House of Commons Hansard #3 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.

Topics

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to stand in our place in such a wonderful chamber here in the House of Commons to share with Canadians what we feel is important to us as we have heard from our constituents.

Let me start by giving my most sincere, heartfelt thanks to the constituents of Winnipeg North. It is such a privilege to represent one of the best, beautiful areas of Canada. Winnipeg North has many different industries, a great deal of diversity and is an area that I am very proud to call my home.

Also, as was referenced earlier, I would like to acknowledge the need for change. We saw that take place on October 19 overwhelmingly in every region of our country. We are the only political party that received support in every region of the country where Canadians witnessed and saw the need for change and took the actions necessary to put Canada in a much better light going forward.

Today we have a cabinet that is gender-equal in terms of the number of female and male ministers, which is a first. I have the privilege to serve as the parliamentary secretary, and I thank my leader for entrusting me with that particular responsibility.

I thought I would talk about something that is really important to all Canadians, no matter what part of the country they live in and that is the economy. It is something that we have articulated for a number of years. In fact, when the Prime Minister was first elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he talked about the middle class in Canada and its importance. Two years before he became the leader of the Liberal Party, those two words were spoken relatively rarely in the House of Commons, but he took that on as an idea that needed to be talked about. He wanted to ensure that the House would address the issue of Canada's middle class.

The middle class is the driving force of our economy. If there is a healthy middle class, we can have a healthy economy. If we look at economies around the world, where there is a healthy maturing middle class, the economy is doing relatively well.

There are many aspects of the throne speech that people can have hope from when thinking about the future of our great nation. I would like to highlight a couple of them affecting the middle class. We talk about tax breaks. We are in essence giving a tax break to Canada's middle class. We are creating another tax that is going to be at the upper end of Canada's wealthiest, recognizing that they need to pay their fair share and that we need to get more money into the pockets of our middle class.

Another direct way we are doing that is through the Canada child benefit. We need to realize the benefits of that great program for Canada's middle class, but as has been talked about by many of my colleagues and many individuals who are apolitical, or third parties, they recognize that by increasing the Canada child benefit program, we will in essence not only be putting money into middle-class pockets, but also lifting children out of poverty. We think that is a great thing to do, something we have advocated for many years.

When I look at many of the things the NDP and Conservatives have in common but that show the Liberals to be different, there are a number of issues that come to mind. Number one is the balanced budget and the concept of a balanced budget.

My Conservative friends need a history reminder. The Conservative Party has never done well when it comes to balanced budgets. The previous government was a great failure when it came to balanced budgets. The Conservatives need to be reminded that they inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus from the eras of former prime minister Chrétien and former prime minister Paul Martin. Within a couple of years, the Conservatives turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit. It is important to recognize that they turned it into a deficit before the recession had taken place. Every year since then, the Conservative government has had a deficit, with the one exception being the last budget that it proposed.

However, we knew back then that it was a bogus balanced budget. There was no surplus. When I addressed the House on that issue, I indicated that we could not trust the Conservative books, which were in fact cooked. It was only a few weeks later, after the House had adjourned, that we found out through the Parliamentary Budget Officer that there was a billion-dollar deficit. I do not need to make up the truth. The truth speaks for itself.

In fairness to the last Conservative government, we need to look at previous Conservative government where we have found the same thing. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien inherited a deficit, and he turned it into a surplus.

Let me go to my colleagues and friends in the New Democratic Party, who are challenged on this issue. They are eager to tell people what they want to hear. NDP members said that they were going to have a balanced budget. That was an irresponsible statement coming from what the leader of the NDP calls a so-called progressive party. The New Democratic Party pledged in its campaign to have a balanced budget. Yet, I listened to the speeches, and every speech talked about spending money on this or that. Whatever happened to that party's pledge to Canadians, the very people they garnered their votes from? Whatever happened to that party's pledge to a balanced budget?

I would argue that right from the beginning, the leader of the Liberal Party, now Prime Minister of Canada, has been straightforward, transparent, and honest with Canadians. He clearly indicated that there would be a budget deficit this year.

We recognize that sometimes we need to look at what is happening in our economy. We do not want to run balanced budgets during economic times in which people are feeling challenged, unemployment is high and getting higher, and we are going into a recession. We want to be able to invest in Canadians and in our infrastructure, and by doing that we would be creating opportunities.

The Liberal Party is committed to doing that. People are going to see in different ways that this is a government that truly cares and recognizes the value of investing in Canadians. That will take place in the form of infrastructure. We are going to invest billions of dollars in building Canadian communities. From coast to coast to coast, people are going to see activity. We are going to focus our attention on what is important to Canadians. We recognize that infrastructure is absolutely critical, and now is the time for us to invest in infrastructure.

