Debates of Dec. 7th, 2015

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you as well. It is nice to see you back, as well as all of my colleagues. We get to know each other, regardless of what party we represent, and we all wish everybody would come back, but that is not the reality. For those of us who had the good fortune to be able to come back, we are thrilled to be here and truly look forward to moving forward to bring our Canada back, to really have a country that cares about its people, puts its people first in consultation with respect to the provinces and to the people of Canada. It is an honour for me today to offer, on behalf of the people of Humber River—Black Creek, my thoughts on the throne speech. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Egmont, another new member here in the House.

Before I do, there are a few comments that must be given, Mr. Speaker, so I hope you will permit me a slight deviation from the subject at hand.

First, I want to take the opportunity again to congratulate you as the Speaker, and our Assistant Deputy Speaker. Those are great choices we have made, and that shows the wisdom of the House. I congratulate all 338 of us as we move forward to make a better Canada. I am confident that you will oversee our discussions here with fairness, diligence, and a stern even-handedness, as I have seen you do in the past. That can only add to the effectiveness of our work.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the people and communities of Humber River—Black Creek for their support over the last 16 years. I am humbled by their trust, and I recommit to working to make sure their voices are heard clearly as we craft programs and services to help all of those living in my riding. In the areas of Jane and Finch, Sentinel, Cabana, Plunkett, and everywhere in between, my constituents know that their voices will be heard from one point and one corner to the other.

Humber River—Black Creek is a place made up of countless cultures, language groupings, historical backgrounds, and family structures, but it is perhaps the warmest and most genuine place I have ever been. Whether enjoying the fare at West Finch Bakery or drinking a glass of wine at Vin Bon, visiting at the Elspeth Heyworth Centre or the Delta Family Resource Centre, or connecting with friends at the Jane Finch Mall or the Jamaican Canadian Association, my riding is thriving and, with the right supports, will continue to be a great place to live, work, and play.

Last, I have to thank my family. Former Prime Minister John Turner once said there are two great columns in life: one is service to God and the other is public service. I agree entirely with Mr. Turner, but public service is a vocation that takes a real toll on families, especially young families. I know this because I have been an elected official for almost 30 years. I am, however, blessed with a wonderful and supportive family, one that has stood by me for my entire public life when things were good and when things were bad. They were always there: Deanna and Lou, Cathy and Graz, Sam and Claudia, our wonderful grandchildren, and of course most important, my husband Sam, who is still there after 30 years. All our new members will realize how important our spouses are and how much we ask of them, when we leave them at home every Monday to come here and they are home taking care of all of the other responsibilities a family has.

Now let me address the matter at hand. Last week, our government delivered a throne speech that focused the entirety of its energy on the middle class, people like those living in my riding. This government recommitted to lowering taxes and fees for lower income seniors, students, families, and workers across Canada. It also committed to using every mechanism at its disposal to create jobs, to improve services, and to restore Canada's glory, for all citizens and residents not just for those who can afford it.

For too long, pension security, affordable tuition, infrastructure renewal and expansion, and quality job-creation have been on the national back burner; but this throne speech showed that real change is going to happen.

The middle class is more than a line item on a budget. Our Prime Minister and the entire Liberal team believe that it is time for those sitting at the kitchen tables of the nation to enjoy some of the opportunities offered to those sitting around the boardroom tables for the last many years. That is not to say that corporate Canada does not deserve success, just that it should not get the whole of that prosperity. It is time for everyone to enjoy prosperity, and that is what the throne speech is all about.

For the record, I applaud the government's particular priorities: growth for the middle class, open and transparent government, a clean environment, diversity as a national strength, and security and opportunity for all. These are goals that we should all get behind, not because they are Liberal commitments but because they will strengthen every community in every riding and every person in this country.

Canadians elected a government to bring us together, not to set us up against one another. Canada is strong because of our differences, not in spite of them. This theme was central to the throne speech, and the speech set out a plan to accomplish that.

First and foremost, the government will, as an immediate priority, deliver a tax cut for the middle class. Not only is it the fair thing to do; it is also economically smart to do that.

The government has also committed to direct help for those who need it most. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.

There is more on the horizon, including a recognition that public investment is needed to create and support economic growth, job creation, and again, economic prosperity for all.

