Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That's great.

Thank you very much.

There's another question I have. We've heard a lot—unfortunately, more in the media than anywhere else—about this new committee that's going to come forward to deal with some of the fallout of Bill C-51 and such. Is there anything you're able to say about that today to perhaps give us an idea of where that process is at?

Despite our pleas in the opposition to be a part of that process, as should be the case, we're hearing more about it in the media, as I said, than we are through official channels.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Can I stop you there? I apologize, but my time is limited. I know my friend Mr. Erskine-Smith wants to look at Bill C-51. Bill C-51 criminalized radicalization efforts, or the support for terrorism, online and on the Internet. Can that new tool, the criminalization of that sort of radicalization on the Internet, be used to prevent some of these situations?

Opposition Motion—Israel

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that we completely agree regarding what the Conservatives have been doing and what we have heard so far in the House. There is no problem there.

What bothers me, and I am not painting everyone with the same brush, is that the Liberals voted with the Conservatives on Bill C-51, which limits our freedom of speech. It bothers me that, despite what the minister is saying in the House, he is prepared to support a motion actually saying that we will condemn any attempts by organizations or groups to promote the BDS movement. I am sorry, but that goes against what the minister himself said in his speech.

He is saying one thing and doing another.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have a very bizarre motion in front of us today, to say the least. The first part rejects BDS, and I will come back to that afterwards. Then there is the second part that calls upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups, or individuals who promote the BDS movement both here at home and abroad.

I have a serious problem with that. It is not the role of Parliament to limit topics Canadians are allowed to debate, or to condemn opinions. The NDP does not support BDS. We think it detracts from the work of achieving real progress in the region.

Let me read a quote of Jack Layton's from 2010. He said, “...our party has never, nor would we ever deny that Israel not only has a right to exist but a right to exist in secure borders in a safe context”. Similarly with the BDS proposal, this is not party policy, and we do not support it.

It would be better to work positively with partners for peace on both sides to find a lasting solution for all. As I said, the motion is not about BDS; it is about the politics of division and freedom of opinion.

I would like to read the second part of the motion.

...call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.

We are not talking about attempts by extremists. As I just said a moment ago, I firmly believe that it is not the role of Parliament to prohibit anyone from debating ideas or having an opinion. Parliament's role is actually the exact opposite of that. Its role is to defend the freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of all Canadians, whether we agree with them or not.

If we were debating a motion here today that asked me to condemn any group that opposes a woman's right to choose, I would not support it, because it is not our role to condemn people for their opinion. Has it become a crime in Canada to have an opinion? The Conservatives would probably like that, but I do not believe that Parliament should head in that direction.

At the same time, I am not terribly surprised that the Conservatives have brought forward such an idea and such a motion. We have seen similar things from them in the past. Just think of Bill C-51. It is interesting to see that the Liberals, who are going to support this motion, also voted in favour of Bill C-51, which limits our freedom of expression.

The Conservatives are well known for their use of gag orders. Any time the opposition disagreed with their position, they would impose a gag order. They muzzled bureaucrats and scientists, and limited access to information. They kept journalists from doing their job properly, even though that is one of the tenets of our democracy.

They harassed and intimidated a range of civil society organizations, particularly through the Canada Revenue Agency, organizations whose biggest crime was not to agree with the government's policies. This reminds me of George Orwell. What is this world coming to when here in Canada we are attacking the fundamental right to disagree?

Ironically, the Conservatives are the ones who introduced private members' bills to undermine our protections from the hate speech that often targets cultural minorities and those with different sexual orientation. It is rather odd.

This motion is typical of the Conservatives in that it seeks to muzzle those with whom they disagree. Personally, I reject that. In the words of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

There are some who think this is a good idea, but I do not necessarily agree. I think we must focus our efforts on working with partners for peace, from both sides, to come up with a just, lasting, and equitable solution for the well-being of everyone. However, there are people who have other ideas. There are some in Israel and some in my own riding. They know we disagree, but we can talk about it. Discussion and dialogue are the road to moving forward with these thorny issues.

It is very sad to see the Conservatives playing politics with such an issue. I do agree with what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. They are obviously playing the politics of division again, and that type of policy does not help anyone. It does not help our friends. They have done that so often.

The result of the approach of the Conservatives in the Middle East, in particular, for years is that Canada lost its reputation and it was damaged. Then Canada lost its ability to act as an honest broker and to help our friends, including Israel. Canada has no power and no influence in the region because it has lost its credibility, with too many actors who want to be agents for change and peace and have to be part of the process. The Conservatives have utterly cut off our bridges.

Yes, we must play a positive role, but we will not play a positive role if we adopt politics of interdiction and shutting up debate. Let me give a quote that I quite like and that I endorse:

I am a Canadian...free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

This was said by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, and I think he would be very sad.

If he could see what the Conservatives are trying to do here today, he would turn in his grave.

Instead of creating even more division, let us work together on finding positive solutions to this rather difficult situation and let us stand up to defend our values, our rights, and our freedoms, including the right to free speech and the right to have an opinion. It is for that last right that I will say no to this motion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, a great debate in the House would have been, how do we find peace in Israel and Palestine, how we do the rebuilding in Gaza, and how do meet the UN resolution? However, that is not what we are debating. What we are debating today is a push by the Conservatives to try to divide Canadians and use Parliament to deny and condemn individuals for using their right to dissent.

I ask my hon. colleague, coming from the party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, why he would stand with the Conservatives and condemn individuals. I ask him that because it is what the member is voting for. He can say whatever he wants to attack the Conservatives, but he is taking the same position he took on Bill C-51, because the Liberals are afraid of the Conservative rhetorical machine, and they will not stand up for the individual rights of Canadians to dissent.

The issue here is not about defining Israel and Palestine, which is a good debate that we should have, and we need that debate within the House. The question that has been put here is about the condemnation of individuals and organizations, including church people, teachers, and all manner of people. Whether the member agrees with them or not, it is the role of parliamentarians to stand up for individual rights.

I am absolutely shocked that the member would stand with the Conservatives on a motion that specifically calls upon us to condemn individuals for their right to dissent.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for following precedent and bringing this important issue to the House of Commons for debate and a vote.

Almost a year ago, the previous government asked this chamber to debate an extension of Canada's military combat mission in Iraq.

I want to reiterate now something I said then.