When I was in opposition, I questioned why the government did not recognize the value of investing in Canada's infrastructure, and in part we are paying the price of the former government's neglect in that area.

However, do not fear. The Liberal government will make it a priority and we will get the money flowing so those very important projects that needed to get done are, in fact, going to be started under a new infrastructure program that is going to be 10 times as effective as the former infrastructure program.

Free trade is another issue of discussion inside the chamber that I have recognized over the last number of years. I like the free trade debate because, again, it shows the differences among the three major political parties. On the one hand, there are the Conservatives. We all know that they will do anything necessary in order to achieve an agreement. It does not necessarily have to even be in Canada's best interest. We know that trade has actually not done that well under the Conservative government. Again, maybe it is a history lesson that they need to understand.

When the Conservatives inherited the reins of power, what did they have? They had a multi-billion dollar trade surplus in Canada. It did not take them long to make that trade surplus evaporate.

In the last 50 months, we have seen trade deficits. They took a multi-billion dollar trade surplus and turned it into a billion-plus dollar trade deficit. We continue to be in deficit, even with the free trade agreements that the government brought in, which, for the most part, the Liberal Party of Canada supported, because Liberals recognize the value and importance of trade. Trade is good for Canada. We are a trading nation. If we do not invest in trade and look for opportunities, all of us lose out. It is absolutely critical. Not only today but in terms of our future economic growth, we need trade.

We heard that today in the answers from the minister responsible for trade, who is most capable and able. She articulated the importance of us getting this right, and that Canadians had to be engaged in this debate. I will remind the Conservatives once again that the Liberals understand the importance of that trade file and how trade equates to jobs. The billions lost through deficits in trade with the previous Conservative government has meant tens of thousands of jobs lost, and many of those jobs were manufacturing jobs, particularly in the province of Ontario. Ontario has been hit very hard by the former Conservative government.

In terms of the future, we feel good about the idea of where our markets can be with the potential that exists and I am very confident. We have seen that in the last four weeks with the number of world leaders with whom the Prime Minister met. I know, for example, the Minister of International Trade had the opportunity to visit the Philippines and other countries. There is a sense that, yes, we will get back on track and we will be able to inch toward a trade surplus. That is important because it means jobs, and jobs are something we should all be fighting for.

I do not want to leave out my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. They tend to believe that free trade agreements are bad things. They stand in their places time and time again, and I underline the word “time”, to vote against free trade agreements. They talk about the Jordan agreement. I was here for the Jordan agreement and the one time there was a vote, it was a voice vote so they did not actually have to stand in their places. In fairness, I recognized one time when they actually stood in their places and voted in favour of a trade agreement.

The reason I say that is I would hope the New Democrats would understand how important it is to give true value to how trade agreements can complement Canada's economy, advance us into the world of trade, see that as a positive thing, and start moving forward.

Another area is democratic reform. We made it very clear. We said that 2015 was the last time we would go with the first past the post system. The Conservatives are saying no, that we cannot do that. I am sorry. It was an election promise and it is something we will be working with.

The Conservatives do not recognize the need for electoral reform. They want to keep the same system. Even if Canadians do not want the same system, it does not matter to the Conservatives. They want to keep what they have.

Then we have the New Democrats. The New Democrats have already made up their minds. They say, “Yes, let's go and talk to the public. Let's consult”, but in their minds it would be proportional representation. They have already made that statement.

It reminds me a lot of the issue of Senate reform. Being from western Canada, I can remember the Conservatives jumping up and down, yelling how they wanted Senate reform. Then when they finally got the reins of power, what did they do for Senate reform? Nothing. Not a thing.

In fact, the most significant Senate reform in the last eight years was when the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada indicated that senators could not be a part of the elected Liberal caucus. That is the most significant thing that took place with Senate reform. That is it. The Conservatives had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now, the NDP, on the other hand, like to say that they want to reflect the wishes of Canadians. They are telling Canadians, “We don't care what you think. We already have our opinion. Our opinion is to abolish it, even though it would be virtually next to impossible to do”. They need to realize that we would have to get unanimity from all of the different provinces to make that happen. Do members think that would stop the NDP from making that sort of commitment? No.

Again, we are attempting to respond to what Canadians are telling us. There is a need for change. We are going to invoke many changes in the Senate, changes that would not require constitutional change, changes that could be done internally. I would ask both the Conservatives and my New Democrat friends to see it in a more positive light and possibly contribute to that reform.

In this session, I trust that we are going to hear a lot about many other, different issues, ones that are important not only to my constituents but also in fact to all Canadians, such as an inquiry regarding murdered and missing women and girls, over 1,200 of them, many of them from Winnipeg North, who have gone missing or who have been murdered. This is something that is long overdue. I understand now that there is virtually unanimous support for that in the chamber. I understand that in the Conservative Party, members are recognizing the importance of such an inquiry.

