Debates of Dec. 7th, 2015

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Debate. The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here on behalf of more than 3.5 million Canadians who gave the New Democratic Party of Canada the mandate to serve as the progressive opposition in this Parliament. I thank each and every voter who gave us their trust and confidence. We will stand up for them and for our shared values.

I would like to congratulate the new government on its win in the the last election. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have been entrusted with tremendous responsibility. They were given this mandate based on ambitious commitments, and I sincerely hope that they will fulfill them.

On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I commit to working with the new government to bring in the change that an overwhelming majority of Canadians sought in the last election.

Today, as leader of the progressive opposition, I commit to working with the Prime Minister when our values and policies overlap.

I would also like to congratulate every member of the House on their election. We are 338 commoners representing this wonderful country of ours from coast to coast to coast. We differ on policy and outlook, but what unites us all is the conviction that this great country can be even better.

Like all members, I met thousands of Canadians during this campaign. We are an optimistic bunch and we know that we live in one of the greatest countries on earth, but many Canadians are also deeply worried. There has been a hollowing out of the middle class. Good manufacturing jobs have been lost. New jobs are temporary, part-time, and precarious.

Families have a hard time making ends meet. I met child care providers and airport workers who work full-time but live in poverty because there is no federal minimum wage.

I met women who had survived sexual violence only to be denied a shelter when they needed it most. I spoke to young people crushed by the weight of student debt, worried about their job prospects, and deeply concerned about climate change and its effects on their generation.

I met families of murdered and missing indigenous women, who lost their loved ones brutally, and they fear that we are not doing enough to prevent future violence. I spoke to seniors who built this country but who now live in poverty; seniors who cannot afford lifesaving prescription medication; seniors who have to live in hospitals because we do not have enough home care services.

Despite the tremendous wealth of our nation, too many children are still going to school with empty bellies. Too many women are giving up their careers—and it is nearly always women who make the sacrifice—because they do not have access to affordable child care. Too many homeless people are living and sleeping on the streets. Too many families are living paycheque to paycheque. Too many workers are living with a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads because they could lose their jobs if the trans-Pacific partnership goes through in its current form.

When the Prime Minister tells us that we can do better, I feel relieved because I truly agree with him. Here in Parliament, we must commit to working together to make real and positive change for Canadians.

I paid very close attention to the Speech from the Throne. Like most Canadians, I am pleased with the new tone of the government and many of the promises it has made. Now we have to roll up our sleeves and get down to business. As they say back home, it is time to walk the walk.

Canadians need the assurance that, from now on, Parliament will fight for their jobs, their families, and their communities.

There were, at the same time, some troubling omissions in the Speech from the Throne. There was no mention of bringing the age of retirement back to 65. There was no mention whatsoever of better oversight for Bill C-51. There was no mention of restoring door-to-door mail delivery, despite an absolutely crystal clear promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. There was no word about child care. On health care, there was no engagement from the government to cancel the planned cuts to federal transfers. We have an obligation to help the five million Canadians who do not have a family doctor. We have to fund a prescription drug plan. We must expand long-term care and palliative care for seniors. The government has the legal obligation to uphold and enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act against creeping privatization. Real change must mean real help for people. It is time to make quality child care affordable and ensure universality, so it is not just the rich who are entitled to high-quality child care.

When it comes to the government's proposed tax cut, let us get it done right. As it stands, the government's proposed middle class tax cut would not give a penny to nearly 70% of Canadian taxpayers. Ironically, most of the benefit from the proposed Liberal tax cut would go to wealthy Canadians and give the average family absolutely nothing. Someone making the median income in Canada, which is $31,320 a year, would get nothing. A family that is middle class, earning $45,000 a year, would see zero benefit from these so-called tax cuts, whereas as my colleague from Beauce said a few minutes ago, a member of Parliament who earns $167,400 a year would get the maximum tax cut, and that is just not fair.

The plan proposed by the government does not include a tax hike for wealthy Canadians. In fact, the rich will get a tax cut, while a middle-class family earning $45,000 a year will get nothing. We can and we must do better.

Although we are an opposition party, we also believe we must bring forward proposals. The NDP did in fact propose an adjustment to improve the policy brought forward by the Liberals in order to include all middle-class families. That is what was promised.

