do the Liberals now want to tax Canadians more just to use the Internet? Why is their Christmas gift to Canadians just sacks full of tax?
Mr. Speaker, our symbols, like the national anthem, belong to Canadians. They do not belong to us, as politicians. Yet the Liberals broke the rules in an effort to jam through anthem changes without any public input. However, Canadians spoke and told the Prime Minister overwhelmingly that they do not want this change.Will the Prime Minister listen to these Canadians whom he refused to consult in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Americans should know more about the rest of the world, but he wants Canadians to know less about their own country. Now, thanks to the citizenship guide, new Canadians do know the history of their country. They even know the difference between the great Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge and the craven Vichy regime in France.Why does the Minister of Immigration want to reduce the historical literacy of new Canadians? Just because he does not value Canadian history does not mean that we should leave new Canadians in the dark about their country. Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 100th anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge.The Royal Canadian Regiment Museum in London, Ontario has a display on the victory at Vimy Ridge. Among the medals and artifacts one finds the words, Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst. Our Canadian heroes were not prepared for the latest in friendly fire from the Liberals in Ottawa. Why is funding for this museum and its Vimy exhibit being cut off by the Liberals this anniversary year? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the wartime government of Robert Laird Borden introduced an income tax. Believe it or not, Liberals actually opposed the new taxbut wait: Liberals opposed the new income tax because it was not high enough.The Liberal whip of the day said that it would be a mere flea-bite, and complained that the new tax does not take from men enough to make it hurt.I give them full marks for consistency, but after 100 years of Liberals continually pressing to raise taxes, is it not time to stop making it hurt so much?
Mr. Speaker, standing up for our constituents is what we were sent here to do.Just months ago, the Liberals gave the CBC $675 million on top of the $1 billion-a-year it already gets. The CBC now says it is not enough. It wants another third of a billion dollars-a-year, and more from hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers.When it comes to the CBC, it seems it is just never enough. The Liberals say they are open to this request from their friends. Will someone over there finally take the side of taxpayers, and halt the convoy of Brink's trucks to the CBC?
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government proposed to change the national anthem, we told Canadians about it in a throne speech and invited their feedback. We received it loud and clear. They told us to keep our hands off their national anthem. Stephen Harper listened to Canadians, and the proposal was dropped.Canadians have now told the new Prime Minister that they do not want the anthem changes that the Liberals are sneaking through. Will the Prime Minister show that he can listen to Canadians as much as Stephen Harper did, and drop this proposed change that Canadians oppose?
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for EdmontonWetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, YorkSimcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.
Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the first honour of the Dominion. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada. What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal war on history continues. Groups celebrating our history on the 150th anniversary of Confederation have been told they cannot. The Annapolis Valley project showcasing the region's contribution to Canada's founding has been told no by Ottawa. Instead, Canada 150 funds of half a million dollars went to former Liberal cabinet minister Ken Dryden for his project, a TV show modestly called We Are Canada, described as just tedious TV by The Globe and Mail. It was helpfully broadcast on the taxpayer-funded CBC. Why is the Liberal government taking money from community groups and giving it to former Liberal politicians?
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.
Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, all that money is not working. Canadians look for high-quality Canadian content from the CBC, but fewer are watching. In 2001, the CBC drew almost 10% of the prime time audience. Today, that number is close to 6% as viewers tune out. No wonder ad revenue is in free fall. The CBC has a solution. Taxpayers can be conscripted to replace ad revenue. After all, when Liberal spending is out of control, what is one-third of a billion dollars between friends?Do the Liberals really plan on rewarding falling viewership by giving the CBC even more taxpayer money?
Mr. Speaker, a report from the front on the Liberal war on history: the latest casualty is the village of Almonte.The Mississippi Valley Textile Museum put together its proposal for Canada 150 based around a mill founded in 1867, whose history traced Canada's. The project blended history, education, community, and culture. It was denied. Why? It is because the Liberals changed the rules after they applied, and Canadian history is no longer an appropriate theme for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why is the government blocking this worthy project? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals always find a way to take care of their friends. As we have seen this week, no former Liberal cabinet minister is ever left behind. When I commented that it was inappropriate for the CBC to receive Canada 150 funding on top of its annual billion dollars from the taxpayers, the CBC's taxpayer-funded lobbyist corrected me. The Canada 150 money went to Ken Dryden, not the CBC. In fact, the CBC paid even more tax dollars to the former Liberal minister's project. Why is it that the only history that can make it past the Liberal war on history is someone's past history as a Liberal minister?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration says that the Liberals need to change the citizenship guide because it is a bit heavy on the War of 1812. Less than one page out of the 68-page book is dedicated to this nation-building event that ensured Canada's continued existence.Do the Liberals oppose letting new Canadians know that English, French, and first nations people can work together effectively? Do they oppose letting Canadians know that when we fight, even against the odds, we win? Why the Liberal war on history?
The cabinet spot is not going to be yours with that kind of answer.
Mr. Speaker, in 2001, one-quarter of the CBC's funding was from advertising. However, this has fallen in recent years as advertisers are abandoning CBC programs. Today it seems only around 15% of revenues come from advertisers. Taxpayers are now being asked to make this failure into a virtue. What is the solution? Another one-third of a billion dollars per year from the poor beleaguered taxpayer and a guaranteed annual increase in the CBC subsidy forever.Does the government agree with the CBC president that its business model is profoundly and irrevocably broken?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal hidden agenda of higher taxes continues to unfold. In the last election, the Liberals did not tell families about new higher taxes on children's hockey games, piano lessons, small businesses, and student text books, but then families were hit with exactly these tax hikes. Now the heritage minister has told us that she is looking at all scenarios for a new tax on the Internet.Why does the minister want to tax hard-working, cash-strapped Canadians families just to give that money to her well-heeled friends in what she calls the entertainment ecosystem.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund made a difference, allowing community-based environmental groups to undertake projects to remediate Lake Simcoe's health. It worked. The science has shown native species returning and breeding for the first time in decades. Water quality is measurably improved but still more needs to be done.Despite the past successes, the Liberals cancelled the fund. It makes no sense to reverse the real progress being made on the lake's environment. Will the Liberal government reverse its cancellation of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund?