New investments in public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, secure pensions, and a stronger EI system will promise real and meaningful change for all of those whom I have been elected to serve. This will all be done in a framework that promises to end the negativity that has divided us for too long.

The trust Canadians have in their public institutions, including Parliament, has been compromised, and that needs to change. By working with greater openness and transparency, trust can be restored and we can again move forward together.

We as a nation have always been at our best when we shoot for the stars. If we look back on our history, Canada's lustre has always shone brightest when we banded together for a common purpose, and I hope that can begin today for all of us.

I am excited to support the throne speech, not just as a document but as a plan for real change. I am pleased to vote in support of this blueprint for tomorrow because of what it represents for lower income seniors, students, families, and workers in my riding and in ridings all throughout Canada. The middle class has not had a decent raise in years, and it is time for working families and the unemployed to catch a break. It is time to put more gold in those golden years, as we say, and it is time for the leaders of tomorrow to be able to afford the skills training that they need and deserve.

Our 15th prime minister once said “Canada will be a strong country when Canadians...feel that all of Canada belongs to them”. Today we take a giant leap toward that kind of just society, and I am tremendously proud to be part of it.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague from Humber River—Black Creek for my 10 years here. We both have had the opportunity to spend a number of years before we arrived here in municipal politics or some other political field, and I thank my colleague for her service.

The member stated that everything in the throne speech focused on the middle class, or the middle income group as I like to call it, which in Canada right now is the wealthiest it has ever been. Agriculture is one of the largest industries in this country. I do understand that there is likely not a lot of agriculture in that member's riding. However when the Prime Minister stands up and says that the small businesses of this world—and I look at the member for Malpeque sitting next to my colleague, who I think would agree—and all the agriculture businesses in this world, except for maybe on one hand, are all families in small business, he says this is a venue where rich people go in order to save paying taxes.

I wonder if the member could explain why agriculture is being looked at in such a detrimental manner by the Prime Minister.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I was thrilled to see back and whom I have worked with very closely over the last many years.

I say directly to him that the agricultural community is an extremely important part of this country of ours. It is number one. It is critical that it has investment and support as we move forward. Whether we are talking about agriculture representing a lot of small businesses throughout Canada, or the major contributions of so many very large companies, we all recognize, each and every one of us, that the agricultural community is critically important to this country. We have to make sure that we continue the kind of support and investments that are necessary for it to continue to grow.

I happen to have a chief of staff who comes from a rural community and is constantly trying to get me over to the agriculture committee to make sure that I, as an urban member, understand the importance and value of the agriculture sector. I am sure that everyone here understands that, and I know that our Prime Minister understands it, too.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the member's long-standing work on issues facing women and issues of inequality. I would like to ask her a question, given the rather vague response we got from the Prime Minister about timelines and clear commitments on an inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women.

We in the NDP believe there needs to be a concrete plan going forward for this inquiry. Yes, we have heard some very positive pronouncements on this front. However, would the member not agree that in dealing with something as serious as the issue of violence against indigenous women, timelines and clear commitments need to be made known to families, communities, and leaders, and more broadly to Canadians, as well, in order for us to go forward and truly live up to the promise of reconciliation that the government claims to believe in so much?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have worked together on this issue, on the status of women issue, and on a variety of issues. I congratulate her and I am so glad she is back.

However, the fact is that we are here in the House of Commons, on the third day it is sitting, and we are talking about this issue. We talked about it for the last 10 years, calling on the government of the time to take some action. We held rallies outside, and there was just no budging the government. This government, under Prime Minister Trudeau, is clearly committed. With our minister, we are moving forward to put down the kind of groundwork that has to be done.

This is day three of the House sitting. The hon. minister has done a lot of work already on that file and is really excited about moving it forward. I know that my colleague on the other side will be keen, right there, front and centre, working through it with us so that we finally get some closure to a very horrible time in our country's past.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the next hon. member on resuming debate, I have just a couple of things to remind hon. members about. The first is to avoid the use of given names in the course of one's comments here in the House, and to try to refer to other hon. members in the third person, for example, “the hon. member will”, “the hon. member may wish to”, and that sort of thing. That always keeps it less personal.