Instead of introducing a tax cut for the second tax bracket, we propose applying it to the first tax bracket while enhancing the working income tax benefit. That change alone would give a worker who earns the median income an extra $200 in tax cuts.

With the NDP plan, workers who earn between $11,000 and $45,000 a year would save an average of $172, while under the Liberal government's plan, those workers will get nothing. This one small change to the government's policy would have a real impact on middle-class families. By including our suggestion in its proposal, the Liberal government could respect the spirt of its election promise.

Parliament must protect the most vulnerable. We agree that it is time to build a nation-to-nation, respectful relationship with indigenous peoples in our country. We have to close the funding gap for first nations education. That is an obligation. We must call a public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, immediately boost funding for child and family services, and provide clean drinking water on all reserves in Canada.

Resettling Syrian refugees is also a national project that we should all be proud of. Let us be clear with Canadians on the numbers and let us not disqualify a whole group of refugees based on the politics of fear. Let us instead show the generosity of our great country in living up to our international obligations and give these Syrian refugees the peace and opportunities they need.

It is time to fight against poverty. Let us close stock option tax loopholes for the richest CEOs in the country and invest the money in helping eliminate child poverty, a goal set by Ed Broadbent and supported by the House a full generation ago. Also, let us make Canada's largest corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Let us give tens of thousands of Canadian families a raise by bringing in a federal minimum wage, a living wage of $15 an hour. Let us increase the guaranteed income supplement to lift 200,000 seniors out of poverty. We can all agree on that. Let us also return the retirement age from 67 to 65.

I hope we can also agree that it is time to start reversing the damage the previous government caused to our employment insurance system.

The new government's change in tone on climate change is welcome, but actions speak louder than words. The time for talking the talk is over. It is now time to walk the walk. In concrete terms, we need firm targets for reducing greenhouse gases in Canada. Nothing else will do if we are to meet our obligations. There needs to be a coherent plan and a binding deadline for achieving those targets. The government must also review the environmental assessment process and add climate impact to project assessment criteria.

Also, it is time to fix Ottawa. It is time to strengthen our democracy. In his last full year in the House, the outgoing prime minister only attended one-third of question periods. The best way to show respect for this institution is to show up in Parliament regularly and be answerable to Canadians.

The Prime Minister has made a bold commitment that 2015 would be the last election wherein an archaic first-past-the-post system produces phony majorities and a Parliament that does not reflect the true democratic will of Canadians. Every vote must count. We are ready to work with the government in ensuring that this fundamental value in our democracy, proportional representation, is truly honoured in Canada's new electoral system.

It is time to clean house here in Ottawa, and it is time to put an end to the old patronage ways. Politics should be noble and should inspire people to become involved and make others' lives better. It is time for Canadians to start trusting politics again. Politics should not be synonymous with scandals and partisan appointments. Politics should not sacrifice the public interest to serve the interests of those at the top. Again, the progressive NDP opposition is ready to work with the government to advance the public interest. However, we are also here to hold the government to account. If the government does not make the real change that Canadians are longing for, then we will be here to remind the government that it was elected with a mandate for real change. Canadians deserve nothing less.

In ending, I move, seconded by the member for North Island—Powell River:

That the amendment be amended by deleting everything after the word “by” and replacing it with the following:

“working in collaboration with opposition parties to present realistic, structured and concrete changes that benefit some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens including: seniors through an increase to the Guaranteed Income Supplement; middle class families through reducing taxes on the first income tax bracket; low-income workers with leadership by introducing a $15 per hour federal minimum wage; and supports to those struggling to enter the workforce with a robust and reliable employment insurance program.”

Let us carry on.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to congratulate the member for Outremont, the leader of the NDP, for his election and, of course, his caucus colleagues.

In the past, I have had many discussions about democratic reform with many NDP members. There have been many substantial conversations with former members and current members that I see here today. However, I do have some concerns about that and other measures, because the member started his speech talking about the imposition of certain measures upon Canadians.

I, too, have some concerns about some of the things that transpired during the campaign and now I see here today. There is the imposition of certain measures regarding child care upon the provinces, who have to pick up the tab. There is the imposition of Senate reform without any discussion with the provinces. There will not be an open discussion with partners within Confederation. There is the imposition of a system of electing our members of Parliament without substantial discussions in the vast majority of the provinces.