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the question, and I am not sure what the member is driving at. The motion is that this matter be studied by the committee, and the amendment is that the motion should have priority over other business of the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, it is an amendment to the motion that parallels exactly what the rules of this place are, which is that an issue of this matter takes precedence. The amendment is asking that it take precedence as well at the committee that deals with such business. Essentially, it is recreating in the committee the same philosophy, approach, and rules here. I do not understand how that is partisan. I know the hon. member knows something of partisanship. I know that because I have been reading through some things he has said in the past five years, and his positions are 180 degrees opposite of the positions he takes nowadays. That suggests to me, if nothing else, partisanship if one can have one set of views on this side and views that are 180 degrees opposite on the other side. Certainly the question of the rights of a member to vote should be considered paramount. The reason it is considered partisan by some of us over here is that we hear members from the Liberal Party saying, as we heard here, that this should not go to the committee, that this should not have priority and that we should let it be dealt with by officials and put it off into the shadows somewhere and leave members out of it, to leave it to us, trust us. That, to me, sounds a bit dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the fact that right now the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with other business that is very much of a long-term nature. It is the kind of stuff that is generally the subject of study. In fact, we hear the government say it has no particular proposals. We fear it does have particular proposals in mind. It will not commit that it will agree to any kind of unified approach here. It seems to me there are a lot of discussions still to be had there. However, we are not going to be changing the rules next week, but we will be having votes next week, so the question of what we need to do to ensure we do not have a repetition of the unfortunate event is important.This is the first time we will be considering this issue in this particular context, where security is a question under the new unified Parliamentary Protective Service that was supposed to solve these problems from happening again, as they had in the past.Clearly, the design that was created by the experts, with the best of intentions, and I think they all do good work, that was supposed to solve the problem did not do it. That is why parliamentarians, all of us, have to take responsibility for ensuring all of our rights are properly protected, particularly the rights of minorities, but every individual member. That is an urgent and priority matter.
Madam Speaker, next year Canada observes the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but a funny thing happened on the way to the celebrations: the new government left out Confederation. When the minister introduced the themes for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Confederation was not there, not even the subject of Canadian history is a theme.Why the Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, at committee, the minister justified excluding Confederation from the 150th anniversary themes by saying ...we shouldn't play politics with [it].Admittedly, Conservatives John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier drove the project, but Macdonald's archrivals, George Brown and Oliver Mowat, were partners and full founding fathers. In fact, Confederation is the ultimate bipartisan example of Canadian nation building.Why will the Liberal government not make Confederation a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation?
Mr. Speaker, after a year in office words are no longer enough. Canadians are judging the current government on results, or their absence. Of the over 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan, 158 made the ultimate sacrifice, including three brave young men from my riding of YorkSimcoe. We have a solemn obligation to remember them and their service to our country.Last winter the veterans affairs minister denied he was cancelling plans for a memorial to those who served in the Afghanistan mission. He said, rest assured it will be done. It has been a year now. Where is the Afghanistan war memorial?
Madam Speaker, October 22 marks two years since a jihadist terrorist struck at the heart of our freedom and democracy. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was brutally gunned down just steps from here. The thickness of a door and the brave actions of our Hill security staff saved members here a similar fate. It was two days after a jihadist murdered Warrant Office Patrice Vincent. Last year, our government honoured the sacrifice of these men, but this year the Liberals want Canadians to forget. There will be no memorial. Why are the Liberals dishonouring these fallen men and trying to pretend that these jihadist attacks never happened?
Mr. Speaker, the spending decisions of the current government and the resulting deficits are dragging down the economy and killing jobs. So are Liberal policy decisions. The Liberals have shut down the Billy Bishop runway expansion, and with it $2 billion in plane orders to Bombardier are gone. The Liberals are costing jobs and killing choice and competition in Toronto for travellers, tourism and businesses. Why the reckless attack on Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector?
Mr. Speaker, closing Canada's only museum dedicated to Confederation, cutting Confederation out as the theme of the 150th anniversary, writing the War of 1812 out of the citizenship guide, rejecting the donation of John Diefenbaker's birthplace, the Liberal government is engaged in an all-out work on Canadian history.Now the Liberals are shutting down proposals for a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.Why do the Liberals want to mark this anniversary by killing a tradition as old as our country, that of recognizing worthy citizens with a commemorative medal? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Liberals' war on history is going according to plan. First, they ordered the citizenship guide to be rewritten so that new Canadians would learn less about Canadian history. The government then announced that Confederation and Canadian history will not be themes of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Now we have learned that Canada's only museum that is fully dedicated to Confederation is being shut down due to a lack of federal support, this on the very eve of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why this ruthless Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal war on history is marching relentlessly forward. The most recent victim is a Canadian crusader for human rights, a pioneer in the global struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A champion of the little guy, he gave us our Canadian Bill of Rights. This is why the Government of Canada honoured his legacy by establishing the John Diefenbaker Defender of Human Rights and Freedom Award. The award has recognized individuals fighting for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, as it did with the Canada 150 medals, the Liberal government is in the process of abolishing that John Diefenbaker award. Why is there this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?
Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when Liberals are trying to think up new ways to tax Canadians. By that, I mean a day ending in the letter y.That has Canadians asking why. Why is the Liberal innovation agenda now being led by a new tax on hard-pressed middle-class Canadians for their Internet use? Last week it was a carbon tax on everything. This comes after tax hikes on textbooks, children's sports, music lessons, income taxes, and more.Why do the Liberals now want to tax Canadians more just to use the Internet? Why is their Christmas gift to Canadians just sacks full of tax?
Mr. Speaker, our symbols, like the national anthem, belong to Canadians. They do not belong to us, as politicians. Yet the Liberals broke the rules in an effort to jam through anthem changes without any public input. However, Canadians spoke and told the Prime Minister overwhelmingly that they do not want this change.Will the Prime Minister listen to these Canadians whom he refused to consult in the first place?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Americans should know more about the rest of the world, but he wants Canadians to know less about their own country. Now, thanks to the citizenship guide, new Canadians do know the history of their country. They even know the difference between the great Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge and the craven Vichy regime in France.Why does the Minister of Immigration want to reduce the historical literacy of new Canadians? Just because he does not value Canadian history does not mean that we should leave new Canadians in the dark about their country. Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 100th anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge.The Royal Canadian Regiment Museum in London, Ontario has a display on the victory at Vimy Ridge. Among the medals and artifacts one finds the words, Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst. Our Canadian heroes were not prepared for the latest in friendly fire from the Liberals in Ottawa. Why is funding for this museum and its Vimy exhibit being cut off by the Liberals this anniversary year? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the wartime government of Robert Laird Borden introduced an income tax. Believe it or not, Liberals actually opposed the new taxbut wait: Liberals opposed the new income tax because it was not high enough.The Liberal whip of the day said that it would be a mere flea-bite, and complained that the new tax does not take from men enough to make it hurt.I give them full marks for consistency, but after 100 years of Liberals continually pressing to raise taxes, is it not time to stop making it hurt so much?