Approving a motion that asks our brave women and men in uniform to risk their lives overseas is the most important decision we can make. It is a responsibility we undertake with the utmost seriousness and with the greatest respect for those who serve our country. We owe them, and their families, a respectful debate and careful consideration of the issues before us.

The threat that Daesh poses to global peace and security and the atrocities it has been committing against civilians cannot be underestimated. Its despicable acts have displaced 2.5 million civilians in Iraq alone. Because of Daesh, over five million people need humanitarian assistance today. That terrorist group has killed thousands of people, many of them brutally slaughtered in unimaginable ways.

The New Democrats have long said that Canada has an important role to play in eliminating this threat, this scourge. We firmly believe that Canada can and must do more to alleviate the suffering of the civilians caught in the middle of this conflict. In fact, we have said repeatedly that first and foremost, Canada needs to block the terrorist group's access to weapons, funds, and foreign fighters. Unfortunately, the current plan does not do any of that. The Liberal plan proposes prolonging a front-line combat mission, and no one knows for how long, while offering no answers to some key questions. To be very clear, this is definitely a combat mission.

While we agree that Canada can be more effective in addressing the threat posed by ISIS, let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is proposing. This is indeed an expansion and an enlargement of Canada's military mission in Iraq, and it is also clearly a combat mission.

During the election, the Liberals promised Canadians that they would end the Conservative government's mission. They said that we “need a clearer line between combat and non combat”. Canadians have had a good example of the lack of clarity over the past couple of days. Every time we have asked the Prime Minister whether this is a combat mission, he has twisted, turned, and done everything he could to avoid even using the word. However, the reality is that their new mission actually blurs these lines even more.

By replacing planes in the sky with boots on the ground, the government is placing Canadian Forces personnel deeper into front-line combat. The Liberals are planning to triple the size of Canada's train, advise and assist mission. However, let us be clear. This is not classroom training. We already know that Canadian Forces involved in training have ended up exchanging fire with ISIS militants on the front lines.

What exactly will this tripling of training mean for Canadian Forces? What proportion of our troops will be on the front lines? When and with what caveats? Will Canadians continue painting targets for coalition bombing? What kind of transport will we be doing in theatre? How will the weapons we provide to Kurdish forces be tracked and their use monitored? Does our training include human rights and international law components? When will our participation end? Critically, what does success look like for this mission? What is the end game? These and many more questions remain unanswered, but last week, the chief of the defence staff was clear about one thing, there will be more risk to Canadian soldiers under this new mandate.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Vance, said that putting more people on the ground in a dangerous place is “riskier overall”. Those were his words.

We can also refer to the government's own backgrounder on this important issue. The government's backgrounder says that training will take place in a battlefield context. That is right. The government's own backgrounder says, and I quote, “in a battlefield context”.

It also says that the mission will examine ways to enhance in-theatre tactical transport.

Last year, the tragic death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all of the serious risk involved in this kind of on-the-ground training mission. Less than a year ago, when the current Prime Minister was on the opposition benches, he said, and I quote:

...when we deploy the Canadian Forces, especially into combat operations, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada.

Here is something else he said when he was in opposition:

The government wants to increase Canada’s participation in a vague and possibly endless combat mission. We cannot support this proposal.

That is what he said when he was in opposition, but now that he is in power, he is making the same mistakes. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is telling us today.

Just like the bombing mission, this mission is a de facto combat mission, one that does not have an end date and fewer criteria for establishing what constitutes success and, therefore, the end of the mission. The Prime Minister is proposing a never-ending mission, which is exactly what he criticized last year.

If the members of the House recall, this mission began with a few dozen soldiers providing training. Oddly enough it resembles the start of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The Liberals are asking the House to give them a blank cheque with respect to a mission that has not been authorized by either the United Nations or NATO and that has no exit strategy.

We obviously do not agree with that. What is interesting, and this needs to be pointed out, is that one year ago the Liberals said that they too did not agree with that.

We cannot agree to this new expanded combat mission, but there is another way forward. When it comes to the fight against ISIS, it is simply not enough to say that we have to do something. We need to ask ourselves what the right thing to do is, and what is the most effective thing that Canada can do.

First, Canada should lead efforts to prevent the flow of weapons and resources to ISIS, starting by signing and ratifying the Arms Trade Treaty, which is another thing the Liberals have promised but still have not done. If fully implemented, the treaty will deprive some of the world's most brutal actors of access to weapons. Canada remains, sadly, the only member of NATO not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty, and we in the NDP find this totally unacceptable.

Second, Canada should partner with domestic faith communities to counter radicalization, which we all know is a primary source of foreign fighters going to join Daesh. We can and should lead the way in developing a strong campaign of counter-extremist messaging, exposing the brutality of ISIS, and the utter lack of any religious basis for its atrocities. ISIS is not Islam.

Many of our allies have recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to countering and discouraging radicalization at the community level: the United States, France, and Germany to name a few. Municipalities are even acting. Montreal now has an effective model. Here at home we have also seen families of young people who have been radicalized and left to fight in Syria pleading for this kind of help from government.

In addition to Bill C-51's attack on our rights and freedoms, it utterly failed to respond to the need for a Canadian de-radicalization strategy. The Liberals made the unforgivable error of supporting Bill C-51 at the time, but they must not compound that mistake by failing to address radicalization now.

Third, Canada must also step up our role in the fight against terrorist financing. In Turkey last November, the Prime Minister signed a joint G20 statement committing Canada to tackling “the financing channels of terrorism”. Yet the fact remains that between 2001 and 2015, Canada has had only one single successful conviction for terrorist financing. More needs to be done here at home and with our international partners to cut off the supply of oil funds that ISIS relies on to fund its terrorist activities.

Finally, and most important, we must continue to do more to increase humanitarian support for millions of civilians who are now victims in this conflict. From the beginning, the New Democrats have urged the government to boost aid in the broader region where there would be an immediate life-saving impact. Our NATO ally, Turkey, has repeatedly asked Canada to do more to help the millions of refugees flooding its borders. We should also be assisting in areas of Canadian expertise, like combatting sexual violence, protecting minorities, reintegration, and helping to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

Last month, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Iraq underscored the importance of providing support for the Iraqi government's reconstruction and stabilization efforts in regions liberated from Daesh. The priority is to rebuild these communities so that civilians can return in safety and with dignity. This will also have long-term benefits.