Secondly, if members can direct their attention in the course of their comments to the Chair, it helps for our purposes in signalling, for example, when their time is coming to an end. This is not so much in questions and comments, but with regard to speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Egmont.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today for this my maiden speech in the House of Commons. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your position in the chair, but first and foremost, congratulate my colleague from the riding of Halifax West on his successful re-election to the House of Commons. It is a true tribute to his character to be chosen as Speaker of the House by his peers. That speaks a lot to the member. I understand that he is the first speaker from Atlantic Canada in close to a hundred years.

We have a lot of people to thank when we are first elected, or indeed in any election where we are successful. However, I want to deviate a bit and acknowledge those people who participate in the public process, which is so important in preserving our democracy. Those are the people who were not successful. In order for me to be here, to be successful, I had to defeat a number of candidates. One was the former member of the House from my riding. I want to acknowledge the contribution that she made to our country when she served here in the House of Commons. Sometimes we forget about the contributions that people make. If we are fortunate we will all become former members of the House of Commons, although we do not always get to choose how we become former members. Therefore, it is important that we acknowledge from time to time the contribution of former members, even of those who are not of the same political stripe as we are.

I have a lot of people to thank for my successful election to Parliament. We all get here with a very dedicated campaign team. We get here with the dedication and support of our family, our friends, and our peers. I would not be here without the support I received from my parents, who instilled in me the values and confidence to seek public office. This is my second public office. I am a former member of the provincial legislature. It was my parents who instilled in me the values that led me to pursue whatever goal I chose for my path in life. Being the son of a fisher and a work-at-home mother, they gave me those values that allowed me to be successful in the paths I chose. Today, I want to acknowledge that support and thank them.

I also have to thank the people of my riding who by majority chose me as the person they wished to represent them in the House of Commons for this 42nd Parliament. It is a very onerous task that we take on. It is one with a lot of responsibility, because once we are elected we must represent all the people who live in the riding regardless of their political stripe and whom they chose to support during that election. I am committed to do that.

My riding of Egmont is unique, as all ridings are, and I am as proud of it as all members are of the ridings they represent. Egmont is in the western part of Prince Edward Island. I am proud that it encompasses a first nations community, strong and vibrant Acadian communities, and small communities of people of Irish and English ancestry. We have a growing population of Asian people and people of various ethnic backgrounds, much like the House of Commons. It also includes the dynamic city of Summerside.

I may be out of step here, but I want to acknowledge one of the pages serving in the House of Commons who comes from my riding, by the name of Ryan Arsenault. I believe his name is one I can use in the House. I want to acknowledge that he is a young person who I am sure will be a future leader some day.

The people of Egmont chose me to be their representative in the House of Commons. As I indicated, I take that responsibility seriously. I am proud to be part of a government that is as diverse as the members who were elected in this last election.

I must say that I listened intently to the mover and the seconder of the throne speech. Rarely have I witnessed the kind of passion that I witnessed from the mover of the throne speech during his speech with respect to his part of the country, as well as the pride and enthusiasm he is bringing to the job. I was also touched by the seconder, who spoke about how unique her journey was to become a citizen of this country.

We are all proud to be Canadians. It is truly one of the great nations of this world. We all arrive here differently. On my mother's side I have Acadian ancestry, but I am also a first generation Canadian as well, given that she was born in the United States to an American father. However, I am proud of that background, as I am sure each and every member is of his or hers.

When I spoke about my riding and about how impressed I was with the seconder of the throne speech, it was because our small communities are reaching out to refugee families in a positive way by supporting and welcoming them to these small communities. That says a lot about who we are as a nation and as a people. We should all be proud of that.

The throne speech outlined a number of measures in areas that will have a significant and positive impact on the people whom I represent. The one that I was most proud of as a candidate in the election was our position on changing and improving the Canada child benefit, because it is our responsibility to make sure that the children of this country receive the benefits they are entitled to. We have talked a lot about eradicating child poverty. This will go a long way toward eradicating child poverty.

The second area is reform to the employment insurance system to recognize that in parts of this country we truly have a seasonal economy. With a seasonal economy we must have a very dedicated, highly skilled, highly motivated workforce to allow those seasonal industries to thrive. To do that we must have an insurance system in place that protects the earnings of those seasonal workers when they no longer have work. That is part of our platform that I was pleased to see included in the throne speech. I believe it may have been the first time that I recall seeing recognition of employment insurance referred to in a Speech from the Throne.