Mr. Speaker, standing up for our constituents is what we were sent here to do.Just months ago, the Liberals gave the CBC $675 million on top of the $1 billion-a-year it already gets. The CBC now says it is not enough. It wants another third of a billion dollars-a-year, and more from hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers.When it comes to the CBC, it seems it is just never enough. The Liberals say they are open to this request from their friends. Will someone over there finally take the side of taxpayers, and halt the convoy of Brink's trucks to the CBC?
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government proposed to change the national anthem, we told Canadians about it in a throne speech and invited their feedback. We received it loud and clear. They told us to keep our hands off their national anthem. Stephen Harper listened to Canadians, and the proposal was dropped.Canadians have now told the new Prime Minister that they do not want the anthem changes that the Liberals are sneaking through. Will the Prime Minister show that he can listen to Canadians as much as Stephen Harper did, and drop this proposed change that Canadians oppose?
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for EdmontonWetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, YorkSimcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.
Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the first honour of the Dominion. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada. What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal war on history continues. Groups celebrating our history on the 150th anniversary of Confederation have been told they cannot. The Annapolis Valley project showcasing the region's contribution to Canada's founding has been told no by Ottawa. Instead, Canada 150 funds of half a million dollars went to former Liberal cabinet minister Ken Dryden for his project, a TV show modestly called We Are Canada, described as just tedious TV by The Globe and Mail. It was helpfully broadcast on the taxpayer-funded CBC. Why is the Liberal government taking money from community groups and giving it to former Liberal politicians?
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.
Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, all that money is not working. Canadians look for high-quality Canadian content from the CBC, but fewer are watching. In 2001, the CBC drew almost 10% of the prime time audience. Today, that number is close to 6% as viewers tune out. No wonder ad revenue is in free fall. The CBC has a solution. Taxpayers can be conscripted to replace ad revenue. After all, when Liberal spending is out of control, what is one-third of a billion dollars between friends?Do the Liberals really plan on rewarding falling viewership by giving the CBC even more taxpayer money?
Mr. Speaker, a report from the front on the Liberal war on history: the latest casualty is the village of Almonte.The Mississippi Valley Textile Museum put together its proposal for Canada 150 based around a mill founded in 1867, whose history traced Canada's. The project blended history, education, community, and culture. It was denied. Why? It is because the Liberals changed the rules after they applied, and Canadian history is no longer an appropriate theme for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why is the government blocking this worthy project? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals always find a way to take care of their friends. As we have seen this week, no former Liberal cabinet minister is ever left behind. When I commented that it was inappropriate for the CBC to receive Canada 150 funding on top of its annual billion dollars from the taxpayers, the CBC's taxpayer-funded lobbyist corrected me. The Canada 150 money went to Ken Dryden, not the CBC. In fact, the CBC paid even more tax dollars to the former Liberal minister's project. Why is it that the only history that can make it past the Liberal war on history is someone's past history as a Liberal minister?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration says that the Liberals need to change the citizenship guide because it is a bit heavy on the War of 1812. Less than one page out of the 68-page book is dedicated to this nation-building event that ensured Canada's continued existence.Do the Liberals oppose letting new Canadians know that English, French, and first nations people can work together effectively? Do they oppose letting Canadians know that when we fight, even against the odds, we win? Why the Liberal war on history?
The cabinet spot is not going to be yours with that kind of answer.
Mr. Speaker, in 2001, one-quarter of the CBC's funding was from advertising. However, this has fallen in recent years as advertisers are abandoning CBC programs. Today it seems only around 15% of revenues come from advertisers. Taxpayers are now being asked to make this failure into a virtue. What is the solution? Another one-third of a billion dollars per year from the poor beleaguered taxpayer and a guaranteed annual increase in the CBC subsidy forever.Does the government agree with the CBC president that its business model is profoundly and irrevocably broken?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal hidden agenda of higher taxes continues to unfold. In the last election, the Liberals did not tell families about new higher taxes on children's hockey games, piano lessons, small businesses, and student text books, but then families were hit with exactly these tax hikes. Now the heritage minister has told us that she is looking at all scenarios for a new tax on the Internet.Why does the minister want to tax hard-working, cash-strapped Canadians families just to give that money to her well-heeled friends in what she calls the entertainment ecosystem.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund made a difference, allowing community-based environmental groups to undertake projects to remediate Lake Simcoe's health. It worked. The science has shown native species returning and breeding for the first time in decades. Water quality is measurably improved but still more needs to be done.Despite the past successes, the Liberals cancelled the fund. It makes no sense to reverse the real progress being made on the lake's environment. Will the Liberal government reverse its cancellation of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund?
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the question, and I am not sure what the member is driving at. The motion is that this matter be studied by the committee, and the amendment is that the motion should have priority over other business of the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, it is an amendment to the motion that parallels exactly what the rules of this place are, which is that an issue of this matter takes precedence. The amendment is asking that it take precedence as well at the committee that deals with such business. Essentially, it is recreating in the committee the same philosophy, approach, and rules here. I do not understand how that is partisan. I know the hon. member knows something of partisanship. I know that because I have been reading through some things he has said in the past five years, and his positions are 180 degrees opposite of the positions he takes nowadays. That suggests to me, if nothing else, partisanship if one can have one set of views on this side and views that are 180 degrees opposite on the other side. Certainly the question of the rights of a member to vote should be considered paramount. The reason it is considered partisan by some of us over here is that we hear members from the Liberal Party saying, as we heard here, that this should not go to the committee, that this should not have priority and that we should let it be dealt with by officials and put it off into the shadows somewhere and leave members out of it, to leave it to us, trust us. That, to me, sounds a bit dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the fact that right now the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with other business that is very much of a long-term nature. It is the kind of stuff that is generally the subject of study. In fact, we hear the government say it has no particular proposals. We fear it does have particular proposals in mind. It will not commit that it will agree to any kind of unified approach here. It seems to me there are a lot of discussions still to be had there. However, we are not going to be changing the rules next week, but we will be having votes next week, so the question of what we need to do to ensure we do not have a repetition of the unfortunate event is important.This is the first time we will be considering this issue in this particular context, where security is a question under the new unified Parliamentary Protective Service that was supposed to solve these problems from happening again, as they had in the past.Clearly, the design that was created by the experts, with the best of intentions, and I think they all do good work, that was supposed to solve the problem did not do it. That is why parliamentarians, all of us, have to take responsibility for ensuring all of our rights are properly protected, particularly the rights of minorities, but every individual member. That is an urgent and priority matter.