It is a tragedy that the previous government missed the opportunity to recognize the importance of strengthening institutions, developing democracy and giving priority to humanitarian aid in order to save lives in Iraq and the region.

It is important that the Prime Minister is undertaking to invest in humanitarian aid, but it is also important that the humanitarian aid and military objectives remain separate in order to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers on the ground.

Finally, we cannot overlook the broader context of this conflict. Ignoring the broader context would be a terrible mistake. Daesh managed to set up in Iraq and Syria precisely because those countries do not have stable, well-established governments that can maintain peace and security. In Syria, the UN's fragile ceasefire reached on February 12 to allow humanitarian workers to reach the most vulnerable is in jeopardy because of the Russian bombing in support of the bloodthirsty dictator Bashar al-Assad. In the meantime, nearly 19,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in 21 months. That is why we believe that Canada should put all its diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resources into trying to establish lasting peace in the region.

The overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground will not be solved by force alone. It also demands that Canada put forward a comprehensive multi-faceted intervention that clearly defines success.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently said, “Over the longer-term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not the power of missiles – it is the [power] of inclusion.” That is Canada's strength. That is why we in the NDP cannot support the Liberal's expanded military combat mission in Iraq.

Opposition Motion—Pay Equity

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am happy to rise in the House today in support of our motion by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, it pains me to think that we are in the year 2016 and are still calling for the government to support legislation that ensures equal pay for women.

It is fitting that we are presenting this motion on Groundhog Day, because it is the same old story. Like the movie, small details, like whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal in power, may change, but the fundamental issue remains the same. We are still living in a country where women have not achieved pay equity, where we are still calling for justice, and where we are still waiting.

Equal pay for women is so achievable. It is within our grasp, if only our elected officials in government were to actually put the issue on the table. If only the Liberal governments under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin had used their 13 years in power to implement all, and not just a small portion, of the Pay Equity Commission's recommendations. If only the member for Vancouver Centre, who was the secretary of state for the status of women in 1997, had not eliminated program funding for women's organizations, starting in the 1998-99 fiscal year, dealing them a crippling blow. If only a previous Liberal government had not cut funding for women's organizations by more than 25% over the 1990s. If only they had not disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which conducted research on a wide range of issues affecting women. If only they had not eliminated the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which gave organizations of women, people of colour, and people living with disabilities a small voice in training policy. If only the Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, had not held their noses with one hand and in the next breath said to the caucus that they would unanimously support the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, a poison pill couched in the Conservatives' omnibus Bill C-10, placing restrictions on arbitrating gender-based pay equity complaints in the federal public service.

Pay equity is a right. Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976 that makes pay equity a right. Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981, which recognizes women's right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.

Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.

That makes pay equity a right. That right, just as the right to personal liberty and freedom of expression, bargained away by the Liberal support of Bill C-51 in the last Parliament, cannot be bargained away in the interests of political expediency.

Even though it is 2016, pay equity has not made it onto the agenda for real change put forward by the government. It has not surfaced as an issue for the government. Even when the opportunity presented itself, the Prime Minister, in an effort to achieve gender balance in his cabinet, assigned women the lower-paid roles of junior ministers. That is not pay equity. The Liberal platform makes no reference to pay equity, and neither does the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister for the Status of Women.

If only we did not have to keep making this argument over and over again. It is Groundhog Day 2016, and I stand here with the only effective opposition in the House calling for fairness, calling for equity, calling for justice, calling for equal pay for women.

Women receive, on average, wages that are 23% lower than men for doing the same work. However, it is not just equal wages for equal work that will create equity. Economic security for women hinges on some key and simple elements, such as access to child care and access to affordable housing as well as the ability to earn a decent living.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the need for affordable housing in Canada. The first step toward economic security for any person is a safe place to live. Despite this, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing in 1996. Liberal and Conservative governments alike have failed to create universal, accessible, and affordable child care in this country. The combination of these factors creates a crisis of pay inequity for Canadian women, and because pay inequity contributes to poverty, it has devastating health and social consequences for children.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence, which can affect a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. The choice between abuse and poverty is one no person should ever have to make.

It is also true that women bring home lower paycheques and because of that receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women live hand-to-mouth until the end of their lives. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the consequences of these pay inequities follow workers throughout their lives, reducing their lifetime earnings and retirement income. In Canada, 42% of elderly women are poor, and the median income of retired women is almost half that of older men.

Canada ranks 30th out of 34 OECD countries for wage equity. Even in predominantly female occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and administration, women earn less than men. The wage gap for women working full time has become worse over the past three years for which there are data. The wage gap actually gets bigger for aboriginal, racialized, and immigrant women with university degrees. Women aged 45 to 54 earn, on average, $23,600 less than men doing the same work.

Female MBA grads fare worse than men from the start. They are not only likely to start out at a lower job level, they are also offered fewer career-accelerating work experiences and fewer international postings.

If an appeal for equity based in the interest of social justice and human rights is not enough of an argument, we in the effective New Democratic opposition can appeal to plain and common fiscal sense. Quite simply put, pay equity makes for a healthier economy.

In Canada, RBC estimates that closing the gap in participation rates over the next two decades would boost GDP by 4% in 2032. The New Democrat proposal in today's motion calls upon the government to:

recognize pay equity as a right; ...implement the recommendations of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report and restore the right to pay equity in the public service which was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009....

Again, that was with the support of the Liberals.

The motion also calls on the government to appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and propose proactive legislation.

In the words of Rosemary Brown, and these words ring truer than ever in this instance: “Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it”.

Achieving pay equity for Canadian women once and for all is good for everyone. We cannot afford inequity. Let us get off this Groundhog Day merry-go-round of ignorance and injustice once and for all. Let us do what is right for Canada, for women, for their families, and for the children of the future.

New Democrats want to work with the new government to do precisely that. Let us get started. Let us get started by approving this motion and making sure that this is the last Groundhog Day on which we talk about the inequity that too many women face in this country.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome. I will share my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

I am very happy today to make my maiden speech in this Parliament, to be back in the House, and to represent once again the people of Beloeil—Chambly. I want to take the time to thank them for placing their trust in me once again.

Since this is my first speech, I would like to take a moment to say what a great honour it was to represent the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, the two municipalities that were removed from my constituency in the last redistribution process. Since Saint-Basile is where I live, I am heartsick when I walk around the town and talk with people. However, I always reassure them that I will ensure that the new member does his job well, because it seems he is my member too, now.