I would ask, very simply, the following: as a progressive opposition, will those members join with us in a truly national discussion about what is to be democratic reform? That is what progressive oppositions do.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that we will have to get used to our new riding names. However, the Coast of Bays evokes so much of my colleague's home province of Newfoundland and Labrador that I find it one of the most lovely toponyms we have heard in this place in a long time.

Let me reassure him that when we were talking about child care, it was quite clear that of course we would work with the provinces. We had a proposal to pick up 60% of the tab to do one thing, to create a universal program of quality affordable child care in Canada. As I mentioned in my remarks, it is almost always women who have to sacrifice their career, and that one measure alone would have gone a long way toward removing inequality in Canadian society.

With regard to the Senate, we have not had a habit of having very long interventions in this place about the other place. However, I would just say say that anyone who cares about democracy realizes that it makes no sense whatsoever. It is the anthesis of democracy that people who have never been elected, and indeed in most cases have been defeated and rejected by voters, somehow take it upon themselves to believe they are in a position to not only make laws for the rest of us but to unmake laws adopted in this place as well. I think of Mr. Jack Layton's famous bill on climate change, which was reversed in the Senate.

I will end by noting that with respect to the discussion, there will be no problem whatsoever, as we will be there every step of the way because we also agree that 2015 should be the last election in this country under the unfair first-past-the-post system. My friend and colleague Craig Scott, the former member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth, did extraordinary work on that. However, if the Liberals intend to bring in something that is only to their advantage, I can assure them that we will do our job of revealing that to Canadians as well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to your new role.

I thank the hon. member for his speech. Our parties share a concern about the need to balance the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers and those of the C.D. Howe Institute suggest that the government's numbers do not add up and will in fact give us a permanent structural deficit.

Will the member agree that the Liberal tax changes will not benefit most Canadians and will lead to higher deficits for my children and his grandchildren to deal with?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can agree on some parts of that. However, I am not sure that the member will agree with our prescription for dealing with it.

We in the NDP believe that individual Canadians should pay their fair share in taxes. However, we also know that Canada's largest corporations do not pay their fair share in taxes. That is why we were going to give them a tax increase, so that we do not leave an economic debt, on top of the existing social and environmental debt we are already leaving, on the backs of future generations.

I welcome the new member from Saskatchewan. It is good to have that many members from the west and so many new members of Parliament. I will take advantage of this opportunity to say that in Saskatchewan we now have three members of Parliament and are proud to have broken through there for the first time in three elections. The member is indeed lucky to have the type of leadership in Alberta that Rachel Notley is showing by bringing in a $15 an hour hour minimum wage.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be rising in the House to speak on behalf of my hometown. I want to thank the voters in Elmwood, East Kildonan and Transcona who have trusted me with their voice in this place.

I want to commend the hon. leader of the NDP for showing how the government's Speech from the Throne could be improved. I urge members opposite to take his suggestions seriously. I would ask him to speak for a minute on the need for a national pharmacare plan in Canada. We know that one of the biggest challenges to a sustainable health care system in Canada is tackling the costs of drugs. I know there are people in my riding who are struggling with those costs. We have had many governments over the decades who have failed to take action on this, including some that promised to act on it. Would the hon. leader of the NDP explain to some members on the opposite benches, who may need it, the urgency of including and implementing a national pharmacare strategy as part of any future health accord.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my new colleague from Winnipeg was able to bring that seat back to the NDP.

It is important to realize that the Conservatives have proposed cuts which, when they would come into effect, could represent $36 billion in lost transfers to the provinces. This is the first thing that has to be taken care of.

When Tommy Douglas, the father of health care in Canada, brought in free, universal public medical care in Saskatchewan, he always made the point quite clear that we had to complete the system with a pharmacare program worthy of the name, and it is not hard to understand why. We have a lot of acute care beds in our hospitals that are being taken up by people who simply cannot afford their medication. They will get that medication in the hospital, but if they stay at home, they cannot afford it. That is having a throttling affect on the availability of beds in our system, and it is an easy fix.

There are things like group buying with the provinces that could save billions of dollars. All it takes is the will to do it. Never let them tell us that it cannot be done.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to thank all of those who voted for me in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I would not be here again if it were not for them.