Madam Speaker, next year Canada observes the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but a funny thing happened on the way to the celebrations: the new government left out Confederation. When the minister introduced the themes for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Confederation was not there, not even the subject of Canadian history is a theme.Why the Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, at committee, the minister justified excluding Confederation from the 150th anniversary themes by saying ...we shouldn't play politics with [it].Admittedly, Conservatives John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier drove the project, but Macdonald's archrivals, George Brown and Oliver Mowat, were partners and full founding fathers. In fact, Confederation is the ultimate bipartisan example of Canadian nation building.Why will the Liberal government not make Confederation a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation?
Mr. Speaker, after a year in office words are no longer enough. Canadians are judging the current government on results, or their absence. Of the over 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan, 158 made the ultimate sacrifice, including three brave young men from my riding of YorkSimcoe. We have a solemn obligation to remember them and their service to our country.Last winter the veterans affairs minister denied he was cancelling plans for a memorial to those who served in the Afghanistan mission. He said, rest assured it will be done. It has been a year now. Where is the Afghanistan war memorial?
Most negative speeches
Mr. Speaker, the spending decisions of the current government and the resulting deficits are dragging down the economy and killing jobs. So are Liberal policy decisions. The Liberals have shut down the Billy Bishop runway expansion, and with it $2 billion in plane orders to Bombardier are gone. The Liberals are costing jobs and killing choice and competition in Toronto for travellers, tourism and businesses. Why the reckless attack on Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector?
Mr. Speaker, in 2001, one-quarter of the CBC's funding was from advertising. However, this has fallen in recent years as advertisers are abandoning CBC programs. Today it seems only around 15% of revenues come from advertisers. Taxpayers are now being asked to make this failure into a virtue. What is the solution? Another one-third of a billion dollars per year from the poor beleaguered taxpayer and a guaranteed annual increase in the CBC subsidy forever.Does the government agree with the CBC president that its business model is profoundly and irrevocably broken?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal war on history continues. Groups celebrating our history on the 150th anniversary of Confederation have been told they cannot. The Annapolis Valley project showcasing the region's contribution to Canada's founding has been told no by Ottawa. Instead, Canada 150 funds of half a million dollars went to former Liberal cabinet minister Ken Dryden for his project, a TV show modestly called We Are Canada, described as just tedious TV by The Globe and Mail. It was helpfully broadcast on the taxpayer-funded CBC. Why is the Liberal government taking money from community groups and giving it to former Liberal politicians?
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Liberals' war on history is going according to plan. First, they ordered the citizenship guide to be rewritten so that new Canadians would learn less about Canadian history. The government then announced that Confederation and Canadian history will not be themes of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Now we have learned that Canada's only museum that is fully dedicated to Confederation is being shut down due to a lack of federal support, this on the very eve of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why this ruthless Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the question, and I am not sure what the member is driving at. The motion is that this matter be studied by the committee, and the amendment is that the motion should have priority over other business of the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, it is an amendment to the motion that parallels exactly what the rules of this place are, which is that an issue of this matter takes precedence. The amendment is asking that it take precedence as well at the committee that deals with such business. Essentially, it is recreating in the committee the same philosophy, approach, and rules here. I do not understand how that is partisan. I know the hon. member knows something of partisanship. I know that because I have been reading through some things he has said in the past five years, and his positions are 180 degrees opposite of the positions he takes nowadays. That suggests to me, if nothing else, partisanship if one can have one set of views on this side and views that are 180 degrees opposite on the other side. Certainly the question of the rights of a member to vote should be considered paramount. The reason it is considered partisan by some of us over here is that we hear members from the Liberal Party saying, as we heard here, that this should not go to the committee, that this should not have priority and that we should let it be dealt with by officials and put it off into the shadows somewhere and leave members out of it, to leave it to us, trust us. That, to me, sounds a bit dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, closing Canada's only museum dedicated to Confederation, cutting Confederation out as the theme of the 150th anniversary, writing the War of 1812 out of the citizenship guide, rejecting the donation of John Diefenbaker's birthplace, the Liberal government is engaged in an all-out work on Canadian history.Now the Liberals are shutting down proposals for a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.Why do the Liberals want to mark this anniversary by killing a tradition as old as our country, that of recognizing worthy citizens with a commemorative medal? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, October 22 marks two years since a jihadist terrorist struck at the heart of our freedom and democracy. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was brutally gunned down just steps from here. The thickness of a door and the brave actions of our Hill security staff saved members here a similar fate. It was two days after a jihadist murdered Warrant Office Patrice Vincent. Last year, our government honoured the sacrifice of these men, but this year the Liberals want Canadians to forget. There will be no memorial. Why are the Liberals dishonouring these fallen men and trying to pretend that these jihadist attacks never happened?
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 100th anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge.The Royal Canadian Regiment Museum in London, Ontario has a display on the victory at Vimy Ridge. Among the medals and artifacts one finds the words, Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst. Our Canadian heroes were not prepared for the latest in friendly fire from the Liberals in Ottawa. Why is funding for this museum and its Vimy exhibit being cut off by the Liberals this anniversary year? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the spending decisions of the current government and the resulting deficits are dragging down the economy and killing jobs. So are Liberal policy decisions. The Liberals have shut down the Billy Bishop runway expansion, and with it $2 billion in plane orders to Bombardier are gone. The Liberals are costing jobs and killing choice and competition in Toronto for travellers, tourism and businesses. Why the reckless attack on Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector?
Mr. Speaker, in 2001, one-quarter of the CBC's funding was from advertising. However, this has fallen in recent years as advertisers are abandoning CBC programs. Today it seems only around 15% of revenues come from advertisers. Taxpayers are now being asked to make this failure into a virtue. What is the solution? Another one-third of a billion dollars per year from the poor beleaguered taxpayer and a guaranteed annual increase in the CBC subsidy forever.Does the government agree with the CBC president that its business model is profoundly and irrevocably broken?
Madam Speaker, the Liberal war on history continues. Groups celebrating our history on the 150th anniversary of Confederation have been told they cannot. The Annapolis Valley project showcasing the region's contribution to Canada's founding has been told no by Ottawa. Instead, Canada 150 funds of half a million dollars went to former Liberal cabinet minister Ken Dryden for his project, a TV show modestly called We Are Canada, described as just tedious TV by The Globe and Mail. It was helpfully broadcast on the taxpayer-funded CBC. Why is the Liberal government taking money from community groups and giving it to former Liberal politicians?