We have a government that truly cares about something that is most significant to virtually all Canadians; that is, the issue of health care. We have a government now that wants to be able to work with provinces to try to come up with a new health care accord. The last time we had a health care accord was back in the Paul Martin era. The reason they have the funds they have today, those record-high funds, is that accord. Canada needs a new health care accord. That is something we are going to work toward getting.

I could talk about agriculture and issues such as the pork industry in the province of Manitoba and how hard we need to work to diversify many of our rural communities and to support our agricultural communities. I have had an opportunity to take many tours in rural communities and am a bit biased about the pork industry, in particular, but there is so much more. I can recall piles of wheat that we needed to get off to shore at the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government was challenged, in terms of getting our wheat to market. We lost opportunities there.

There is so much that we could be doing, so much that we can be saying. I have not even had the chance to talk about the immigration file, whether it is the visiting visas or the processing times, and the Liberal Party's commitment to improve that by investing in our civil service. That means also showing respect for our civil service, something that the previous government was challenged to do.

Crime and safety issues have also come up, housing issues, social issues, and much more.

I see my time has expired. I look forward to members' questions, so that I may be able to provide more.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North on his re-election. He should know that during the interim, between the two parliaments, we have still maintained the amplification system in the House. He has the latitude to modulate his volume. He does not have to yell, but I think he knows that.

The member spoke on a number of issues. He said that the previous government did nothing to advance Senate reform. The member knows that is not true. The member will know that the previous government invited, requested, asked all provinces to submit to popular Senate elections, and that the prime minister would appoint anybody popularly elected, as he did for the one province that chose to do so, Alberta, in appointing two elected senators.

That process was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said popular elections to the Senate violated the spirit of the British North America Act in its construction of the upper chamber. Would the member not agree with me that it would similarly be a violation of the spirit of our founding constitution to fundamentally change the electoral system of this chamber without popular consent?

The member asserted that the Conservative Party insists on supporting the status quo, the first past the post system. That is not true. The policy of the Conservative Party is that any fundamental change to the electoral system of Canada that changes the nature of this place and of our democracy ought first to receive the consent of Canadians through a referendum. Would the member not support that consultation, as was undertaken by Liberal governments in British Columbia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the Senate comment by my colleague, we need to recognize that the former prime minister actually made a commitment in terms of Senate reform. He created a great deal of excitement, in particular in western Canada, that he was going to make significant gains on that file.

Contrary to what the member says, that senator was elected even before the past prime minister was elected as prime minister. I believe this past prime minister appointed 59 senators. There was no genuine move toward Senate reform. There was nothing in terms of dialogue that had taken place. There were no discussions. In fact, when Liberals had taken action a couple of years ago, the Conservatives mocked it. The opportunity is there. There are things that we can do to improve the Senate. I would hope that the Conservatives would approach it with more of an open mind.

In regard to his comments with respect to the Conservative Party's policy, I guess that is a nice fallback position. My understanding is that it is in favour of first past the post. I still believe that to this day. Now he wants to say we should have a national referendum on it. I need to remind the former minister that we just had a federal election, and there was resounding support for a political agenda that included changing the current system.

Canadians have voted on it already. There was overwhelming support, especially if we take into consideration the progressive vote because I understand the NDP also wanted to see that change.

It seems to me that Canadians have already spoken, but only one leader, the Prime Minister

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order please.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, while my hon. colleague from Calgary has already commented on the hon. member's confusion of volume with logic, I would like to turn this to a question of tone. I must say I am disappointed in the tone that permeated the entire speech of my colleague, at a time when his leader is apparently sending a message to Canadians that he wants a spirit of collegiality and co-operation where the opposition is respected. The member spent the entire time attacking both other parties in the House. I am a little disappointed in that.

The member raised questions of consistency in policy and honesty and transparency. I could talk about the confusing history of the relationship of deficits and the Liberals. In the 1990s, there was austerity imposed by the Paul Martin government, and the Liberals did not run deficits at all. I saw the Liberals criticize Conservatives year after year during the last Parliament for running deficits. Yet, apparently deficits are exactly what this country needs to stimulate our economy.

I could talk about trade, where the Liberals campaigned against NAFTA in the 1980s. They said that they would repeal it when they got into government, and did not. Now, of course, they claim that their position on trade has always been in favour of trade agreements.

Regarding infrastructure, one would think that the problem of infrastructure in this country began in 2006. Frankly, the infrastructure deficit in this country began decades ago, as the crumbling roads, bridges, and schools of this country were allowed to happen under Liberal governments as well.