In another area we must signal our government's commitment to re-establishing the sacred trust and bond to the veterans who have served this country so well.

There are numerous other parts of the Speech from the Throne that I could highlight today. However, I am sure they will be covered by various other speakers over the course of time.

With that, I conclude my comments.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing about the hon. member's riding. I would like to tell members about my riding of Sarnia—Lambton.

We produce almost a third of the petrochemicals Canada produces and provide gasoline for most members' vehicles, which I think we will need for some years to come. We have a lot of people working in that industry who are extremely concerned about the low price of oil. We already have high unemployment and the current government is talking about bringing in a federal carbon tax on top of a provincial carbon tax. This would be devastating for our economy, not to mention how it would affect the price of gasoline and supply and demand in Canada. Therefore, I would ask the government to reconsider and put that off until our industry and oil prices stabilize.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the position of the government is to work with the provinces in coming up with an effective way of reducing carbon in this country. If we do not do that, the cost that our citizens will bear will be significantly higher than anything we may face today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election to the House and on his excellent, passionate, and personal speech.

I would like to come back to a subject we discussed at length in 2012, and that is employment insurance reform. Employment insurance reform had major repercussions on industries in my riding, Sherbrooke, including seasonal industries. I assume it had the same impact on my colleague's riding in Prince Edward Island, where there are many seasonal industries.

As hon. members recall, during the election there was talk about this reform and the possibility of abolishing some of the changes and going back to the way things were before or even coming up with something better.

Does the hon. member share the same concerns over the 2012 employment insurance reform? Is he also committed to reviewing the Employment Insurance Act so that seasonal employers can continue to hire employees who can benefit from employment insurance instead of hiring temporary foreign workers to fill these positions? I am sure that those positions could quite easily be filled by people from his riding.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from the hon. member. Of course, it is a concern.

One of the most negative parts of the changes to the EI program by the former government was that it hurt those in the lower income bracket the most. Any time that government puts forward policy, it should be to advance and improve the financial well-being of its lower income people.

This is directed toward single parents, mostly female. We have to ensure that the EI program attaches a value to every hour of work that can be achieved. This was not occurring in the former program.

I am hopeful that with our government's proposals, on which we campaigned, it will do a lot toward changing those negative aspects of the old program.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my fellow Prince Edward Islander on his maiden speech in the House.

The last two questions related to the terrible damage that the previous government did to the employment insurance system in this country. It was clearly an attack on both seasonal industries and seasonal workers.

The member for Egmont comes from a rural riding, where seasonal industries, especially the fisheries, are very important. The throne speech talked about reversing those damaging changes.

I wonder if the member for Egmont could spell out to this House how serious the clawback, in terms of working while on claim, was to families within his riding, so that we get to the point of making those changes quickly.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the clawback was one of the most damaging and regressive aspects of the old EI system because it penalized people for going back to work. It took 50¢ of each dollar earned from them. The old system allowed a person to earn well over $100 a week while on EI before it came back on them. That impacted single parents more than any other demographic in the population.

The changes that we make will have a significant economic impact on the small rural communities that depend on seasonal employment.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I have the great privilege to speak in the House for the first time on behalf of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent and all Canadians. I do so with some emotion. On October 19, the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, the riding where I was born, where I grew up, where I raised my family, and where I still live today, honoured me by placing their trust in me in a big way. I won by 19,000 votes, with 51% of the vote.

This was not the first time I ran for office. It was the fourth. As per family tradition, we all went to vote as a family. That morning, I went to the polls with my parents, and in the evening, I welcomed the results with my children. My parents immigrated to Canada in 1958. Today they are 91 and 92 years old. My father fought for freedom in the Second World War. That evening, we celebrated my victory with my children and my grandchildren, who are 22 and 24 years old.

I am mentioning this because I have been deeply committed to politics for seven years. We are here because of the legacy our ancestors left us to make our society better for our children. That is why when I participate in politics and I go to vote, the most solemn moment in a democracy, I do so with my family, my parents and my children. We are here because of our parents and we are here for our children.

Once again I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, the riding where I was born, grew up and raised my family. Hardworking people live in that northern corner of Quebec City. I am also thinking of the people of L'Ancienne-Lorette, Val-Bélair, Lebourgneuf, Neufchâtel, Saint-André parish, Loretteville, where I still live, and the aboriginal community of Wendake, which is at the centre of this riding.