Even though those two municipalities are no longer in my riding, the issues are the same. I will come back to this, but first I would like to thank a few people, including my team. In federal politics, it is rare to keep the same team for four years. When MPs are re-elected, it is mainly because they represented their constituents well, but MPs cannot do the work alone. I would therefore like to thank Francine, Cédric, Suzanne and Sébastien, who have been with me from the beginning of this adventure and who have accomplished the herculean task of representing me in the community and ensuring that people received the services they were entitled to. The work they do is the reason that I am still here today and that some of them are still working for me.

I would also like to thank the team that supported me during the campaign. We knock on plenty of doors, but there are people, candidates and outgoing MPs, who spend a lot of time with us and who give us lots of great ideas. I would especially like to thank Jacques, Guillaume and Francine, who spent so much time with me on the streets of my riding.

I want to talk now about the throne speech, which is the subject of today's debate. Although we are pleased with the change in tone, I must say that the previous government set the bar rather low. Although we have noticed greater openness and a change in tone, that is not enough. We also need to see new measures, and that is unfortunately where I see certain shortcomings.

Consider for example the issue of climate change and the environment, an issue that was raised over and over during the election campaign. I would even say that that will be one of the most urgent issues in the coming years, not only for Quebec and Canada, but for the entire world. To tackle this issue, we need to set targets. However, despite the work done in Paris, those targets are a far cry from what we are hearing from this government. The Liberals have not set any specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is very disappointing, especially since the throne speech would have been the perfect opportunity to begin a real shift away from what the Conservatives did.

When we talk about the environment, we are not just talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also talking about environmental assessments, which is another hot topic. We are being forced to accept the government's position on this, and that is to uphold the system that was dismantled by the Conservative government over the past few years, especially the past four years. This is unacceptable. That system does not work. It has to be reviewed and modernized. It did not even take into consideration the impact various resource extraction projects would have on climate change.

Change is needed if we really want our country to have a 21st-century system that satisfies Canadians and truly assesses the impact of projects on our environment in order to protect it. Despite the government's fine words, that change does not seem to be on the horizon. We will continue to push the government on this, because it is an urgent matter.

Speaking of urgent matters that were not mentioned in the throne speech, there was nothing about agriculture, despite the fact that supply management was a major campaign issue.

The government is prepared to sign an agreement that the Conservative government negotiated at the eleventh hour, in the middle of an election campaign. That agreement poses a serious threat to the supply management system, which guarantees the prosperity of our communities and our farmers, who provide us with healthy food and drive our local economy. That is very worrisome.

It is especially worrisome because farmers have lived with uncertainty for 10 years. They were constantly told by MPs that they should not worry and that the MPs would protect the supply management system. However, during the negotiations, it seemed that everything was on the table. The Liberal government must put a stop to such action, but that does not seem to be its intention.

Once again, this file was not mentioned in the throne speech. We must continue to push the government to ensure that it immediately changes direction. It is very urgent, and we must do so in the coming days, weeks and months, especially in light of the trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before us.

I want to talk about other things that were missing from the throne speech or other disappointments. Bill C-51 is another file on which the Liberals followed the Conservatives' lead in the previous Parliament. That was one of the greatest debates in the House in the 41st Parliament, and may have been the greatest one I ever I participated in. The topic itself was very troubling.

As the Conservatives spread fear, our rights and freedoms were being rolled back, which we thought was unacceptable. Despite the Liberals' rhetoric and their claims that they were against Bill C-51, they voted in favour of the bill and committed to making changes that would address a lot of their concerns. However, despite those promises, once again, we did not hear a single word about this bill in the throne speech.

The process so far has not been very comforting. For example, the government has not been open to the idea of having opposition parties participate in the parliamentary committee that will ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, will be transparent enough to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In closing, I would like to say that the Liberals' supposed openness to the middle class about the income tax rate is yet another disappointment. People who earn less than $45,000 will not see a penny of the Liberal Party's tax cuts. Those who will benefit the most are the ones who probably need it the least. That is very worrisome.

The NDP put forward a very simple proposal, but unfortunately, the government rejected our amendment, which would have broadened those measures to truly help the middle class.

When the government cuts taxes, it has to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share start doing so. I am thinking of big corporations whose taxes went down for years under one Liberal or Conservative government after another. The tax rate for big corporations is now among the lowest in the world.

We see no economic benefit from that. No jobs are being created. Some companies whose tax rates went down even left Canada, and people were left to pick up the pieces. That is very disappointing.

In closing, the throne speech is an opportunity for the government to state its priorities, and I would simply like to reiterate my short-term priorities.

I should mention that the Liberal candidate in my riding shared these same priorities during the election campaign. I therefore hope to have the government's support for these measures.

We want to resolve the conflict between the federal government and the City of Chambly regarding the payments in lieu of taxes once and for all. The federal government owes the City of Chambly $500,000. We also want to resolve the issue of boating safety once and for all by protecting the shores of the Richelieu River and keeping boaters safe. We also want to talk about rail safety.

We asked a question during question period today, and we have yet to see the transparency we were promised.

There is a lot of work to do, and I am more than happy to continue doing it. I know that my colleagues and I will do everything we can to hold the government accountable and ensure that it acts in the best interests of all Canadians.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-51 is a huge concern across my riding. People are very passionate about it and have protested against it. I will stand here in the House and make sure that something is done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly grateful to my colleague from North Island—Powell River for raising the issue of Bill C-51 as a critical issue for this Parliament to work on. She made excellent points: this legislation is an invasion of privacy and civil liberties. It is far worse than that. Bill C-51 actually makes Canadians less safe because it puts into concrete those very things that we were warned about in the commission of inquiry into the Air India disaster and terrorist attack on this soil. We have been warned not to approve systems that allow intelligence agencies to operate without talking to each other.

I would like to ask for her comments on that aspect of Bill C-51.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on his excellent first speech in the House. It is great to work with such a talented parliamentarian.

I will start by thanking my constituents for putting their trust in me. I am grateful for the privilege of representing North Island—Powell River. I, like many of my fellow members, know that my riding is the most beautiful in all of the country.

I also take this opportunity to thank my family, which has shown such support for me in following my passion to this role. If it were not for Henry, Kai, Rebecca and Darren's support, I would certainly not be here today.

