Debates of Dec. 8th, 2015

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand before you today in this honoured House in response to the government's Speech from the Throne.

I would like to begin by thanking my constituents of Langley—Aldergrove for, once again, giving me the great honour to be their voice in Canada's Parliament. I and my beautiful wife, Diane, love our community of Langley—Aldergrove. Four generations of Warawas have called Langley their home and, with our five children and 10 grandchildren, we expect many more generations of Warawas are to come.

I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your posting as Deputy Speaker.

I also want to thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for the incredible job he did in the number of Parliaments in which I served with him. He is passionate about the environment and has been very effective in working on the environment for Canadians.

I also want to thank the interim leader for Canada's official opposition, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland. She has given me the great privilege of being Canada's voice for seniors across this great country. Taking care of Canadian seniors has always been a priority for the Conservative Party, and Canadians appreciate greatly the work that the previous government did for seniors.

I am very concerned that the new Prime Minister did not appoint a minister for seniors. I am also concerned that seniors were not mentioned at all in the Speech from the Throne and that the new Liberal government has no plan to keep the promises it made to seniors during the election campaign.

The speech delivered by the Governor General on behalf of the new government called on the chamber to represent the diverse voices of Canadians, which include seniors. It also called on parliamentarians to work together collaboratively to improve the lives of all Canadians, and in this spirit, I stand before the House today. While I agree with the government that the economy and the job creation is very important, as is the strengthening of the middle class, there has been a serious omission. The government forgot to address a growing Canadian demographic with unique concerns. Seniors have been forgotten or ignored.

As we know, right now, one in six Canadians is a senior. In 14 short years, one in four Canadians will be a senior. That is a fundamental shift. Canada needs a sustainable plan for seniors that will meet their needs. While the Speech from the Throne mentions an enhancement to the Canada pension plan for future generations, the Liberal government does not have a plan for seniors' needs today. It is vitally important not only that Parliament create programs that are beneficial to Canadians, but that those programs be financially sustainable and secure. This would ensure that our children and grandchildren can enjoy the stability and economic security that we all enjoy today, due to the past government. Changes to the CPP in the future will not address the needs of seniors today.

I am very concerned that health care and the health of seniors does not appear to be a priority of the new government. The development of a new health accord does not address the growing need for a national palliative care strategy due to Canada's aging population. It is very important that the Liberal government present a plan to ensure quality of life for seniors and all Canadians.

In May of last year, in the 41st Parliament, members voted on a private member's motion calling for the creation of a national strategy on palliative and end-of-life care. That motion passed unanimously in the House, and I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing it to the House. Every Conservative, Liberal, and NDP member supported that motion, including the new Prime Minister. I urge the new Liberal government to keep that promise and immediately start to create the national strategy on palliative and end-of-life care.

One important aspect of palliative care is the caregivers. Caregivers are both medical professionals—such as doctors, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists—and family members and friends. All of these groups and people must work together to create a healthy, supportive, and loving environment for a dying person. That is not to say that the task is either easy or free of economic concerns. Too often the painful choices that families must make in the care of their loved ones are tied to financial concerns.

This is why the compassionate care benefit was developed to help Canadian families struggling with the impending loss of a loved one, in order to ensure that families have the ability to leave their employment for a period of time to care for the dying loved one or friend. The program was launched in 2004, and it has been growing ever since. When the program was launched, it provided financial support to a very restricted list of caregivers for a period of up to six weeks in a 26-week window. I am very proud that our Conservative government expanded the benefits from six weeks to six months and let the dying persons choose who would be their care provider. It is also important to note that Canadian women represent 75% of claimants of the compassionate care benefit.

In addition to the increase in eligible time that can be claimed for the compassionate care benefit, our Conservative government of the past nearly doubled the funding for this important program from $6.9 million in 2004-2005 to $12 million in 2013-2014. This is part of what led to the increase of caregivers, that they receive the support they need. This support is a real demonstration that the government can show Canadian caregivers and their loved ones that their federal government cares about their plight and wants to help them in the painful ordeal of losing a loved one.