I am very proud to represent the Wendat nation in the House. The Wendat people have lived on Canadian soil since time immemorial, but they settled permanently in Wendake, formerly known as the Huron Village, almost 300 years ago when there were no telephones or cell phones.

Wendake is in the heart of my riding, and the Wendat people have always been able to count on me to defend them. Here, in the House of Commons, I will defend their rights and privileges as a first nations people.

I also want to acknowledge my two predecessors in Louis-Saint-Laurent. Alexandrine Latendresse represented this riding for four years for the New Democratic Party. She decided not to run again. I wish her the best of luck in her career, and I am sure that the experience she gained in her four years in the House will serve her well as she takes on new challenges.

On a more sensitive note, I want to acknowledge the legacy of the hon. Josée Verner, a former member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and current senator. Ms. Verner is currently battling cancer, and we are all keeping her in our thoughts.

I also want to acknowledge the people in the provincial riding of Chauveau. Seven years ago tomorrow marks the first of three times I was elected to the Quebec National Assembly to represent the people of Chauveau. Louis-Saint-Laurent, the riding I represent here in the House, covers a large part of Chauveau, but Chauveau also includes Shannon, Valcartier, Lac-Beauport, Lac-Delage, Lac-Saint-Charles, Saint-Émile and Notre-Dame-des-Laurentides. To those of you watching now, as the song goes, I will remember you. However, all of those people from Chauveau are in good hands, since that riding is 100% represented here in the House of Commons by Conservative members.

The people of Quebec City made the right choice: eight of the 10 ridings in the greater Quebec City area are represented by the Conservative Party. The people of Quebec City are in good hands.

I am honoured and proud to have the opportunity here in Parliament to defend the former Conservative government's record, the extraordinary legacy of the right honourable member for Calgary Heritage. I am delighted that the former prime minister is still a member of the House of Commons, and I hope he will remain so for a long time.

Canada is privileged to have a former prime minister in the House of Commons. We must preserve the spirit of the elder statesman in the House. By lucky coincidence, his riding is called Heritage; our country and our economy are fortunate to inherit the legacy of the right honourable member for Calgary Heritage.

It was under his leadership that the Canadian government and Canada emerged from the 2008 crisis in better shape than any other G7 country. Under his leadership, Canada balanced the budget. Under his leadership, the whole world witnessed the turnaround of Canadian public finances. History will recognize the achievements of the right honourable member for Calgary Heritage.

Life goes on. I was honoured and proud to receive my mandate from the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot name her, but I can say that I appreciate her strong and inspiring leadership here in the House of Commons. She has all the necessary qualities. She was a founding member of our political party. She was a member of the opposition and the government. Now, with honour, dignity and insight, she is leading our party on an interim basis toward the next election. I am very proud to serve alongside her.

I am very pleased to take on the role she has given me as the party's employment, workforce, and labour critic. I want to acknowledge my counterpart, the minister, who is also cutting her teeth in the House of Commons and who also sat in a provincial legislative assembly, although it was under the NDP banner. We will be watchful of her approach.

I want to point out that the Conservative government passed two important labour bills: one on union transparency and one on union democracy. What does union transparency mean? Union transparency enables lowly unionized workers to demand accountability and information on how union bosses manage their dues. In our minds, this is very important, and this is transparency. Either you believe in transparency or you do not. Our law is based on transparency.

The same goes for union democracy. Under the bill passed by our government, to form a union, workers must now get 50% plus one of a secret-ballot vote, as in any democracy. Do you believe in it, yes or no? Our democracy is not on a sliding scale. Our law speaks to that.

Unfortunately, in his ministerial orders, the Prime Minister told the minister to repeal both laws. It is never too late to do the right thing. We urge the government to reconsider that proposal, which in our opinion would be bad for Canada.

Furthermore, there was no mention of the real job creators—entrepreneurs, manufacturers, legislatures, the trans-Pacific partnership, and SMEs. It is really unfortunate.

I would also remind the House that there is one file in the Quebec City region that is really close to my heart, even though the facility is not located in my riding, but right next to it, barely 20 feet away. I am talking about the Quebec City airport. I can assure this government that it has my full support and assistance. We will work together to create a pre-deployment centre, specifically with the member for Louis-Hébert, whom I congratulate on his election.