In the Speech from the Throne, as well as in the letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, there was no mention of the Ring of Fire. Perhaps my esteemed leader could speak about the importance of the Ring of Fire and the economic impact that it will have on a variety of communities, especially first nations communities.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the sustainable development of our natural resources in partnership with our first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples is the way of the future. Like a lot of Canadians, I was surprised to see that the government was completely silent on whole sectors of economic development in our country.

The Ring of Fire is an incredible opportunity if done right, but it seems to just be sitting there, and the Liberal government does not seem to have an idea about how to move it forward. That is a shame, because it could be a win-win situation, both for the general economy of Ontario and for the first nations communities there, in bringing in new infrastructure and allowing them further economic development along the way.

We certainly hope the government will realize the importance of the Ring of Fire, as my colleague has just pointed out, and come up with a plan worthy of the name.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek consent of the House to allow the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Montcalm have the unanimous consent of the House to have the Leader of the Bloc Québécois speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

I am proud to stand here and speak to the Speech from the Throne. It is short, it is focused, it is clear, and it sets priorities for promises that were made during the election.

What is really important is that the people of Vancouver Centre who re-elected me will be pleased with some of those promises, especially the ones we have heard before the Speech from the Throne such as the fact that we will reinstate the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and the marine communication segments that were cut to British Columbia. This Speech from the Throne talks about promises that were made, and this was one of them.

I want to congratulate all the members in the House who were re-elected and who were newly elected. I really hope that the tone set in the Speech from the Throne will be held dearly by all of them, as they begin to learn how to work together, respecting each other. Part of that respect would have been to allow the leader of the Bloc Québécois to speak today.

The Speech from the Throne recognizes the diversity of Canadians not only demographically but regionally, the fact that we are so very different in all parts of this country in which we live. It recognizes that diversity is what has made this nation great. It vows to bring back that diversity and to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or where they live in the country, will have the opportunity to succeed.

I heard the interim Leader of the Opposition speak about big spending promises in the Speech from the Throne. I think we all believe that it is about spending but it is also about investing in Canadians. It is about helping Canadians have the opportunity to succeed regardless of where they live, their socio-economic conditions, or their status as indigenous peoples, immigrants, or refugees. That is reflected in the Speech from the Throne.

We have heard real promises made with regard to treating indigenous peoples on a nation-to-nation basis, to bringing in an inquiry on the missing and murdered aboriginal women, to sitting down and bringing in recommendations from the truth and reconciliation committee. These important pieces have been promised in the Speech from the Throne.

Bringing in 25,000 refugees by February 16, 2016 is a promise that will be kept, and it is not just bringing them in. It is about these refugees having access to something that was denied under the last government, access to health care. This is an important, ensuring that immigrants and refugees who come to our country, like I did at one time, will have the opportunity to succeed, to have a dream, and to know that they and their children can have better lives.

This is part of what good government does. It invests in people. It is something the last government never did understand. It played games with people, and it only invested in things in which it was interested.

One of the most important things is not only investing in Canadians but investing in them in every phase of their lives. We see the child benefit. It is a real child benefit. It is not going to be taxed. I know the former government talked about the child tax benefit, but it was taken away in the form of taxation. We are not doing that. We are giving it to Canadians so middle-class Canadians can afford to bring up their children.

We are looking at how we can help middle-class Canadians get the kinds of tax cuts they need to move forward. We are talking about how we can help seniors retire in dignity. That is one of the things the last government obviously did not understand. So many seniors are living in poverty. Expanding the CPP is one way of helping our seniors.

We are looking at a very bold plan. It is a plan about people. As we have heard our Leader say today in his speech, we know it is not possible to create jobs and improve our economy unless we look at environmental sustainability, that one cannot work without the other and that it is possible to do both. This is why we see a strong piece about the environment in the Speech from the Throne and the work that needs to be done in reaching goals, which were very ambitious in Paris.

Our country has agreed to look at how we can achieve those goals. To do so, we will work in a very new tone within our government, which is to work in partnership, not only with aboriginal peoples but the provinces. We saw the Conservative government turn its back on provinces and allowed them to fend for themselves. It treated them quite miserably, especially in health care, where the provinces were beginning to show that they could not deliver the care needed, as promised in the Paul Martin $42.1 billion health accord. When the previous government came into power in 2006, it did not cancel it but it ignored it and the provinces, and it did not sustain medicare, which is really important.