The riding I represent is the third largest in British Columbia. It includes North Vancouver Island and goes over to the mainland to Powell River and up part of the coast. A riding made of coastal communities, access is often by multiple ferries and some communities only by boat or float plane. It is one of the most amazing and challenging ridings to travel. It is also one of great diversity and includes over 20 Indigenous communities that span Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth and Coast Salish territories.

Across my riding there are many communities, the largest being over 30,000 and the smallest comprised of just a small handful of people. Whether it be members living in Lund, Comox, Woss, Campbell River, Cortes Island, Port Hardy, Port Alice, and the many other communities of the riding I have the privilege to represent, the people are hard-working, dedicated to their communities and proud of the region we share.

Over the next four years in Parliament, I will work hard in my riding to be a strong voice for the people of my riding to Ottawa. North Island—Powell River has faced multiple challenges in the changing Canadian economy. The history of our region is built from resource-based economies: fishing, mining and forestry. The beauty of our region also welcomes tourists from across the country and around the world.

Through the changing global economy, the people in these communities have persevered. Whether it was municipalities and regional districts working toward creative solutions, one parent choosing to travel far away for work so the family could remain, or whether it was people creating small businesses, exploring new industries and creating innovative solutions with historic industries, the people of North Island—Powell River have rallied around one another. Through good times and hard times, the people of my riding know that we are all in this together. We take care of one another and work collaboratively to create long-term solutions. It is no wonder I am proud to stand here representing the riding in which I live.

North Island—Powell River has seen a decrease of good paying jobs and an increasing amount of people struggling to get ahead. Single people are stretching to afford housing and increasingly have to live in overcrowded situations. Child poverty is a major concern and too many children are going to school hungry. Too many parents are worried about where their next meal will come from. These are stories of families that have a parent or parents working more than one job and often more than two jobs. The cost of housing, child care, food and the basics of everyday life are adding up and it is becoming increasingly hard.

It is these hard-working people who are the backbone of our country and their continued struggle shows a lack of focused attention to this riding and to many of the small and rural communities across Canada which have been left behind.

My riding wants to see tax cuts that benefit the most vulnerable of the country, a concrete housing strategy, to see the leadership of a $15 federal minimum wage, as too many Canadians are working full time and living below the poverty line. It is time to see tax dollars stop leaving the country through stock option loopholes and see that money being invested into preventing child poverty in our country. They are our future and we must support them.

In North Island—Powell River health care is a growing concern. Many of our communities struggle to secure family doctors and health care professionals. With long distances and multiple ferries, many of my constituents struggle to access the basic services they require.

We are looking to hear a commitment to cancelling the former government's plan to cut funding to health care and to see increased communication across federal and provincial governments to address the issues that are unique to small and remote communities in our country.

Seniors are very concerned about health care as well. They face challenges of affording prescriptions and in accessing the services they need in their community. Many of the seniors in my riding are feeling pressured to move to larger centres. As one constituent said to me, “If I move, who will help me? I have lived in this community for over 40 years, paid my taxes and worked hard. If I moved, I would be completely alone.”

My constituents are relying on me to work towards a strategy for seniors, a coordinated one that supports seniors in the care they need at home, in the hospital, in long-term care facilities through to palliative care. The life of seniors is becoming increasingly hard and poverty for this group is growing in my riding. It is time that there is an increase to the guaranteed income supplement to help lift many seniors from poverty and to support them in a way that they have supported this country.

The many indigenous communities across my riding are asking me questions. As one elder, Rupert Wilson, said to me, “Nation to nation, show me what that really means.” Across Canada we know that it is time to accept ownership of a history with indigenous people that is painful.

The process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission must be used to increase understanding across Canada of the history of colonization and residential schools. To move forward toward reconciliation, it is time to commit to clarity on funding for first nation education. In North Island—Powell River, the history of the relationship between government and the communities has not been one that has built trust.

The lack of discussion in the House on Bill C-51 has not helped to increase this trust either. Both indigenous and non-indigenous communities are sharing concerns about the lack of commitment to action in this area. This bill must be reversed as it is an invasion of privacy and civil liberties.

In a riding full of raw nature, living with the changing tides of the ocean and the beauty of the forest, my constituents are concerned about the environment. Many people who have worked for years in resource industries are close watchers of the environment around them and they are concerned. The impacts of climate change are visible in our riding. We watch the amount of snow on the mountains in the summer, the number of salmon that return up the rivers, and the noticeable warming of the ocean. Young people have stopped me in the street to share concerns about the environment. They know that this is what they will inherit.

People in my riding know that the economy and the environment can and must work together. Practical, clear, and firm targets are important to us. It is time that Canada became a leader again in addressing climate change. It is time to set hard targets and meet them, to have an environmental assessment process that is rigorous and includes meaningful consultation with first nations, and a process to connect with the communities that will be impacted.

I am very proud to stand here as the voice of North Island—Powell River, and I will be a voice that represents the people I serve.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to notify you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

Although this is not the first time I have spoken in this honourable House, it is my first official speech as I take my turn in participating in the debate on the reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to start by thanking the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for the trust and responsibility they have placed on my shoulders. It is truly an honour to stand here in our nation's Parliament and represent my community. I will work hard during the course of this 42nd Parliament to make sure my riding has the federal representation it deserves.

I would also like to take time to acknowledge my family and my friends. One year ago today, I was nominated as the NDP candidate, and it was their love and support that kept me going through what seemed to be a never-ending campaign year.

I come to the House as a member of the progressive opposition, the New Democratic Party, where I will be constructively holding to account the new Liberal government to ensure it follows through on its promises to Canadians. As our former leader, Jack Layton, once said:

I've always favoured proposition over opposition. But we will oppose the government when it's off track...

We'll support positive suggestions that we'll bring forward and support the government when it's making progress.

The Liberals were given their governing mandate based on ambitious commitments, and I sincerely hope they will fulfill them. The Speech from the Throne expanded on some of these commitments. I certainly appreciated seeing the references to first nations, the Canada pension plan, post-secondary education, employment insurance, and climate change.

The leader of the NDP's subamendment to the reply to the Speech from the Throne included proposals to present realistic, structured, and concrete changes to benefit some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, such as increasing the guaranteed income supplement, reducing taxes on the first income tax bracket, introducing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, and reforming the employment insurance program. While it is unfortunate that the House voted against the subamendment, I am proud of our leader for carrying on the tradition of offering proposals that would truly help our fellow Canadians.