Briefly, in closing, what surprised me the most from the throne speech is the fact that the government did not have the courage, the honour, the dignity, or the sense of responsibility to speak directly of the war on ISIS. Worse still is this government's behaviour towards our air personnel. We must respect our aviators who are risking their lives to defend our freedom, rather than treating them with contempt, which is what the government is currently doing. It is disappointing and insulting to our pilots. It should come as no surprise, however, since the Liberal Party's attitude towards our air personnel is part of its DNA.

Who could forget the sad statements made by the current Prime Minister? On October 13, 2004, when he was talking about our aircraft, he said:

trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are.

It was as though it was a contest to determine who had the bigger plane. That is not what the war against ISIS is all about. Not at all. However, that is basically what the Prime Minister thinks. That is what is insulting. What can we say about the Liberal candidate in the Quebec City region who said the following during the election campaign?

Perhaps we are not the best at dropping bombs.

As though our air force personnel were bomb droppers. That is insulting to the women and men who risk their lives.

Earlier, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that we were delivering only 2% of the air strikes. Our air force personnel are not risking 2% of their lives when they are flying planes. They are risking 100% of their lives to help that area of the world enjoy freedom and democracy.

It is never too late to do the right thing. I urge the government to set aside the bad decision it made to bring back our pilots, out of respect for them.

Let us hope that the government changes its mind.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election.

I listened to the hon. member's speech. I welcome him to the House. I find it passing strange that we as a party announced almost a year ago that we would be re-profiling the mission. We put it in the platform, we ran the longest campaign in history, and the first thing that the hon. member and his party want us to do is break the election promise that we made to the Canadian people.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Canadians have decided.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians did decide, and they asked us to re-engage in the Middle East in a way that is most beneficial to the people of the Middle East and most beneficial to our allies.

The Prime Minister has discussed this with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the President of France. Each and every one of those world leaders understands that Canada's contribution will change and possibly be quite enhanced. Yet the member wishes us to continue to do what we said to the Canadian electorate we would not do.

Does the hon. member actually want us to break an election promise?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question directly for the member? Where was he on November 13? Does he not remember what happened in Paris? There was a big fight, a big attack of the Islamic State. This why the Liberals can change their mind about that. I gave them the opportunity to change their mind and to save the honour of this country.

The hon. member talked about leaders of other countries who, according to his word, said that it is okay that we are no longer involved with air strikes. We call it diplomacy. However, yesterday, the government received its bulletin, as we say in French. When President Obama talked about his allies, did he talk about Canada? No. It is a shame for us, a shame for the government.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has brought to the House of Commons the same legendary passion and energy he had the National Assembly.

I would like to talk to him about something important to me that was missing from the Speech from the Throne, and that is the fight against poverty in Quebec and Canada.

More and more people are using food banks to get food. I am talking about people who work full time, but earn minimum wage and live below the poverty line. I would like the hon. member to say a few words about that.

Earlier, I was surprised to hear the hon. member from Prince Edward Island say that the primary duty of any government is to take care of the most vulnerable and least fortunate, when the Liberals' tax cut for the middle class does absolutely nothing for people earning less than $45,000 a year. They are the ones who need help the most.

Will the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent support the NPD proposal to shift the Liberal Party's tax cut to the first tax bracket?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie in return. I had the pleasure of sparring with the hon. member in some debates. I am pleased to be sitting in the House. Naturally, I would have preferred that the Conservative candidate be elected in his place, but we remain 100% democratic.

It is important for us to fight poverty. However, we believe that the best way to do that is to create wealth, and the best way to create wealth is to trust our entrepreneurs, our small and medium-sized companies and our manufacturers. I just spoke about three things: SMEs, entrepreneurs and wealth creators. None of these were mentioned in the throne speech.

We on this side of the House believe that the real creators of wealth must have the support and assistance of the members of the House, especially the government members. There was not one word in the throne speech about that.