The Speech from the Throne talked about a new accord with the provinces, meaning we must change the system by which we deliver health care. We must move to community-based care, interdisciplinary care, and home care. Indeed, acute care is the old way of delivering care and should be part of the system only when intervention is needed. We have seen some changes that need to be made, again, because of cuts made by the last government in health care, decision making that was done unilaterally that changed the transfers on a per capita basis that began to hurt the smaller provinces.

There are so many things in the Speech from the Throne that I do not even know how I can cover them all, but I will try.

We have not only talked about children and how the new child benefit will help them, but we have also looked at how low and middle-income Canadians, when they finish school, will get access to post-secondary education. This is part of the creating opportunity. This is part of giving people the tools they may need to succeed.

We know that today many young people cannot afford post-secondary education. I have heard that the official opposition thinks we are spending a lot of money and doing all kinds of silly things. We are investing in people, we are investing in the economy, we are investing in the environment, we are investing in the diversity of our people, and we are investing in those who have had a very difficult time making it. Again, that is what good government does.

We are creating partnerships with provinces, with first nations people, and with Canadians. We are promising to consult, and have already begun to consult, with Canadians. That is part of the democratic process. It is not just about how one votes, but how one respects civil society. There is a real promise of working with civil society. Task forces are going to be set up to talk about how we should move forward and work to ensure that as we move forward it will be implementable and achieve the objectives of what we are discussing.

We have talked about evidence-based decision making. For a decade, we forgot what evidence-based decision making was in the House. We have seen ideological decision making in health care, which hurts people, public safety and the environment. All Canadians and all of us in the House have to work together, in the spirit of good faith, to make the changes and rebuild what was destroyed by the last government. This is a job that we must undertake.

I have heard the leader of the NDP talk about rolling up our sleeves. That is the first thing we have to do. We have to roll up our sleeves and get the job done by using science, evidence, consultation and with the people in the House working together. There is now a new respect for members of Parliament in the House. Every one of us was elected by Canadians. How we treat each other in the House, the way we respect each other, the way we work together without putting up roadblocks when we have common goals is what I and the Speech from the Throne hope will happen.

I ask hon. members to let us move forward in the spirit of hope and optimism, to do the best for Canadians, and create the country we know we can have.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about investing in Canadians, but the government wants to reduce the tax-free savings account contribution limit. This is a critical vehicle for Canadians to keep more of their own money and invest in themselves. Almost two-thirds of tax-free savings account holders make less than $60,000 a year.

Why is the government giving with one hand while taking away with the other?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and to congratulate him for being elected to this House.

I also want to say that investing in Canadians is about creating a lot of opportunity for them: the opportunity for skills and training; the opportunity to get a post-secondary education; the opportunity to be on an equal footing. The tax cuts for the middle class would help Canadians.

However, the other piece we need to talk about is access to health care. That is investing in Canadians. Healthy people work, they produce. When they produce, Canada gains by their production and by the ability to be competitive in a global economy.

The idea of looking at investment as only one tiny piece that has to do with taxation is really not the way of looking at the problem with a broad stroke and understanding all the various ways in which Canadians need a hand up to be able to do the best they can do and to create the best opportunities for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Much has been said about what the previous government did away with, such as environmental assessments and protections. The fact that climate change was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is in itself an improvement. However, I must say that the bar was not set very high from the outset.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether there will be news about a real target that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the last election campaign, the Green Party and the NDP were the only parties to propose a target, and an ambitious one at that. Representatives of the new government are in Paris right now, and the targets are virtually the same as those of the previous government. As my colleague so clearly pointed out in her speech, they are not very ambitious targets.

In view of the fact that climate change is an urgent matter, does this government intend to have not just any target, but an ambitious target, one that is meaningful for our country and future generations, who will be affected by climate change?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to the speech from our leader and listened to my speech, he would see that indeed we did talk about looking at the mandate of Paris. We are talking about ambition.

However, we are also talking about not imposing anything as a federal government. The days of the federal government imposing are gone. We are talking about working collaboratively with the provinces in order to be able to achieve all of those targets and in order to be able to achieve the environmental sustainability that we desire.