My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford covers 4,700 square kilometres of spectacular Vancouver Island in beautiful British Columbia. It is home to ancient first nations cultures, including the Pacheedaht and the Ditidaht on the west coast, the Malahat to the south, the HalaIt, Penelakut, and the Chemainus to the north, and the largest band in British Columbia, Cowichan Tribes.

Many of these first nation communities saw record turnouts during the election because they were inspired to bring about much-needed change to our federal government. During the election, the Liberals made specific promises toward a new nation-to-nation relationship and substantial investment in first nations education and child and family services. Repairing our relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples and working toward true reconciliation must be a priority for the government, and it is something that we in the NDP will be pushing for in the coming months.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the wonderful communities that make up my riding: Chemainus, Crofton, the District of North Cowichan, the city of Duncan, the town of Lake Cowichan, Port Renfrew, Cowichan Bay, Cobble Hill, Shawnigan Lake, Mill Bay, the District of Highlands, and the city of Langford. Each of these places has a proud history and is filled with wonderful people who give true meaning to the word "community".

There are many issues that are extremely important to the constituents of my riding. Many of the mills on Vancouver Island have been closing down, and the families that depend on them for jobs have suffered because of the continuing increase in the export of raw logs. We need to see an investment and innovation in value-added manufacturing for our wood sector to make sure good jobs stay in local communities.

With respect to climate change, we are already seeing the effects in my riding, with summer droughts and low snow packs that are seriously affecting local rivers. In particular, the Cowichan River dropped to dangerously low flow rates, endangering the salmon spawning runs and risking the shutdown of the local Catalyst pulp mill in Crofton.

I will be pressing the new government for investment to raise the weir in Lake Cowichan so that our community can hold back more water supply for the Cowichan River during these summer droughts.

The time for talk is over. We need serious and firm emission reduction targets to combat climate change, and we need a plan to get us there.

Continuing on the theme of water, the community of Shawnigan Lake is rallying against a contaminated soil dump that threatens its watershed. Although it is the provincial government that is responsible for the granting of the permit, I would like to see the federal government take a leadership role in protecting our water resources, as there are serious risks to fish and fish habitat that are supposed to be protected under the federal Fisheries Act.

Agriculture and food security are two issues also of great importance to the residents of my riding. The Cowichan Valley is blessed with a beautiful climate that is roughly translated as “the warm land” in the Hul'qumi'num language, and there is a very real connection between local farmers, the food they produce, and consumers. Over the last several years, the NDP has developed a pan-Canadian food strategy, “from farm to fork”, and I know that my constituents would certainly like to see the government work on the recommendations of this strategy.

Many of my constituents also actively campaigned against the previous government's Bill C-51, and sadly, there has been no indication from the Liberal government on repealing this horrendous Conservative legislation. More than 100 of Canada's brightest legal experts from institutions across the country expressed their deep concern about Bill C-51. They called it a dangerous piece of legislation in terms of its potential impacts on the rule of law, constitutionally and internationally protected rights, and the health of Canada's democracy.

In the south end of my riding, the city of Langford is home to many young families who cannot afford to live in Victoria. Not only are they struggling with high housing costs, but many are juggling the need to find work with finding adequate child care. It is not just the high costs of child care but the lack of available spots. Unfortunately, the Liberal child benefit does nothing to address the lack of child care spots in this country.

I am honoured to stand here as the NDP's critic for seniors' issues. The population of seniors is expected to grow significantly over the next two decades, and we urgently need a plan in place to meet their needs and ensure that everyone can age with dignity. A national strategy on aging, one that covers health care, home-based and hospice palliative care, affordable housing, financial security, and quality of life, is needed for Canada's seniors.

On a final note, I would like to take the time to acknowledge that it is Robbie Burns Day here in Canada and that Canadians all across the country will be celebrating. Burns was a friend of the underdog and the oppressed in every form, and his poetry was drawn from the everyday experiences of the common person. His poem about a mouse whose home was unwittingly destroyed played a part in shaping speeches given by Canadian social democratic politicians, including our first leader, the great Tommy Douglas. The tale of Mouseland that Tommy Douglas made famous was the story of electing people from the common folk to represent their interests instead of a government filled with people who were there simply to be in power.

Yes, there are many things that the Liberals have promised, and I will be here with my colleagues fighting every day to hold them to account. New Democrats will also champion our vision, a vision of a Canada without inequality. We are a social democratic party that believes that seniors must be taken care of and that we can offer a better future for our children. We will fight for reconciliation with our indigenous peoples and work to protect our environment. My constituents can count on me to stand up for their interests and to work with them in building a better Canada. I know I have the great support of my hon. colleagues in the House, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Speech from the Throne.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the voters in the riding of Rivière-du-Nord for placing their trust in me during the last election. During my time in office, I will represent them with humility, wisdom and dedication.

I would also like to thank the hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers who decided to put their faith in the Bloc Québécois to speak on their behalf in the House.

The Bloc Québécois is Quebec's party. Our purpose and our primary function here in the House is to stand up for Quebeckers' interests and values. We have a solid team made up of men and women of conviction. Our team will do a great job of representing the thousands of voters who chose to put their faith in our party and who believe in our mission: to fight for Quebec's independence and champion the interests of the Quebec nation.

Since its creation, our party has always acted responsibly in the work it does. Over the years, successive governments have been able to rely on our support when their policies served the interests of Quebec. Our party has also vigorously objected, and rightfully so, any time the rights of Quebeckers have been violated or ignored. For instance, the Bloc Québécois supported Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's work to create the now-defunct long gun registry. We did the same thing when it came time to ratify the Kyoto protocol in order to fight climate change.

We also supported the same Prime Minister in introducing same-sex marriage and imposing a moratorium on the criminalization of cannabis. However, governments that ignored Quebec or abused the rights of Quebeckers remember the opposition work of the Bloc Québécois.

I am sure that no one in this House is proud of the notorious sponsorship scandal. In any case, it was because of the hard, tireless work of the Bloc Québécois and its members that Quebec and the rest of Canada learned of the extent of the corruption surrounding the government of the day.

Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers have long put their trust in the Bloc Québécois because doing so is good not only for Quebec, but also for democracy. The reasons are clear. First, making Quebec a country is still on the table. I can assure everyone listening that our caucus' commitment to the cause remains unwavering. Another reason we are still in the House is that the Bloc Québécois has always been beyond reproach and devoted to its work.