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Liberals' war on history is going according to plan. First, they ordered the citizenship guide to be rewritten so that new Canadians would learn less about Canadian history. The government then announced that Confederation and Canadian history will not be themes of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Now we have learned that Canada's only museum that is fully dedicated to Confederation is being shut down due to a lack of federal support, this on the very eve of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why this ruthless Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the question, and I am not sure what the member is driving at. The motion is that this matter be studied by the committee, and the amendment is that the motion should have priority over other business of the procedure and House affairs committee. In fact, it is an amendment to the motion that parallels exactly what the rules of this place are, which is that an issue of this matter takes precedence. The amendment is asking that it take precedence as well at the committee that deals with such business. Essentially, it is recreating in the committee the same philosophy, approach, and rules here. I do not understand how that is partisan. I know the hon. member knows something of partisanship. I know that because I have been reading through some things he has said in the past five years, and his positions are 180 degrees opposite of the positions he takes nowadays. That suggests to me, if nothing else, partisanship if one can have one set of views on this side and views that are 180 degrees opposite on the other side. Certainly the question of the rights of a member to vote should be considered paramount. The reason it is considered partisan by some of us over here is that we hear members from the Liberal Party saying, as we heard here, that this should not go to the committee, that this should not have priority and that we should let it be dealt with by officials and put it off into the shadows somewhere and leave members out of it, to leave it to us, trust us. That, to me, sounds a bit dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, closing Canada's only museum dedicated to Confederation, cutting Confederation out as the theme of the 150th anniversary, writing the War of 1812 out of the citizenship guide, rejecting the donation of John Diefenbaker's birthplace, the Liberal government is engaged in an all-out work on Canadian history.Now the Liberals are shutting down proposals for a commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.Why do the Liberals want to mark this anniversary by killing a tradition as old as our country, that of recognizing worthy citizens with a commemorative medal? Why this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, October 22 marks two years since a jihadist terrorist struck at the heart of our freedom and democracy. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was brutally gunned down just steps from here. The thickness of a door and the brave actions of our Hill security staff saved members here a similar fate. It was two days after a jihadist murdered Warrant Office Patrice Vincent. Last year, our government honoured the sacrifice of these men, but this year the Liberals want Canadians to forget. There will be no memorial. Why are the Liberals dishonouring these fallen men and trying to pretend that these jihadist attacks never happened?
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 100th anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge.The Royal Canadian Regiment Museum in London, Ontario has a display on the victory at Vimy Ridge. Among the medals and artifacts one finds the words, Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst. Our Canadian heroes were not prepared for the latest in friendly fire from the Liberals in Ottawa. Why is funding for this museum and its Vimy exhibit being cut off by the Liberals this anniversary year? Why this Liberal war on history?
Most positive speeches
The cabinet spot is not going to be yours with that kind of answer.
Mr. Speaker, a report from the front on the Liberal war on history: the latest casualty is the village of Almonte.The Mississippi Valley Textile Museum put together its proposal for Canada 150 based around a mill founded in 1867, whose history traced Canada's. The project blended history, education, community, and culture. It was denied. Why? It is because the Liberals changed the rules after they applied, and Canadian history is no longer an appropriate theme for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why is the government blocking this worthy project? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, all that money is not working. Canadians look for high-quality Canadian content from the CBC, but fewer are watching. In 2001, the CBC drew almost 10% of the prime time audience. Today, that number is close to 6% as viewers tune out. No wonder ad revenue is in free fall. The CBC has a solution. Taxpayers can be conscripted to replace ad revenue. After all, when Liberal spending is out of control, what is one-third of a billion dollars between friends?Do the Liberals really plan on rewarding falling viewership by giving the CBC even more taxpayer money?
Mr. Speaker, our symbols, like the national anthem, belong to Canadians. They do not belong to us, as politicians. Yet the Liberals broke the rules in an effort to jam through anthem changes without any public input. However, Canadians spoke and told the Prime Minister overwhelmingly that they do not want this change.Will the Prime Minister listen to these Canadians whom he refused to consult in the first place?
Madam Speaker, at committee, the minister justified excluding Confederation from the 150th anniversary themes by saying ...we shouldn't play politics with [it].Admittedly, Conservatives John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier drove the project, but Macdonald's archrivals, George Brown and Oliver Mowat, were partners and full founding fathers. In fact, Confederation is the ultimate bipartisan example of Canadian nation building.Why will the Liberal government not make Confederation a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Americans should know more about the rest of the world, but he wants Canadians to know less about their own country. Now, thanks to the citizenship guide, new Canadians do know the history of their country. They even know the difference between the great Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge and the craven Vichy regime in France.Why does the Minister of Immigration want to reduce the historical literacy of new Canadians? Just because he does not value Canadian history does not mean that we should leave new Canadians in the dark about their country. Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the first honour of the Dominion. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada. What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration says that the Liberals need to change the citizenship guide because it is a bit heavy on the War of 1812. Less than one page out of the 68-page book is dedicated to this nation-building event that ensured Canada's continued existence.Do the Liberals oppose letting new Canadians know that English, French, and first nations people can work together effectively? Do they oppose letting Canadians know that when we fight, even against the odds, we win? Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the fact that right now the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with other business that is very much of a long-term nature. It is the kind of stuff that is generally the subject of study. In fact, we hear the government say it has no particular proposals. We fear it does have particular proposals in mind. It will not commit that it will agree to any kind of unified approach here. It seems to me there are a lot of discussions still to be had there. However, we are not going to be changing the rules next week, but we will be having votes next week, so the question of what we need to do to ensure we do not have a repetition of the unfortunate event is important.This is the first time we will be considering this issue in this particular context, where security is a question under the new unified Parliamentary Protective Service that was supposed to solve these problems from happening again, as they had in the past.Clearly, the design that was created by the experts, with the best of intentions, and I think they all do good work, that was supposed to solve the problem did not do it. That is why parliamentarians, all of us, have to take responsibility for ensuring all of our rights are properly protected, particularly the rights of minorities, but every individual member. That is an urgent and priority matter.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund made a difference, allowing community-based environmental groups to undertake projects to remediate Lake Simcoe's health. It worked. The science has shown native species returning and breeding for the first time in decades. Water quality is measurably improved but still more needs to be done.Despite the past successes, the Liberals cancelled the fund. It makes no sense to reverse the real progress being made on the lake's environment. Will the Liberal government reverse its cancellation of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund?
Mr. Speaker, standing up for our constituents is what we were sent here to do.Just months ago, the Liberals gave the CBC $675 million on top of the $1 billion-a-year it already gets. The CBC now says it is not enough. It wants another third of a billion dollars-a-year, and more from hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers.When it comes to the CBC, it seems it is just never enough. The Liberals say they are open to this request from their friends. Will someone over there finally take the side of taxpayers, and halt the convoy of Brink's trucks to the CBC?
Mr. Speaker, after a year in office words are no longer enough. Canadians are judging the current government on results, or their absence. Of the over 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan, 158 made the ultimate sacrifice, including three brave young men from my riding of YorkSimcoe. We have a solemn obligation to remember them and their service to our country.Last winter the veterans affairs minister denied he was cancelling plans for a memorial to those who served in the Afghanistan mission. He said, rest assured it will be done. It has been a year now. Where is the Afghanistan war memorial?
Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when Liberals are trying to think up new ways to tax Canadians. By that, I mean a day ending in the letter y.That has Canadians asking why. Why is the Liberal innovation agenda now being led by a new tax on hard-pressed middle-class Canadians for their Internet use? Last week it was a carbon tax on everything. This comes after tax hikes on textbooks, children's sports, music lessons, income taxes, and more.Why do the Liberals now want to tax Canadians more just to use the Internet? Why is their Christmas gift to Canadians just sacks full of tax?
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.
Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for EdmontonWetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, YorkSimcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal hidden agenda of higher taxes continues to unfold. In the last election, the Liberals did not tell families about new higher taxes on children's hockey games, piano lessons, small businesses, and student text books, but then families were hit with exactly these tax hikes. Now the heritage minister has told us that she is looking at all scenarios for a new tax on the Internet.Why does the minister want to tax hard-working, cash-strapped Canadians families just to give that money to her well-heeled friends in what she calls the entertainment ecosystem.
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government proposed to change the national anthem, we told Canadians about it in a throne speech and invited their feedback. We received it loud and clear. They told us to keep our hands off their national anthem. Stephen Harper listened to Canadians, and the proposal was dropped.Canadians have now told the new Prime Minister that they do not want the anthem changes that the Liberals are sneaking through. Will the Prime Minister show that he can listen to Canadians as much as Stephen Harper did, and drop this proposed change that Canadians oppose?
Madam Speaker, next year Canada observes the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but a funny thing happened on the way to the celebrations: the new government left out Confederation. When the minister introduced the themes for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Confederation was not there, not even the subject of Canadian history is a theme.Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal war on history is marching relentlessly forward. The most recent victim is a Canadian crusader for human rights, a pioneer in the global struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A champion of the little guy, he gave us our Canadian Bill of Rights. This is why the Government of Canada honoured his legacy by establishing the John Diefenbaker Defender of Human Rights and Freedom Award. The award has recognized individuals fighting for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, as it did with the Canada 150 medals, the Liberal government is in the process of abolishing that John Diefenbaker award. Why is there this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals always find a way to take care of their friends. As we have seen this week, no former Liberal cabinet minister is ever left behind. When I commented that it was inappropriate for the CBC to receive Canada 150 funding on top of its annual billion dollars from the taxpayers, the CBC's taxpayer-funded lobbyist corrected me. The Canada 150 money went to Ken Dryden, not the CBC. In fact, the CBC paid even more tax dollars to the former Liberal minister's project. Why is it that the only history that can make it past the Liberal war on history is someone's past history as a Liberal minister?
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the wartime government of Robert Laird Borden introduced an income tax. Believe it or not, Liberals actually opposed the new taxbut wait: Liberals opposed the new income tax because it was not high enough.The Liberal whip of the day said that it would be a mere flea-bite, and complained that the new tax does not take from men enough to make it hurt.I give them full marks for consistency, but after 100 years of Liberals continually pressing to raise taxes, is it not time to stop making it hurt so much?
The cabinet spot is not going to be yours with that kind of answer.
Mr. Speaker, a report from the front on the Liberal war on history: the latest casualty is the village of Almonte.The Mississippi Valley Textile Museum put together its proposal for Canada 150 based around a mill founded in 1867, whose history traced Canada's. The project blended history, education, community, and culture. It was denied. Why? It is because the Liberals changed the rules after they applied, and Canadian history is no longer an appropriate theme for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why is the government blocking this worthy project? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the proud tradition to issue commemorative medals on important anniversaries of Canada was started in 1867 when each Father of Confederation was among the many citizens receiving a medal. It happened again on the diamond anniversary. The 1967 centennial and the 125th anniversary recognized accomplished Canadians, but the Liberal government jumps at every chance to kill a proud tradition. Apparently there will not be a medal to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Why not acknowledge worthy Canadians? Why this ongoing Liberal war on history and tradition?
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, all that money is not working. Canadians look for high-quality Canadian content from the CBC, but fewer are watching. In 2001, the CBC drew almost 10% of the prime time audience. Today, that number is close to 6% as viewers tune out. No wonder ad revenue is in free fall. The CBC has a solution. Taxpayers can be conscripted to replace ad revenue. After all, when Liberal spending is out of control, what is one-third of a billion dollars between friends?Do the Liberals really plan on rewarding falling viewership by giving the CBC even more taxpayer money?
Mr. Speaker, our symbols, like the national anthem, belong to Canadians. They do not belong to us, as politicians. Yet the Liberals broke the rules in an effort to jam through anthem changes without any public input. However, Canadians spoke and told the Prime Minister overwhelmingly that they do not want this change.Will the Prime Minister listen to these Canadians whom he refused to consult in the first place?
Madam Speaker, at committee, the minister justified excluding Confederation from the 150th anniversary themes by saying ...we shouldn't play politics with [it].Admittedly, Conservatives John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier drove the project, but Macdonald's archrivals, George Brown and Oliver Mowat, were partners and full founding fathers. In fact, Confederation is the ultimate bipartisan example of Canadian nation building.Why will the Liberal government not make Confederation a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said Americans should know more about the rest of the world, but he wants Canadians to know less about their own country. Now, thanks to the citizenship guide, new Canadians do know the history of their country. They even know the difference between the great Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge and the craven Vichy regime in France.Why does the Minister of Immigration want to reduce the historical literacy of new Canadians? Just because he does not value Canadian history does not mean that we should leave new Canadians in the dark about their country. Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the 1867 Confederation Medal is described as the first honour of the Dominion. The criteria? It was awarded for service or merit, and open to anyone. How Canadian. The Centennial Medal was for having provided valuable service to Canada. The Canada 125 medal went to those who made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, to their community, or to Canada. What is it about the 150th anniversary of Confederation that makes it the time to stop honouring Canadians who care about their country and community? Why this Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration says that the Liberals need to change the citizenship guide because it is a bit heavy on the War of 1812. Less than one page out of the 68-page book is dedicated to this nation-building event that ensured Canada's continued existence.Do the Liberals oppose letting new Canadians know that English, French, and first nations people can work together effectively? Do they oppose letting Canadians know that when we fight, even against the odds, we win? Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the fact that right now the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with other business that is very much of a long-term nature. It is the kind of stuff that is generally the subject of study. In fact, we hear the government say it has no particular proposals. We fear it does have particular proposals in mind. It will not commit that it will agree to any kind of unified approach here. It seems to me there are a lot of discussions still to be had there. However, we are not going to be changing the rules next week, but we will be having votes next week, so the question of what we need to do to ensure we do not have a repetition of the unfortunate event is important.This is the first time we will be considering this issue in this particular context, where security is a question under the new unified Parliamentary Protective Service that was supposed to solve these problems from happening again, as they had in the past.Clearly, the design that was created by the experts, with the best of intentions, and I think they all do good work, that was supposed to solve the problem did not do it. That is why parliamentarians, all of us, have to take responsibility for ensuring all of our rights are properly protected, particularly the rights of minorities, but every individual member. That is an urgent and priority matter.