While the government is on the right track to follow our support for caregivers, it does not address the other issue raised in Motion No. 456 in the last Parliament. I would like to encourage the government to present this House with a national palliative care strategy that takes into account Canada's geographic, regional, and cultural diversity. As legislators, we are faced with the challenge of an aging population. In my role as critic for seniors, I must shine a light on this important issue, and that is why I bring it up today.

Another concerning omission from the throne speech is the issue of elder abuse. How is the legalization of marijuana going to prevent elder abuse? While I applaud the government's decision to provide further support to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, preventing violence against seniors is just as important. Elder abuse exists in numerous ways: physical and sexual abuse, psychological and emotional abuse, financial abuse, and neglect. All of these areas are harmful when they occur to any Canadian, but there is a special grievous nature to the crimes when they are committed against the most vulnerable Canadians.

To give an example, we were all shocked and saddened to learn last year of the restraint and robbery suffered by a 101-year-old man, Second World War veteran, retired Colonel Ernest Côté, here in Ottawa. This crime rocked the community and shone the light on a vulnerable demographic that is growing. While on this case, I mention the crime was perpetrated by a stranger.

What makes elder abuse unique is that quite often the abuser is an individual who is trusted by the senior. Family members, assistance providers, and friends can provide important care, or they may be a danger to a senior. It is important that Canadians, especially seniors, are aware of the signs of elder abuse, and that they know who they can call for help. What is the government's plan to educate seniors and the public about signs and dangers of elder abuse? We do not see anything.

The real test for the current Liberal government is whether it will deliver. Canadians want promises kept and a sustainable plan that will lead to long-term results, given our Conservative values that seniors are important, but unfortunately they are not a priority to a Liberal government.

The official opposition cannot support the throne speech as it has been presently written.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from the riding of Langley—Aldergrove for his re-election, and I look forward to working with him in this Parliament.

I have some questions. I am impressed with his concern for seniors, but I feel that he has been talking to different seniors from the ones I talked to in the last election. I knocked on the doors of women and men who were concerned about their income having been stalled over the last nine years, with no concern from a government for the fact that their cost of living was increased. I talked to seniors who were concerned about the fact that public transit was increasingly expensive with no plan for helping them get around our cities. I talked to seniors who were concerned about the stock of affordable housing, and were continually concerned about not having a place to live, or about spending too much on their rent so they did not have food to eat. Those are the seniors' concerns I have been hearing, as well as seniors' concerns about climate change and child care, because they are not self-interested.

What does the member propose to actually suggest to the government to improve the lives of seniors?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member across the way on his election. It is nice to hear he has talked to seniors, yet, the government does not have a minister for seniors. Previous governments did. Why are seniors not a priority for the Liberal government? They should be. One in six Canadians is a senior. It is the largest growing demographic in this country, yet the Liberals do not have anybody to represent seniors.

I, as a Conservative, am proud to take on that mantle and represent seniors in the House. I hope one day very soon the Prime Minister will appoint a minister for seniors, because it is needed. The issues that the member brought up should be addressed in the House. Why are they not being addressed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election and on his advocacy for seniors. The Conservative government brought in income-splitting for seniors, something that the new government, when it was in opposition, voted against.

Something else we proposed in the election was a single seniors tax cut, providing a tax cut for single seniors so that at the time they are dealing with the loss of a spouse they do not have the added financial burden of paying higher taxes.

Is it the member's hope, as it is mine, that the government will bring in new tax relief right away to support our seniors?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work already in the House. He gets it; Conservatives seem to naturally get that it is important to protect those and assist those who helped build this great country. To help seniors is important. It is a priority for this party and I encourage every member of Parliament to support our seniors.

We should start off with appointing a minister for seniors, amend the Speech from the Throne to include seniors and include tax cuts, but what we are seeing now is a removal of the tax-free savings plan. Over half of Canadians who use the plan are seniors and that is going to be removed.