However, my question is about proportionality. The NDP is not prescriptive about the need for electoral reform in a vacuum; it is because Canadians want this chamber to be proportional. They have seen false majority after false majority. When we say that Canadians want a proportional system in this House, where if the Green Party gets 4% of the vote they get 4% of the seats, etc., then that is what they want in this chamber.

I am going to ask this to the member directly. Does he or does he not agree with the principle of proportionality in this Parliament, so that Canadians' votes actually count?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will address the member's first comments. I have been a parliamentarian now for over 25 years, at both the provincial level and the national level. I can say that decorum in the place does not necessarily mean that members of Parliament cannot speak with passion, cannot share the thoughts that they have, point out issues of concern where previous governments have failed, or point out areas in which third parties in this current chamber have let people down. There is nothing wrong with doing that. That is part of our responsibility. It is not to sit back in government benches and listen to the opposition being critical. We can provide constructive criticism even of other political parties. That is the way of the politics that I have witnessed for many years.

What we would hope to see is a decorum that allows for opposition members to come forward with ideas of potential amendments to improve legislation, that we try to allow for, wherever we can, a wider participation by all members of the House. However, we should not in any way try to censor or tell members what they can or cannot say. That is freedom of speech, and if we cannot have that absolute freedom here, where can we have it? I will at times be somewhat boisterous in my tone; it is because I am very passionate.

In regard to proportionality of electoral reform, we should allow the system and the committee to do its work. The committee will be made up of representatives from all political parties, so we have an improved system, and at the same time fulfill a commitment that was given by the Prime Minister.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I had a big long question, but I will make it short. The member talked about democratic reform and electoral reform. There was a huge number of items that we promised in that area. Would the member like to speak to something we did not talk about, for instance, moving prosecutions away from the Minister of Justice to being independent, or not using omnibus bills or prorogation in the improper sense?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is a wonderful opportunity for reforming our institutions. Whether it is at the electoral level when Canadians vote, or Senate reform, or making changes here in the House, there are many different procedures that, if modified, would allow for a more efficient use of time.

For example, we could calculate the number of hours just listening to bells over the years. We had close to a hundred times, or maybe just over, where there was time allocation. There are all sorts of democratic reforms that could take place in the chamber, in the other place, and electorally.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, I want to let him know that he will have about three minutes. He will have more time to finish his speech when the House resumes debate.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with a member who will be determined tomorrow morning, in light of the situation.

First of all, I want to congratulate you for your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House, and I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Halifax West on his election as Speaker of the House. I know that you will do an excellent job ensuring that the debates remain orderly and respectful. I assure you that you will have my full co-operation over the next four years.

I also want to congratulate all of the members of Parliament for gaining the trust of their constituents and for being elected in their respective ridings. I know that we will do very good work together over the next four years.

Since this is my first opportunity to rise in the House, I want to take a moment to acknowledge and, especially, to thank my constituents in Richmond—Arthabaska for putting their trust in me and for electing me as their new member of Parliament on October 19. I am very grateful to them and I will work very hard to fulfill my responsibilities as a parliamentarian and to represent them and my wonderful riding with dignity here in Parliament, in Ottawa.

I also want to thank my friends and all the volunteers who gave me their trust. Without their unconditional support, their hard work and their unwavering encouragement throughout the long election campaign, I definitely would not be here today with my colleagues.

My final thanks go out to those who are most important to me, those who share my personal and family life with the public, namely, my three children, Élizabeth, Magaly and Étienne, my amazing wife, Catherine, my parents, my extended family, and my in-laws. I want to say thank you to all of you today.

Although this is my first foray into federal politics, my six years as mayor of the city of Victoriaville, my 10 years as a manager in the field of education, and my involvement in many organizations for over 25 years have given me extensive experience working closely with federal stakeholders and have shown me the importance of the federal government in developing communities.

That was actually what motivated my political engagement at this level. I firmly believe that the scope of our efforts over the next four years will have a direct impact on the quality of life of all Canadians, in all of our respective constituencies.

I will focus all my energy, skill and experience on protecting their interests at all times. I will also ensure that the 40 municipalities that I represent receive first-class service from Government of Canada organizations. This will ensure their continued development and the survival of regional services, whether in urban or rural areas.

Unfortunately, and no one has pointed this out today, there is no mention of rural municipalities in the throne speech. This is particularly unfortunate in view of all the efforts by regional stakeholders to counter the migration to urban centres, especially of our youth, who are our successors and our future.

I will also ensure, together with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who is our critic for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, that businesses that create jobs continue to receive support as they grow, because small and medium-sized businesses comprise 90% of all companies in Canada and 70% of labour.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska will have six minutes for his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 6:45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)