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund made a difference, allowing community-based environmental groups to undertake projects to remediate Lake Simcoe's health. It worked. The science has shown native species returning and breeding for the first time in decades. Water quality is measurably improved but still more needs to be done.Despite the past successes, the Liberals cancelled the fund. It makes no sense to reverse the real progress being made on the lake's environment. Will the Liberal government reverse its cancellation of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund?
Mr. Speaker, standing up for our constituents is what we were sent here to do.Just months ago, the Liberals gave the CBC $675 million on top of the $1 billion-a-year it already gets. The CBC now says it is not enough. It wants another third of a billion dollars-a-year, and more from hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers.When it comes to the CBC, it seems it is just never enough. The Liberals say they are open to this request from their friends. Will someone over there finally take the side of taxpayers, and halt the convoy of Brink's trucks to the CBC?
Mr. Speaker, after a year in office words are no longer enough. Canadians are judging the current government on results, or their absence. Of the over 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan, 158 made the ultimate sacrifice, including three brave young men from my riding of YorkSimcoe. We have a solemn obligation to remember them and their service to our country.Last winter the veterans affairs minister denied he was cancelling plans for a memorial to those who served in the Afghanistan mission. He said, rest assured it will be done. It has been a year now. Where is the Afghanistan war memorial?
Mr. Speaker, today is one of those days when Liberals are trying to think up new ways to tax Canadians. By that, I mean a day ending in the letter y.That has Canadians asking why. Why is the Liberal innovation agenda now being led by a new tax on hard-pressed middle-class Canadians for their Internet use? Last week it was a carbon tax on everything. This comes after tax hikes on textbooks, children's sports, music lessons, income taxes, and more.Why do the Liberals now want to tax Canadians more just to use the Internet? Why is their Christmas gift to Canadians just sacks full of tax?
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think the hon. member is a little bit confused. Transfers under our government to the provinces increased maximally. In fact, transfers to my province increased some 80% over the time that the Conservative Party was in government, which was in stark contrast to what Paul Martin and the Liberals did when they decided to attack the deficit, which was slash funding to the provinces by over 40%. Does everyone remember that the health care crisis back there in the nineties, 1997 and 1996, when health care was slashed and every single province was struggling, because that was the Liberal approach, to slash transfers to the provinces. We did the opposite. We increased health care transfers to the provinces well ahead than the rate of inflation, in fact, higher than the rate of inflation in health care spending. The federal share of health care funding under our government rose. The provincial share of health care spending under our government fell. We were doing more than our fair share.Our concern is, what happens when another debt and deficit gets built up? We know the Liberals' way: it will hurt people.
Mr. Speaker, the last time was last year. Before that we had balanced budgets that paid down some $40 billion against the national debt when the previous prime minister was in office, so in fact, the Conservative record is solid, and that is clear and widely seen.What I find interesting is hearing Liberals and some new Democrats argue earlier today that it was only the General Motors sale that made this happen. Ironically, the Liberals are arguing that earlier the Ontario Liberals sold all their shares.We were the last ones to sell the shares, and in so doing achieved a far greater share price than the Ontario Liberals did, if the hon. member wants to know who are good managers. What is more, despite the Liberals selling the shares and applying that to the books and selling off Hydro One and applying that to the books and selling off whatever other furniture they could find around Ontario, they are still running a $7.5 billion deficit. There will not be much left if they keep selling off things the way Liberals do.
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time today with the hon. member for EdmontonWetaskiwin.The constituents of my riding, YorkSimcoe, are what I like to call severely normal Canadians. They value honesty from those who represent them. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the rules. They want the government to give them the freedom to succeed and build a brighter future for their families. That freedom means having more money for their own priorities through lower taxes. That brighter future means managing their finances and their mortgages, and ensuring their children do not inherit burdens that block their desire to achieve their dreams.The previous Conservative government reflected that mindset and those values. Those constituents knew the Conservative government was on their side. They knew it when they saw life become better as federal taxes fell to their lowest level in half a century, since 1963 when John Diefenbaker led a Conservative government.My constituents knew that the Conservative government was on their side when measures like the universal child care benefit made their lives better. In fact, UNICEF reported that hundreds of thousands of Canadian children climbed out of poverty at that time. That was despite Canada going through the global economic downturn, the most dramatic in my lifetime.Despite that downturn, the Conservative government delivered the stimulus through tax reductions and short-term stimulus spending to make Canada the first major economy to return to growth. Indeed, we were the first G7 economy to recover the jobs that had been lost during the economic downturn, and the first to recover the lost GDP from that downturn.Then we set out with determination to return to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $1.9 billion being achieved in the fiscal year 2014-15, a full year ahead of schedule. However, at the same time, my constituents have been burdened by an Ontario Liberal government that does not share their values, one that sees big spending, deficits and debt as the way to go, both in good times and in bad.As a result, my constituents are drowning under the burdens foisted on them by that Ontario Liberal government, burdens of higher taxes, fees, rafts of red tape, and job-killing regulation, and rocketing hydro rates.Well the hole is so deep now in Ontario, that this same Ontario Liberal crowd, which has left the cupboard bare, has now spotted the surplus in Ottawa. Now those people have come up here to continue to those big spending debt and deficit ways. What is their way of doing things?In Ontario, the debt has reached a staggering $300 billion. That is almost $22,000 for each man, woman, and child in the province. The deficit is $7.5 billion. It is now clear that the Ontario Liberal way of doing things is coming to Ottawa.Three facts are clear from the finance department's report so far. First, in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year under a Conservative government, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion. Second, from April to October of 2015, under a Conservative government, a six month period of time, there was a surplus of $1 billion. The same pattern, the exact same trajectory as the previous year.Third, by the end of March 2016, after just five months of a Liberal government, there will be a deficit of $3 billion. A year later, there will be an even higher deficit.This should not surprise anyone. The Liberal Party actually campaigned on a commitment to run deficits. During that election when I occasionally ran into people who told me they were voting Liberal, I would ask them what they liked, was it the promised deficits or the higher taxes? They would usually say to me that it was none of those things. I would tell them that this was what they would get. In turn they would say they did not think so.I would tell them it was in the Liberal platform, that it was spelled out, and that is what the Liberals had committed. Their comment was that the Liberals always broke their promises. To which I would tell they that they might be surprised, that these might be promises they would actually keep.We are discovering that this is the case. Clearly, whatever new