It is important for us to do that, because the environment does not recognize borders or provincial boundaries. It is important to work together to create that change, working globally, which Canada has not done in the last 10 years. We have not been a global player. We went there with good faith, and we intend to move forward.

Now, as we speak to provinces as a government and as we speak to Canadians, we will be able to start moving forward with an implementable plan that would achieve the targets that we set.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my former seatmate, in the last House, on her election for her eighth term in this House. Both as a doctor and as a parliamentarian, she has a strong passion for health care. We know, from being in several parliaments together, that some governments look at spending as just adding to the debt and spending in itself.

This government has a hope and desire to invest in Canadians' future. I wonder if the member wants to expand on what she sees a federal government can do in building a better health care system for Canada as a whole.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Malpeque. I also want to congratulate him for being re-elected for the eighth time, because we all came here as rookies in 1993.

My colleague asked me about health care. Health is a resource for living. Healthy people work. People who are unhealthy, who have to spend a long time being ill and not getting the care they need, do not produce. Productivity is at the heart of what a country needs. How do we help people get the health care they need, when they need it?

One thing is that we cannot do this alone. The provinces have jurisdiction for delivering health care, where, when, and how. We have the opportunity, as we did in the 2014 accord, to be able to work with the provinces and to look at a change in the system; from acute care, to home care, to multi-disciplinary community care, to managing chronic disease.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in this hallowed House for the first time as the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

I would first like to thank the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for placing their trust in me. I will work hard to serve them with all my heart and to the best of my ability.

I would also like to thank my family, my wife Geneviève Saumier, my children Andre Vito, Gabrielle Vanda, and Dominique Charleen, as well as my volunteers and organizers for their support, patience, and hard work.

I would like to recognize my mentors, the Hon. Justice Peter deCarteret Cory, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Hon. Gilbert “Gib” Parent, who sat in your chair at one time, Mr. Speaker, for teaching me about the values of humility, justice, decency, and hard work.

Finally, I wish to thank my parents who chose this country to escape the ravages of poverty and war, and who made many sacrifices such that their children could be formally educated, a privilege they never had, in order to have a better life.

It is a story common to many people in this in House, whether immigrants or children of immigrants, grandchildren or descendants of immigrants. It is precisely because this is a common story in this House and across this country that this is such a great country.

The first nations welcomed wave after wave of newcomers, but unfortunately the kindness they showed those newcomers was not reciprocated. The way the first nations were treated was not fair or humane. It was a terrible tragedy.

We must correct this historical and modern injustice by working with our aboriginal peoples to adjust the moral compass of this great country and ensure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity. In the Speech from the Throne, this government promised to make that a priority. It is never too late to correct the mistakes of the past, and those mistakes must be corrected. We are taking the first steps toward doing so with the measures announced.

As a number of members of this House will attest, in almost 20 years of teaching property law at the Faculty of Law at McGill University, I have promoted the cause of justice to our first nations.

By choosing to introduce to my students the varieties of aboriginal property normativity, and by critiquing the vastly imperfect western concepts of aboriginal title and aboriginal rights, I have emphasized that much more was needed, and that reconciliation and justice toward aboriginal peoples remains the single most important priority facing this country.

I pledge to work with all members of this honourable House, with first nations, and indeed with all Canadians to work toward reconciliation and help restore justice and peace.

In so doing, I also honour the legacy of my teacher, friend, and mentor, the late Professor Roderick Macdonald, who as president of the Law Commission of Canada penned a report on residential schools that helped lead to the historic apology to aboriginal peoples and the establishment of the truth and reconciliation process.

The welcoming tradition, first exemplified by our first nations, must and shall continue as people across Canada and in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun move to welcome refugees from Syria. We must be compassionate in the face of human catastrophe. We will be helping local organizations to step up, and we will be encouraging others to do likewise.

At the end of this, there will be another 25,000 Canadian stories to add to the narrative of this wonderful country.

The riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun needs an agenda like the one the government set out in the throne speech. It is a new riding, and part of it was previously very well served by the Right Honourable Paul Martin. This riding is a microcosm of the country.

In fact, in my riding, francophones, allophones, and anglophones, members of various cultural and religious communities, and people with a variety of beliefs and from very different socio-economic backgrounds live together in an atmosphere of peace and respect. This riding, which is surrounded by the river, the Lachine canal, an aqueduct and highways, is attracting more and more young people because of the quality of life there.