Are the Liberals going to keep their promises on the backs of seniors? Shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a moment on the theme of the hon. member's speech, seniors. We know it is important, if seniors want to retire in dignity, to have an adequate, reliable income. We in the NDP know that the expansion of the Canada pension plan is the best way to ensure that all Canadians, no matter their income bracket, retire with that income.

I wonder if in light of those facts the hon. member would urge his colleagues to stop misrepresenting an expansion of the CPP as a payroll tax when it is part of the wage package that Canadians work for every day, so that they can retire with dignity.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is that the NDP does not understand where the taxpayers' money from. It comes from taxpayers. Every time CPP benefits are increased, the money has to come from somewhere. It comes from Canadians in their deductions off their payroll and the employer also has to match that at a 2.4 level. It means less income and more taxes for the employers. Is that good for Canada? No.

This party supports increasing a CPP package that is sustainable so we will not only help this generation, but future generations.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I hope that I can take a moment to enjoy this moment because it is truly unique. Many of us, 200-plus, are enjoying what I am enjoying right now. I would like to also relay my thanks to the good people of Fleetwood—Port Kells who, with their support, have made this moment for me possible and I hope to serve them with honour.

It has been a long time since I have been considered a rookie at anything.

I hope that one day I will be much better at speaking French.

For me to go any further would be harmful to the ears of my colleagues who are proficient in French. My high school French goes only so far, but even at my age, I intend to work on this, because this place is the place of expansion of ideas, expansion of spirit, an expansion of things getting done.

Of course at home, the languages I could learn would include Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi, Tagalog, and many, many others. In fact, Fleetwood—Port Kells was described by a member of the B.C. Legislature as a mini-Canada. We have our industries to the north along the Fraser River. Along the Serpentine River, there are grand areas of agriculture.

We have very diverse neighbourhoods in Fleetwood—Port Kells, robust Muslim, South Asian, and Asian communities that really do build the character of the community. Of course we have the Katzie First Nation on Barnston Island as part of our riding.

Truly, like Canada itself, ours is a community that draws its strength and its character from its diversity, not in spite of it. It is a privilege to be here in the Commons to be its voice.

It is also a privilege to once again collaborate with many present in this House. Of course I have my new colleagues from Surrey who have also been successful in the election, but as I look across the way, there are some who have worked with me in the past. For instance, I recognize the member for Langley—Aldergrove who, with me, worked on initiatives to reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes in British Columbia, and very effectively indeed.

Almost 17 years ago now, the member for Vancouver East, then a cabinet minister in the government of British Columbia, was instrumental in working with me and the Vancouver Police to remove a product called rice alcohol from the streets of Downtown Eastside. The Downtown Eastside is racked by many problems. This very toxic potion was one of them and it was being sold under the counter in convenience stores. With that member's help, we got it regulated and off the street, and out of the misery that contributes to people in that part of Vancouver.

In recent years, the member for South Surrey—White Rock and I worked with many others to advance the cause of light rail rapid transit for Surrey, she as mayor, and I as a senior staff member at metro Vancouver's regional transportation authority.

The people back home will be happy to see all the new Liberal members from Surrey, plus the member for South Surrey—White Rock, and our former mayor, collaborate to bring light rail to reality for the people of Surrey. The election campaign was my first, and it proved to be a real privilege to take a message of real change to so many people in Fleetwood—Port Kells, to so many different doorsteps.

People in Fleetwood—Port Kells, as in the rest of Canada, have high expectations that this Parliament will accomplish many things, not just the people on this side of the House, but people on all sides of the House, as we collaborate and move things forward. If it is a good idea, it does not matter who has it, it should be discussed, debated, and enacted. That was a clear message out of our election campaign.

Fleetwood—Port Kells itself is a relatively prosperous riding. Our Fraser Heights area is beautiful. We have estate homes in beautiful settings. Our Fleetwood and Chimney Hills communities are very solid middle class. It is a place where family, community, and individual initiatives have become the foundations for a very, very strong community and a very prosperous one.