The Bloc Québécois is not a conventional opposition party. We do not oppose something simply because we are in the opposition. That would serve no purpose or make any sense and, as such, would be disrespectful to those who gave us our mandate. The Bloc Québécois stands up for the interests of Quebec. Until Quebec becomes a country it is critical that its choices are respected. Provided the federal government's decisions reflect such respect then the Bloc Québécois will support the government's policies. One day Quebec will collaborate with Canada, side by side within the community of nations.

We watched the sad spectacle put on by the previous government for far too long. The rights of parliamentarians were violated for nearly a decade. The House of Commons was reduced to playing a supporting role to a prime minister who did not believe in parliamentary work. The public service, scientists, women and workers were muzzled and treated with disdain, and the Conservative government basically ignored the environment, when the time has long since passed for critical action on climate change.

The Conservative government worked to achieve a single goal: to use its power to remain in power. A change in direction and tone was needed. In that regard, all the parties that ran against the Conservatives in the last election can congratulate themselves for expressing and doing something about Canadians' frustration and dissatisfaction with that government by removing it from power. That is why we commended the Prime Minister's announcement in the throne speech of his intention to return to a parliamentary tradition where respect for the opposition is a given.

There is no democracy without the work of a real opposition. The Bloc Québécois supports a number of the objectives set out by the Prime Minister. We will support some of those initiatives in keeping with our tradition of working together constructively.

First of all, we are thrilled to see that the government shares our concerns about climate change. However, we are asking that the efforts to combat climate change that Quebec has been making for a long time now be taken into account in the plan that the government will be putting forward in this regard.

That being said, all states must do their part, and there is a consensus in the scientific community to that effect. Even former U.S. vice-president Al Gore recently pointed out the major efforts Quebec has made to help combat climate change. The government cannot ignore that fact. If the government wants our support, it needs a plan that takes into account the leading-edge work that the Quebec nation has done to date.

The same is true for the matter of end-of-life care. We believe that Canada must enter into an informed and thorough debate on this issue, similar to that undertaken by the Quebec National Assembly.

However, Quebec cannot be penalized for having led the way in this area. On the contrary, we believe that the government must acknowledge Quebec's invaluable contribution, get the rest of Canada up to speed and adjust the targets for each province based on the efforts made since 1990 and the Kyoto accord.

In his speech, the Prime Minister claims that he intends to strengthen the employment insurance system. We support that. We believe it is high time that employment insurance truly was an insurance program and not a tax on labour. At present this is not the case, as EI seems to be a deficit reduction tax.

For the past 20 years, the EI fund has been ransacked time and again. If the Prime Minister is serious about strengthening the program, he must agree to make the fund truly independent. We are still adding up the billions of dollars that have been looted from this fund since 1996.

It is time to put a stop to that practice and to ensure that workers have real support when they lose their jobs. There is currently no indication that the Prime Minister intends to solve this problem once and for all. We are asking him to do so.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers' rights. We urge the Prime Minister to listen to our proposals if he truly wants to find appropriate, sustainable solutions for employment insurance.

Health is another very important issue. The Prime Minister has told us that he plans on talking to the provinces to reach a new agreement. Again, we have some conditions. Ottawa will have to increase federal health funding by 6% until 25% of Quebec's system costs are covered. Ottawa must also consider that our population is aging.

The Bloc Québécois will remain opposed to any law to implement the trans-Pacific partnership or the Canada-Europe agreement if the following conditions are not met. First, supply-managed cheese and agricultural producers will have to be fully compensated for any revenue losses. In addition, the federal government will have to provide considerable support for the next generation of farmers, to the tune of $100 million a year in investments. Lastly, the government will have to bring in border controls to prevent milk proteins from entering.

The fiscal imbalance is still a reality, and it could doom Quebeckers to decades of austerity unless something is done.

In the not-too-distant past, the Bloc Québécois was instrumental in partially addressing this issue. However, let us not kid ourselves. Everyone here is well aware that the expenses are in Quebec City, but the money is here in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister can get the Bloc's support if he acknowledges this situation and starts restoring the spending balance between the federal government and the Government of Quebec.

We salute the government's intention to renew its relationships with first nations. We fully support the Prime Minister's plan to tackle, at long last, the many issues they have been facing for too long. The Prime Minister said that he will initiate a nation-to-nation dialogue with aboriginal peoples. This is a noble initiative, and we will make sure that what is good for first nations is also good for the Quebec nation.

We will also support the government's plan to reduce taxes for the middle class. We believe that the middle class in Quebec and Canada must be strengthened. However, we would also like to see the government do more for low-income citizens. The middle class has been shrinking over the past 30-plus years not because the people of Quebec and Canada are getting richer, but because the number of people with low incomes is growing. If the government really wants to be progressive, it has to tackle poverty. Yes, we have to do whatever we can to strengthen the middle class, but all governments have an even more pressing duty to eradicate poverty. We would like the government to take meaningful steps toward that goal.

For all these reasons, we see many areas on which the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal government can agree and work together. The Prime Minister's wishes and goals are in line with many of the Bloc Québécois's demands and commitments. However, some important issues were ignored in the throne speech. We believe that a tax-free UCCB would be far more beneficial to Quebeckers than the proposed Canada child benefit.

We also believe that scrapping Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, would be better than a lengthy process to reform it.

In terms of infrastructure development, we want to make sure that Quebec's jurisdictions will not be violated for the umpteenth time by a federal program that ignores federal-provincial jurisdictions. If the federal government is serious about coming up with solutions to modernize our infrastructure, it needs to provide the Quebec government with the resources. It is up to Quebec City to decide the best way to modernize its infrastructure, with support from and by working with the municipalities in Quebec.

Allow me to reiterate that our work has always been accountable and honourable. That said, we have a duty to work together and ensure that our constituents can get the most out of every Parliament. Ever since the Bloc Québécois has been in the House, that motivation has made our party one of the most respected parties by Quebeckers. Over the years, we have even received praise and encouragement from the rest of Canada on our constructive work. Today, we are continuing in that vein with our tradition of promoting and defending Quebec's values and interests regardless of the circumstances. That is why we support, with reservations, the general scope of the Speech from the Throne.