As for the proposal by the second opposition party—I do not know if that is the right term, but that is the term used in the National Assembly—as a seasoned politician, I will first wait to see the documents tabled by the government and the amendments proposed by the second opposition party. Then we will make the best decision in the interest of all Canadians.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my fabulous constituents back home in the riding of Lethbridge, Alberta for electing me as their member of Parliament and entrusting me with the honour of sitting in the House and representing their viewpoints for the nation of Canada. I consider it an immense privilege to serve in public office and I am committed to earning their trust each and every day that I sit here. I will always advocate for what is in the best interests of my constituents. I look forward to ensuring that the views of the people of Lethbridge are heard loud and clear in this chamber.

Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne brought forward by the Liberals is not in the interest of Lethbridge. I am concerned for my riding, specifically for the rural region.

There was absolutely no mention of the importance of agriculture, and there was no mention with regard to supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The beef, pork, and poultry farms in my region alone stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if the Liberals continue to dither and delay in ratifying this agreement. Canadian farmers face one of the most complex and competitive marketplaces in the world with little or no help from the present government. They deserve a government that will stand up for their interests, and this is clearly not happening with the Liberal government at present.

What we witnessed on Friday was a government that puts a premium on rewarding themselves and their friends. Take for instance the Liberal defence of the status quo with regard to the Senate. Does anyone seriously believe that their nominating committee will actually bring about real change? Let us look at the fine print. This is a committee that will be appointed by Liberals. This is a committee that will be advised by Liberals. This is a committee that will then freely select Liberals to be in the Senate on their behalf. Therefore, I have to beg the question: Is this in fact real change?

Instead of giving the Canadian people a say in who represents them in Ottawa, the Liberals have turned to the new aristocrats, the Laurentian elites, to pack out the Senate. We need to gain greater democratic accountability in the Senate, not patronage under a different name.

When it comes to democratic reform, the Liberals are not planning to give Canadians a say in the most fundamental aspect of our democracy, and that is the electoral system itself. Instead, we are going to see a Liberal majority try to ram through a new election method, a method to the partisan advantage of the Liberals at the expense of the Canadian public. It would appear that 2015 marks the beginning of the new Liberal tyranny. On something this fundamental, the only acceptable choice would be to hold a referendum and allow the Canadian voices to be heard.

Are the Liberals refusing to consult with Canadians because they do not trust us or is it simply because they do not want to listen to us?

The Liberals know that every single time that a provincial referendum has been held with regard to this question, the provinces have voted loud and clear to choose a first past the post system. However, that would not allow the Liberals to pick a system like ranked ballots would it? It is a system that would predictably elect Liberal majorities if the Liberals were the second choice for both the NDP and the Conservative on the ballot. Canadians are not fooled, I tell my friends. The residents of Lethbridge and all of Canada deserve more. They deserve good, strong, stable representation.

The unfortunate reality is that the new Prime Minister appears to believe his own rhetoric. He is convinced that he can spend his way out of a deficit. I guess he inherited that belief from his father. Unfortunately, this economic approach is going to have the same disastrous effect for Canada today as it did during the time of the late Trudeau.

As we saw in the 1990s, even a nation like Canada eventually runs out of credit. At that point we see a nation such as Greece or a nation that dramatically has to cut back its government services that our Canadians desperately need. We understand how this will play out because we have seen it before. This is not real change.

The Liberals balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces in the past. They cut critical welfare funding. They scaled back provincial transfers. What was the result of this? A decade of absolute darkness.

Provinces had to cancel public infrastructure, thousands of health care professionals moved to the United States because they could not stay in Canada, and the result for the middle class was absolute inequality and impoverishment.

I believe that the solution is clear. I believe that it starts with controlled government spending, lower taxes, and trust in Canadian entrepreneurs to create real, lasting jobs. Canadians understand that every family has to balance their chequebook or the family will go bankrupt. This is just basic economics. Just because the Canadian government is larger does not mean that this principle fails to apply.

Already the new finance minister is retracting his commitment to limit the deficit to $10 billion a year. Today we read that the Liberal tax plan is not in fact cost-neutral and will in fact cause a structural deficit from day one.

The Liberals have already pushed us into deficit, in record time I might add. Since the parliamentary budget officer had already confirmed this spring that our Conservative government had indeed balanced the budget, I find the Liberal plan incredibly disconcerting.