However, during the campaign on the doorsteps in Guildford, it was a different story. It was clear that many families, and many of them newcomers to British Columbia and to Canada, were having a tough time.

It was a serious matter to be able to talk to them about a tax cut on middle incomes and about a non-taxable Canada child benefit that would put more money on the kitchen table for them each and every month. We could see in their eyes what a difference those measures would make. What we saw in their eyes was hope. Because of that, I was very proud of our party, our program, and our leader, because we could offer them the hope that real change would bring.

Beyond that, I was also immensely proud of the way our community responded. People seemed to realize once again something that had been missing from the national dialogue. We got too used to being conditioned to be taxpayers and consumers. During the campaign, we discovered that we are also citizens of a country that, historically, has shared care for the common good.

As the votes were counted from our well-to-do neighbourhoods, I became even more proud of Fleetwood—Port Kells because, let us face it, they were the ones who would see their taxes go up as a result of the Liberal program. However, it was clear when the tallies came in that so many of them had validated our leader's faith that those who have a lot will not mind paying a little more to give a hand up to the people who need it.

Our program to build the nation's foundation through infrastructure investments resonated very strongly with people. We could also see in their eyes that they lived in nice houses and they had families who were doing well, but there was this shadow of an economy that threatened their jobs, and the security of our economy was of critical importance to them. They could see how the investments of an activist government that was just not prepared to sit back and let the private sector carry the load meant something to them.

There were so many others, people who make up a large percentage of our population, who agreed with us that would-be Canadians should be measured by the size of their hope, courage, and spirit, and not just by the size of their wallets. I am an old guy. I grew up in Canada in a time when it earned its reputation as being a refuge for people in distress. I remember the news in 1956 and 1957, when we welcomed 38,000 refugees from Hungary, with a population of just 15 million people. I remember from 1975 to 1980 the Vietnamese boat people. There were 55,000 of them from a war-torn part of the world who came to Canada. I also remember the 6,000 Muslims who were given 90 days to leave Uganda. We took them in.

This is the Canada that I grew up with in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when I was truly a rookie at almost everything. Now, it is the Canada that we are seeing again. Synagogues, Sikh temples, mosques, and churches have gathered together to welcome the Syrian refugees. Just last Sunday, the BC Muslim Association hosted an event in Surrey that in one night raised $300,000 to welcome these people properly.

I have to say that, on balance, it is a pleasure to be a rookie again and work at restoring and preserving the Canada that we love and that the world loves for myself, my kids, and all of us here.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells on his inaugural speech and I welcome him to the House. It is great to have him in here, providing his perspective.

He talked about talking on the doorstep to the electorate, citizens, and individuals and hearing the concerns that they raised. I certainly did the same, as well. I heard about the issues of housing, child care, jobs, and the environment. Of course, transit also came up quite a bit, about which this member knows a fair amount.

I wonder if the hon. member could talk about a commitment. There were many promises made by the new Liberal government while campaigning, including on transit. We have been calling for a national transit strategy for a long time. Will the government commit to ensuring that we move toward a new national transit strategy, which many OECD countries already have, but Canada does not? Will the member commit to working with his government to ensure that we have a national transit strategy?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the question because that has come up as an issue many times. A national transit strategy relies in some respects on a homogenous environment across the country. I know from my personal experience and from talking to my then-colleagues in transit authorities across the country that conditions change from province to province. We have seen this everywhere from health care to any of the other national files that are important.

Our government needs to create an environment where those discussions can come forward, where we create goals, objectives, and a framework for each province and each municipality, which we supported in the past when Paul Martin initiated the transit tax transfer from the fuel tax revenues. We need to come up with a framework that allows every municipality in the country to respond according to its local conditions. The framework and overall goals would be a worthy conversation to have in the House, in terms of discussing what would work in a uniform way across Canada while respecting the regional differences.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have risen in the House I would like to thank the citizens of South Okanagan—West Kootenay for placing their trust in me and putting me here in the chamber.