That is also why we are asking to be heard and to join the government in a discussion with our parliamentarians in order to meet the needs of Quebeckers. We have always taken this approach because we represent Quebec. Our nation is our raison d'être. Our nation adopted a model more than 50 years ago when a tremendous group of people set out to make Quebeckers masters of their own house. This model is universally supported in Quebec. Under this model, no citizen is left behind.

We cherish a just and fair society. Modern Quebec is a society with a thirst for social justice and self-determination. However, the government in Ottawa always seems to stand in the way of the Quebec model. It has become increasingly obvious over the years that Quebec would be in a better position to develop its economy, environment, society and social programs if it alone could choose its priorities.

Earlier I mentioned that we unequivocally support the Prime Minister's efforts to engage in real nation-to-nation dialogue with our aboriginal peoples. This should set an example for the government's relations with the people of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is the standard-bearer for an ideal that is shared by millions of Quebeckers and that cannot be ignored.

Opposition Motion—Combat Mission Against ISIS

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to say how good it is to see you in the chair, and I know that you will bring both a sense of fairness and dignity as well as some gender balance to our chair. It is great to see you there today.

My question to my hon. colleague has to do with the important point she raised about radicalization. We all know the attacks that have occurred around the world are unusual in that they are not part of an organized and systematic attempt by ISIL to do things, but rather the inspiration people receive through their radicalization.

In debate on Bill C-51, the NDP asked the Conservative government at that time to include measures to counter radicalization in Canada, and it did not do so.

I want to ask the member if she has seen any indications from the current Liberal government that it will take strong action to counter radicalization here in Canada.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

As this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like to thank the people of Vancouver East for giving me a strong mandate to represent them in the House of Commons, in the people's House.

Vancouver East is a wonderfully diverse group of neighbourhoods and communities that come together to form an incredibly diverse part of our city, our province and our country. Whether refugees, immigrants, new Canadians, retirees, young people working to make a start, artists and writers from the creative community who feed our soul, or people who are homeless, grappling with addiction issues or mental health challenges, or grass-roots activists who give strength to the fight for a better tomorrow, in Vancouver East everyone makes a contribution to our community. The activism in Vancouver East is unparalleled. We fight hard for what we believe in. We are so proud to be a pro-democratic movement for social, economic, and environmental justice in an unequal world.

In Vancouver East, we know that addressing the social determinants of health is key to healthy communities. We are never afraid to fight to be the agent of positive social change for the entire nation. The way forward for a better future demands that we address the root causes of past injustices. Canada has a shameful chapter of how indigenous peoples have been treated. The effects of colonialism have had a profound effect for the first peoples of this land. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights released a report to say, “The disappearances and murders of indigenous women in Canada are part of a broader pattern of violence and discrimination against indigenous women in the country.”

It makes my heart sing to see in the throne speech the government's commitment to a national inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I do hope, with all my heart, that this nation will finally address the root causes that exacerbate the violence against indigenous women and girls. The New Democrats stand ready to work with the government to fulfill this important election promise.

The throne speech stated, “...the Government believes that all Canadians should have a real and fair chance to succeed”. If this statement is to ring true, and I do hope that it does, is it not time to have a national plan with real targets and progress reports to end poverty? After all, it is 2015, and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's motion to eradicate poverty, supported by every member of the House, was made in 1989. It is startling to me that in Canada 19% of the children live in poverty. That is 1.3 million children. In B.C. alone, that is 170,000 children.

It is a myth to say that people choose to be on welfare. People do not choose to live in poverty. A parent does not choose to send his or her child to bed hungry. The majority of the people on income assistance are people with disabilities, people who are just trying to make ends meet, and people who are working multiple low-income jobs, minimum wage jobs. It does not have to be this way. If we ask the people of Vancouver East, they will tell us that closing stock option loopholes and investing in a plan to eliminate poverty is an easy choice for the government to make.

Though the throne speech did not mention child care, I do hope that the government will recognize that an affordable national universal child care program would ensure that we are taking care of future generations by laying a strong foundation for success.

In East Vancouver, it is a struggle to find accessible, affordable, quality child care, yet we know that early childhood development is good for the child, the family, and the economy. Families and business leaders know that a national child care program equals economic prosperity for the nation. What goes in tandem with that is a national housing program. We do not have to be rocket scientists to know that ending homelessness is not just plausible, but possible. It requires political will.

During the campaign, Liberal candidates promised to renew the co-op housing agreements that were set to expire and to bring back a national housing plan. While housing was not mentioned in the throne speech, I do hope those are not just empty words. It is important for Vancouver East that the federal government gets back to being a committed housing partner and starts building safe, secure, affordable, social housing, and co-ops once again.

From the young to the old, our seniors deserve dignity and support in their golden years. They should not have to worry about not being able to access health care, prescription drugs, home support or having a roof over their heads. Lifting seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and returning the retirement age from 67 to 65 is what the government has promised them. In the days ahead, I hope the government will lay out its plan to deliver on that promise. We are worthy of a Canada that honours all those who have sacrificed so much so we can have a better future.

My parents immigrated to Canada because it was a beacon of freedom, hope and opportunity. They dared to dream for a better future for their children, they dared to seek opportunities to make a better life, and they dared to cherish our freedoms and civil liberties.

I am honoured to be the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship. I look forward to working with the minister and his parliamentary secretary, along with the Conservative critic and deputy critic, on this important portfolio. From honouring the commitment to bring 25,000 government-sponsored Syrian refugees to Canada, to eliminating the backlog for family reunification, to spousal sponsorship applications to getting rid of arbitrary quotas, to addressing concerns with the temporary foreign workers program and removing barriers to citizenship, there is much work to be done.

No Canadian should be made to feel that they are second-class citizens, not immigrants, not those with dual citizenships, no one. The Liberal government promised to repeal Bill C-24. It promised to reverse the invasion of privacy and threat to civil liberties in Bill C-51. Canadians are ready for change. In the days ahead, I hope to see concrete plans and timelines for these election promises, because it is important for the government to deliver on what it promises. The plans that were campaigned on were ambitious, but the expectations need to be met post-election.

We have a collective responsibility to leave our country a better place than what we inherited from the last generation. I look forward to working with all members of the House to do just that.

As the final words in my maiden speech, I want to also thank everyone who worked on my campaign team: the volunteers, the staff, the people who put their trust in me and who toiled in a long election campaign to send me here. I will live by the words of the late Dr. David Lam to “bring honour to the title” that the people have bestowed in me with the work that I do.