What my constituents need now is a positive and progressive government that has an active vision for the future and a detailed plan. They need real change.

A significant proportion of the population in my riding is made up of middle-class families with young children. They will benefit from the tax cuts and the family benefit described in the throne speech.

The riding is also a poster child for infrastructure spending and investment. The major highways that bound the riding are crumbling visibly and are in dire need of rebuilding. Happily, some of this work has already begun, on the new Champlain Bridge and the replacement of the Turcot interchange, but much more needs to be done.

For security and safety, as well as to encourage and improve public transit use, Verdun needs another smaller crossing to Nuns' Island. The only current crossing is a busy highway. Thankfully, Verdun and Ville Émard are generally well served by the Montreal Metro, but LaSalle needs better transit links both to the metro and to the downtown, in order to break the culture of the automobile. The infrastructure program proposed by the government could be used to accomplish these very important goals.

In Verdun, a city with a great history and an increasingly trendy part of Montreal, there is an urgent need for social housing. This is also the case for Ville Émard, Côte-Saint-Paul, and LaSalle. Infrastructure spending in social housing and incentives to encourage the maintenance of the stock of affordable rental housing would help alleviate this acute need.

Government must invest in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun and across Canada.

My riding also needs jobs. Poverty is a real problem in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. There are many people who would like to be part of the middle class but who do not have meaningful jobs. The quality jobs generated by our infrastructure investment program will create the opportunities these people need, directly or indirectly. This is particularly true for cultural communities in which the unemployment rate is especially high.

My riding could make a name for itself in the area of innovation, since it is close to universities and a CEGEP, as well as being home to rapidly evolving post-industrial spaces. Programs to invest in accelerators and incubators, and in new technologies, could help reinforce the trends we are already seeing.

Furthermore, the commitments to seniors and veterans will alleviate poverty in this riding.

I turn lastly to the jewels of the riding, the St. Lawrence River and the Lachine Canal. The river links the riding from end to end and provides a sublimely beautiful recreational space for the riding's residents and non-residents alike. Its banks and the quality of its water need protection. It was with a heavy heart and a commitment to make real change that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was forced to approve the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River, some of it at points in this riding, in order to undertake necessary infrastructure work.

We must invest in green infrastructure, brown water infrastructure, water treatment, and sewers to ensure that such a move must never again be taken. All along the river, we need to ensure water treatment capacity is not only adequate for present needs but is enhanced to meet the demands of a changing climate. The wildlife along the river and its islands also requires vigilance in the protection of its habitat.

The Lachine Canal is a historic waterway that has undergone transformative change, and here too we can develop this as a wonderful park space for Canadians across the country.

The people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun voted for real change. They want something better. They want something positive. They want to rebuild their riding, physically and emotionally. Our government committed to doing so, not only in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, but also across the country. The throne speech set out our first steps.

It is time, in a spirit of co-operation and good faith, to get to the heavy lifting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate this member, and the last Liberal member who spoke. They had a lot of nice things to say about investing in Canadians. However, I could not get an answer about what that really means, so I will try again with this member.

Most Canadians who use tax-free savings accounts make less than $60,000 a year. Those who would benefit the most from the Liberals' tax proposals are those who are making over $90,000 a year. Clearly, we have a problem. Could the member explain how the Liberals' plan to cut tax-free savings accounts gels with their comments about investing in Canadians?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on being elected.

The overwhelming evidence is that tax-free savings accounts are used by people who frankly are among the highest income earners in the country. Our program is aimed at helping those who really need it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank the voters of Sherbrooke who put their trust in me to represent them here in the House a second time. I also want to recognize and congratulate the member for his election to the House.

I was a little surprised that his speech did not mention Canada Post as a priority. He raised a number of issues in his speech, but he did not mention Canada Post. I have to wonder whether that omission was intentional, since the government is being unclear about the return of home delivery and about the commitment made by his party, which now forms the government.

Did he intentionally fail to mention this issue? It is a very important issue for the riding of Sherbrooke, for municipal officials in Sherbrooke, and for the mayor of Montreal, who expressed his interest in and concern for Canada Post and the return of home delivery.

I would like to know whether his government was truly and unambiguously committed to bringing back home delivery across Canada, including his riding and my own, the riding of Sherbrooke.