The member talked about the hope in peoples' eyes when he met them on the doorsteps and told them about the income tax cuts the Liberals were planning. I just looked up the income distribution for Guildford and Fleetwood and 75% to 80% of the people in those communities are making less than $45,000 a year. I wonder how they are going to benefit from these plans.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it is pertinent. One of the things that distinguished our plan was the fact that there were a number of interlocking pieces to it. In the discussions I had on those doorsteps, where the family itself was perhaps not making up to the threshold of around $45,000 where a tax cut would kick in, more often than not there were children present and those are the people who would benefit very specifically. It has been proven, from independent analysis by MoneySense magazine and others comparing the parties' various tax proposals, that those families with children would benefit more from the Liberal program than the others, particularly the program that had been put in place by the Conservatives and adopted by the NDP. It is the Canada child benefit, income tested as it is, that would actually tilt the benefits toward the people who need it the most.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations.

I want to begin by thanking my wife, Amy Symington, my parents, and my family and friends for their love and support through this year's marathon campaign. I thank also the hundreds of volunteers who worked tirelessly to give me this opportunity and all the residents of Beaches—East York who put their trust and confidence in me.

I am especially proud of my community's recent efforts to come together in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis. Many neighbours have pledged both their time and money to welcome refugees into our community. I commend the work of local churches, community organizations, and hard-working, caring individuals.

It is an important reminder that long-term peace is forged by a compassionate and inclusive society. I see those values as my fellow neighbours work to welcome newcomers into our community and do their part in our world. Equally, our response to the Syrian refugee crisis is a reminder that we can and should work to put politics aside. In doing so, we have the ability to accomplish great things.

I am one of 197 new MPs, and my home riding sent me here to take a new approach, one focused on honest debate, respectful disagreement, and building consensus.

Pollsters tell us that less than a quarter of Canadians have faith in our democracy. I am asking everyone in this House to help change that. I believe that politics is a noble profession and I am naive enough to want every Canadian to feel pride in the work that we will do here when they watch us in action. Canadians agree on more than we often realize. Rather than scoring points and tearing each other down, we should work as hard as we can to prioritize agreement.

In the throne speech, we were promised a government that is smart and caring. Those two themes are important, with fiscal responsibility and social progress matching a social justice perspective and an investment outlook.

There are any number of issues where we may disagree on why we support a given policy or initiative, but we do in fact agree on the end conclusion. It is our job to point these out, and many of these issues were rightfully highlighted in the throne speech. I will mention five.

First is a recommitment to science, evidence and data-driven government. In the U.S., former officials in the Obama and Bush administrations estimate that less than one out of every hundred dollars of government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence that the money is being spent wisely. We experienced similar problems here in Canada, yet good data is central to good decision-making. We need to collect better data about the policies and programs that work, to fund or increase funding for what works, and to direct funds away from those programs that fail to achieve measurable outcomes.

I am proud that 2016 will be a census year, but that must be only the beginning. Fairness requires that our social programs are effective. Reason requires that they are also efficient. Good data is essential for both.

Second, we should work across the aisle to end poverty in this country. Our Canada child benefit is one significant piece to that puzzle. It is effectively a guaranteed annual income for kids and families in need. As an aside, a basic annual income has been advocated by those in both the traditional left and the traditional right, including the hon. Hugh Segal.

Bringing kids out of poverty is obviously a matter of social justice. It is on its face the right thing to do, but we also know that kids lifted out of poverty are more likely to finish high school, go to university or college, and contribute to our economy in a serious way, not to mention the savings in future social assistance, criminal justice, and health care.

In 1989, this House unanimously committed to ending child poverty by the year 2000. It is now 2015 and over one million children still live below the poverty line, but the importance of that objective should not be forgotten.

Our benefit aims to bring over 300,000 of those kids above the poverty line. More work obviously remains to be done, but it is an important initial commitment. We will not dictate how the money should be spent. We will simply ensure that the money is targeted to those families in real need.