Furthermore, what concerns me is that when I look at this, I see that the first economic casualty is always our young people. Young workers work in physically demanding industries, like construction, and oil and gas, which are sensitive to the economic trends and will be the first jobs cut, or they find themselves in roles where they are at the bottom of the so-called totem pole. When the workforce has to make job cuts, they are the first to go. Already we are seeing the economic impact on our youth in Alberta as the NDP government does its best to kill jobs in our major industries, the oil and gas sector, and agriculture.

With the Liberals announcing a moratorium that kills new pipelines through B.C. and with their silence on working to overturn the negative Keystone XL decision, the Liberals are actually a part of the problem and not at all a part of the solution.

Using government subsidies to try to create youth jobs is incredibly expensive. As we saw with previous market-distorting government policies, this will only have a negative impact on our young people.

Meanwhile I would draw our attention to the former Conservative approach. It had consistently decreased youth unemployment since the height of the recession in 2008, and was working well to bring people further into the middle class and strengthen it.

Our approach focused on increasing access to skills training, improving market information on in-demand jobs, and reducing payroll taxes in order to give small businesses the flexibility to hire more employees. The Liberals are moving in the opposite direction, and I believe it is absolutely detrimental to the nation of Canada and particularly to my constituents in Lethbridge.

There is one more thing that I would like to note, and that is this Speech from the Throne missed a huge segment of this population, those with disabilities. In the diversity section of the speech, they mentioned aboriginals, Syrian immigrants, veterans, the CBC, and Canada's cultural industries, but absolutely no mention was made of those with disabilities.

I have to ask, is this real change? Is this the change that will benefit and advance Canada, and move us forward as one united nation toward a beautiful end? To that question, I would have to say the answer is no.

In closing, Canada's Conservative government provided a stable economic approach that emphasized low taxes and job creation, and this approach trusted that Canadian entrepreneurs understood how to create jobs far better than inefficient government programs. In short, Conservatives understand that the middle class does not have spare cash to pay for increased taxes.

The extravagant spending of the Liberals can only be paid for by increased taxes, and since their tax on the rich actually loses money, it means the middle class will be stuck with the bill. To state it simply, Canada cannot afford the Liberals' reckless, out-of-control spending.

Canada is not back; debt is back. Debt never serves the middle class.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on being elected to the House and look forward to her interventions.

I notice that she supported skills. I just want to remind the member that the government has promised to reinstate the labour market agreements. I think it was $500 million toward skills, another $200 million for those not prepared to take that skills training, for numeracy and literacy, and even an additional $50 million for the very successful aboriginal skills training.

Does the member not support these initiatives, if she supports skills and training?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to what end will these programs benefit our young people? What are the measures that we are going to see with regard to the success of these programs? I would also ask how we are measuring the need for these skills within our present society in the way that our economy is evolving.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her election and welcome her to the House. As this is my first opportunity to rise in the 42nd Parliament, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the good people of Vancouver Kingsway for their trust in me, for the third time.

My question is about the trans-Pacific partnership that my hon. colleague mentioned. She quite clearly indicated her support for it, and she mentioned the importance of agriculture to our country. We know that the TPP was signed during the federal election and some 6,000 pages of text have now been released; it behooves all of us to take our time to study that agreement. However, we already know its impact on the supply management sectors in this country. We know that about 3.5% of foreign dairy products will be allowed in this country, resulting in the Conservatives announcing during the election that they would have to pay $4.5 billion of compensation to the supply management and agriculture sectors in this country. That indicates a fair bit of dislocation.

We know that dairy, eggs, and poultry are going to be affected, and we know that one of the pillars of supply management is export controls. The TPP, by allowing more exports into Canada, does represent a derogation of one of the key pillars of supply management.

Are the supply management sectors and supply management system in this country something that the member supports, or does she think the supply management system in this country ought to be dismantled?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to questions like this, I believe we can stand in the House and come up with theoretical answers, or we can put our feet on the ground and talk to those who are most personally affected.

In response to the question, I have actually gone to my constituents and talked to residents, particularly those who are affected by the TPP and the decisions going forward. I would quote one of the farmers who said that with the effects of the TPP and the decision that has been made, we could not ask for a better decision. That is a confirmation for what our former prime minister did during the election, and a confirmation that we are in fact going in the right direction with regard to the TPP. The present government should move forward and should do so quickly, for the sake of my constituents, but also for the sake of agriculture across this nation.