face those Liberals thought they were voting for in the last election, they were not looking for the higher taxes and the deficits that the Liberal government believes is its mandate.Those constituents are, however, correct in at least one regard. Liberal promises are already being broken. The Liberals promised their tax measures would be revenue neutral, but now they have already admitted that they are not revenue neutral. They will in fact dig an additional deficit hole of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion annually. That is not my number. That comes from the Liberal Minister of Finance. That is his admission of how that Liberal promise is being broken. Unfortunately, that broken promise and others to come will only make deeper the hole into which Canada will be pushed.When I was House leader of the government, I was astounded by the remarkable discipline that our then prime minister and our team, working with two very hard-working finance ministers and in fact the whole team, applied to the question of fiscal discipline. The work to achieve a balanced budget overall was in the interests of all Canadians. When there is a chance to be in government and see how challenging it is to manage the finances and the economy, people see how narrow that margin of manoeuvre is. It is like driving a car down a winding mountain road. It takes only a small amount of recklessness or inattention before going in the ditch or worse.In Ontario, my constituents are waiting for that provincial tow truck to arrive. Their well-grounded fear often expressed to me is that the same crowd who drove Ontario into the ditch now wants to continue that sloppy ride on the federal scene, putting Canada off the solid fiscal road it was on. They know that at the end of the day it is ordinary Canadians like them who will have to pay for it all.It is often said that history is written by the victors. What is said less often is what we hear from the other side of the House today, and that is history being rewritten by the victors. They did it in the Soviet Union. They do it in North Korea. Now the Liberals are trying to do it in Canada. Fortunately, this is Canada and Canadians will not be fooled by this Liberal overreach. That is because Canadians have access to objective facts, objective facts from the Department of Finance and objective facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What are those facts? First, there was a $1.9 billion surplus in 2014-15, the last full fiscal year that the Conservatives were in government. Second, there was a $1 billion surplus over the last six months of the Conservative government, April to November, 2015.The question remains. Why, if the Liberals have promised to run deficits and they make a virtue of it, and there can be no doubt that Liberals see deficits as virtuous, are they so anxious to try to rewrite history, to go into those documents in the library at the finance department and cut out, with their scissors, any reference to past Conservative surpluses? I believe we all know the answer. Liberal deficits will be far higher than anyone thinks and they cannot bear to see the contrast with the Conservatives.The problem with the party that believes that deficits are a good thing, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said today, is that they just cannot get enough of a good thing. If people believe a small deficit is good, it is not long before they start believing that a bigger deficit is better and before we know it, a huge deficit is just awesome. That, however, is how Liberal thinking always works. Before we know it we will find that the budget does not actually balance itself. That is the path we are already on. It did not take long, but the spending and deficits that the Liberals promise and are now delivering will ensure that at the end of next month we will be solidly in the red politically and fiscally. We will have gone year over year from $2 billion in surplus to $3 billion in deficit.Many out there are critical of our Conservative government's focus on achieving a balanced budget. There can be no doubt that the hard work and discipline of running a tight fiscal ship is not a lot of fun and sometimes people want to have some fun, and some money can buy fun. However, there is much truth in the saying that money cannot buy happiness. While some may argue with it, and some may argue that money can buy at least some happiness, nobody can argue that drowning in debt will do anything other than bringing continual misery.As for my constituents, they would prefer responsible leaders refusing to have fun with their tax dollars to happy politicians spending away, burying Canadians under a mountain of misery, debt, and taxes. Balancing the budget was the right thing to do. A steady hand on the tiller is what Canadians need. Our steady hands, a disciplined prime minister, and our hard-working finance ministers steadied the Canadian ship through the stormy seas of the biggest global economic downturn of my lifetime. We came out the other side with a balanced budget, solid books, low taxes, and a rising tide that was lifting the fortunes of all Canadians. It is a pity that it has taken so little time for that ship of state to start springing leaks and taking on water.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal hidden agenda of higher taxes continues to unfold. In the last election, the Liberals did not tell families about new higher taxes on children's hockey games, piano lessons, small businesses, and student text books, but then families were hit with exactly these tax hikes. Now the heritage minister has told us that she is looking at all scenarios for a new tax on the Internet.Why does the minister want to tax hard-working, cash-strapped Canadians families just to give that money to her well-heeled friends in what she calls the entertainment ecosystem.
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Conservative government proposed to change the national anthem, we told Canadians about it in a throne speech and invited their feedback. We received it loud and clear. They told us to keep our hands off their national anthem. Stephen Harper listened to Canadians, and the proposal was dropped.Canadians have now told the new Prime Minister that they do not want the anthem changes that the Liberals are sneaking through. Will the Prime Minister show that he can listen to Canadians as much as Stephen Harper did, and drop this proposed change that Canadians oppose?
Madam Speaker, next year Canada observes the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but a funny thing happened on the way to the celebrations: the new government left out Confederation. When the minister introduced the themes for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Confederation was not there, not even the subject of Canadian history is a theme.Why the Liberal war on history?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal war on history is marching relentlessly forward. The most recent victim is a Canadian crusader for human rights, a pioneer in the global struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A champion of the little guy, he gave us our Canadian Bill of Rights. This is why the Government of Canada honoured his legacy by establishing the John Diefenbaker Defender of Human Rights and Freedom Award. The award has recognized individuals fighting for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, as it did with the Canada 150 medals, the Liberal government is in the process of abolishing that John Diefenbaker award. Why is there this Liberal war on history?
Madam Speaker, the Liberals always find a way to take care of their friends. As we have seen this week, no former Liberal cabinet minister is ever left behind. When I commented that it was inappropriate for the CBC to receive Canada 150 funding on top of its annual billion dollars from the taxpayers, the CBC's taxpayer-funded lobbyist corrected me. The Canada 150 money went to Ken Dryden, not the CBC. In fact, the CBC paid even more tax dollars to the former Liberal minister's project. Why is it that the only history that can make it past the Liberal war on history is someone's past history as a Liberal minister?
Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the wartime government of Robert Laird Borden introduced an income tax. Believe it or not, Liberals actually opposed the new taxbut wait: Liberals opposed the new income tax because it was not high enough.The Liberal whip of the day said that it would be a mere flea-bite, and complained that the new tax does not take from men enough to make it hurt.I give them full marks for consistency, but after 100 years of Liberals continually pressing to raise taxes, is it not time to stop making it hurt so much?