Third is public infrastructure investment. We talk a lot about deficits in the House, but we should be clear which deficit most concerns us. My primary concern is the infrastructure deficit. It exceeds $120 billion across the country, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It costs our economy billions of dollars in productivity every year.

The Board of Trade of Toronto has estimated that congestion costs the GTA economy at least $6 billion every year. The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that this figure exceeds $11 billion in the GTHA. If we do not make investments in core infrastructure and public transit now, it will cost us more in the long run. With interest rates at historic lows, we have a unique opportunity to invest.

In the spirit of not scoring points, let me remind Canadians that investment in infrastructure rose from 2.5% of GDP a year in 2000 to 2006 to 3.3% in 2007 to 2012. In other words, our former Conservative government understood the need for public infrastructure investment, made historic investments, and we are continuing and expanding upon that work.

Fourth is our environment. The provinces have moved forward in the absence of federal leadership over the last 10 years. We need to work with them. Without question, there is a significant future cost to climate change. Reports tell us that inaction will ultimately cost us more than action.

For starters, we need to ensure effective carbon pricing across our country. In 2008, B.C. implemented an effective carbon price that is revenue neutral. I am encouraged by similar efforts to date in Alberta.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke of intrusive government yesterday, but there is a consensus among economists about the usefulness of a carbon price. It is supported by those who believe in free markets. It emphasizes the principle that polluters should pay. It is a classic economic response: internalizing the externalities imposed on our environment that are not adequately captured in the current price of fossil fuels. When Preston Manning and the cross-partisan Ecofiscal Commission are calling for carbon pricing, it is quite clearly not the job-killing tax on everything that Canadians have been repeatedly told.

Fifth is health care, including preventive health care and a focus on the social determinants of health, poverty alleviation, and better support for nutrition and physical activity programs. There are many steps we can take to improve Canadians' quality of life, all the more important when one considers that an unhealthy Canadian costs our public system $10,000 more per year than a healthy Canadian.

Similarly, we must heed the call of the Canadian Medical Association and invest in home care and long-term care facilities. Hospital stays can cost over $1,000 per day, long-term care $130, and home care as little as $55 a day. As seniors already represent 50% of health care spending, it is incumbent on us both to improve the quality of care and to create savings in our health care system.

There are many other ideas and issues to add to this list, from expanding the housing first initiative to reversing unjust tough on crime policies that put more Canadians in jail at an average annual cost of $120,000, to a public health approach to drug policy, and on and on.

Finally, there are a number of initiatives that respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and the openness of government without affecting the public purse. Our merit-based and practical plan for Senate reform to remove partisanship and patronage in the upper chamber is endorsed by constitutional experts.

I look forward to helping craft death-with-dignity legislation to protect the constitutional rights of the terminally ill; to demanding better customer service from our government agencies for Canadians in times of need, especially in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; to fixing Bill C-51 to ensure that our charter rights are respected; to bringing animal welfare laws into the 21st century; and to adopting long-overdue electoral reform, not only making every vote count but also strengthening Elections Canada and respecting the freedom to vote our conscience, as promised by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

I want to end on this note and stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness, and the importance of respectful disagreement. I am a proud member of the Liberal caucus, but I am prouder still of standing here in the House as the voice of all residents of Beaches-East York.

I look forward to being a strong voice for my riding in the House over the next four years and to working with each and every member in the House for all Canadians, to build consensus, to prioritize those issues where there is consensus, and to be a government that gets things done.

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

Mr. Speaker, congratulations. It is good to see you back in the chair.

I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague for his maiden speech in the House. I had the good fortune when I left the military to live in Beaches—East York, in the Beach Triangle. It is a lovely community with wonderfully warm and caring people, and I see that he is taking that approach here in the House.

In his remarks, though, he said how troubled he is that people are losing faith in their political system, noting that only one-third have faith in their system. How can he work within the new government to keep that faith when, in the first two months of his government, a litany of promises made during the election have already been changed, whether on refugees, the revenue-neutral changes to the tax code, or, indeed, the pledge that deficits would stay below $10 billion for only three years? Those have already been cast aside.

He had a very good and passionate list of issues he wanted to bring to the House, but how can he build that faith when his government is eroding the trust that was just given to it on October 19?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is about listening to Canadians.

My friend sees a broken promise with respect to Syrian refugees; I see listening to Canadians and actually working across the aisle with the other side.

The commitment remains 25,000 Syrian refugees to be brought into Canada by the end of 2016. We will have 15,000 government-sponsored Syrian refugees by the end of February 2016 and the remainder over the rest of the year. We will exceed those targets with respect to private sponsorship. If my community is indicative of other communities across the country, there is an outpouring of support, and I expect we will well exceed the 35,000 we have currently targeted.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on getting elected and on his speech.

He spoke about the importance of making sure that every vote counts. With regard to electoral reform, the government has already indicated that it is leaning toward a preferential ballot system.

What does the member think of the fact that many Canadians who have studied this topic for many years, some of whom are members of organizations such as the Mouvement pour une démocratie nouvelle or Fair Vote Canada, believe that we should follow the example of many other countries and go with a mixed member proportional system? Such a system would truly ensure that every vote would count.

What does the member think about that?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak for the government; I speak for myself. The government is committed to electoral reform and it is committed to listening to Canadians.

I have not heard the government commit to a preferential ballot and no other option. I understand we will strike a working committee and listen to Canadians. I am a member of Fair Vote Canada and I look forward to advocating to introduce an element of proportional representative into our system.

We cannot tell Canadians how we will change the system. This decision is too important. We have to listen to Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

My compliments to hon. members, by the way, on these rounds of questions and comments. When members keep their questions and responses succinct, we get more participation in these rounds of questions and comments. That was a way of pre-staging my comment that we still have time for one other question and comment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague across the floor on his election and I welcome him to the House.

He made a comment at the very end that an issue as important as this was something about which we had to speak to Canadians. I find it very interesting that he talked about an open and transparent government, and that they needed to talk to Canadians about important issues.

However, yesterday and again today we heard the government say that this would be the last election ever decided by the first past the post system. This was decided without any debate in the House and without any discussion with Canadians across the country.

Does the member feel that changing the electoral system on how the government is elected is not important enough to discuss with Canadians? Will the member commit to having a referendum on this very important issue?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am open to a discussion regarding a referendum, but the fact is that we just had an election. I am not suggesting that the Liberal Party obtained enough votes to make this a mandate, but the NDP also ran on electoral reform.

Canadians were very clear that they wanted to move beyond the first past the post.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on her speech and her passion for the most vulnerable.

There seems to be a disconnect with what we hear from the government. The Liberals talk about helping those who need it most, but they are bringing in a tax cut that will benefit those making over $90,000 a year. Meanwhile they are cutting tax-free savings accounts even though most of the people who use tax-free savings accounts are making less than $60,000 a year. There is a real disconnect on the part of the government with respect to that.

In the interest of helping those who need it most, will the hon. member join us in supporting the continuation of the tax-free savings accounts?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is one of the poorest in this country. I would like to see the government give the tax breaks to the bracket of people who are not eligible right now for exactly those tax breaks. Many of the people in Vancouver East need that break. They need that support. A government that wants to ensure everybody succeeds should change the tax breaks, work with the NDP caucus, and bring that forward.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from Vancouver East for her inaugural speech.

I would like her to elaborate on her comments regarding co-operative housing. I began working in the co-operative housing sector 25 years ago, and I found that it was an excellent way to help people have a good quality of life.

Can the member elaborate on this issue?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that safe, secure, affordable housing is needed everywhere in this country, from social housing to co-operative housing. They play an important role. In my riding, there are more than 3,000 units of affordable housing whose operating agreements are set to expire or might have expired already. We need the government to follow through on its commitment to ensure that those operating agreements are renewed, so that nobody is displaced.

Equally important, we need to see a national affordable housing program, so that we can see the government build affordable housing once again and build co-op housing once again.