Debates of Dec. 8th, 2015

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

There is going to be a change in both form and substance when it comes to fighting climate change. The work that has already begun is really just a first step. The Liberal government has a lot more ambition than the previous government. We will have significant but realistic targets.

It is important to point out that this work will be done in partnership with provincial governments, the Northwest Territories government, and the municipalities, in order to achieve something that is realistic and that we can carry out by working together, with achievable targets. This is going to happen; in fact, it is already happening, if we look at Canada's current efforts in Paris.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague, whom I know very well. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on a few different occasions. He is such a skilled orator, I am surprised that he did not get a cabinet position.

I would like to hear what he thinks about political party financing. I know he was a strong advocate for the principle established by former prime minister Jean Chrétien, specifically that financing should be based on two rules: one, only people who have the right to vote should be allowed to contribute, and not businesses or associations; and two, because that means lower revenues for political parties, and in order to prevent another sponsorship scandal, the federal government should contribute $2 per vote, similarly to what is done in some provinces. The previous government changed that policy and eliminated the $2-contribution.

Would the member not agree that we should go back to the principles established by Jean Chrétien when he proposed the bill on political party financing, which was then based on voters' contributions and government compensation to existing political parties?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I am very pleased to see him again here in the House. I congratulate him on his longevity.

As far as political contributions are concerned, I completely agree that they should be made by individuals and not corporations or associations. I think that the current system ensures that parties have to do better, be creative and appeal to a much larger voter base. They may get smaller donations, but from a larger number of people. I think the Liberal Party of Canada successfully adapted to that model. It received the largest number of donations from a larger number of Canadians.

I invite the other parties to modernize the same way the Liberal party of Canada has.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech outside of questions and comments. It is my turn to reply to the Speech from the Throne, but before I begin, I want to thank the constituents of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame for giving me the honour to be here. I want to thank the former constituents of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for providing the last 11 and a half years of representation.

I would be remiss if I did not congratulate one particular individual who will be here this week, and that is Mr. Dwight Ball, who recently won the election and is now the premier designate of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to wish him all the best, as well as his new cabinet and the new government. I look forward to working with them.

Over the past little while, as I travelled around, primarily through central Newfoundland, certainly in the past three months throughout the election, the discussion was more about openness. Discussion in Newfoundland and Labrador took on a theme of getting back to business, getting back to governing, getting back to listening, and getting back to providing people with investments, with hope, and with clarity so they could get on with their lives and they, their children, and their grandchildren could succeed.

For Newfoundland and Labrador, it was very adversarial, going way back to the mid-2000s when we had what was then called the ABC campaign, the “anybody but Conservative” campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. One would expect a Liberal or NDP government at the time waging war against the Conservatives, but, in fact, it was the Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador that waged that war against the Conservatives of Ottawa. This gives people an idea of the kind of situation with which we were faced. Now that I think about it, they were Progressive Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Throughout the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I have heard may themes that are of particular interest to me and my constituents, for several reasons. For many years, particularly in central Newfoundland, one of the greatest exports, as most people would know, has been in the seafood industry, whether it be cod, crab, shrimp, mackerel, all other species throughout the area. It has been a fantastic export and has sustained the 140 communities in my riding for over 500 years. Mining and forestry are also a big part of that. However, lately we have seen a far greater export come on the scene, and that is the export of skilled trades.

Back in 1992, the greatest layoff in Canadian history took place when the fishery was closed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Millions of people were out of work at that time. The goal was to re-educate. The goal was to create colleges, to bring money to invest in skills so people could transition to making a living and help the communities survive.

At the time, there was a lot of contention about it. People said that by doing this, there could not be five carpenters or five salons in a town of about 20 people, that it was just not possible. At that time, the colleges were becoming bigger and adapting to the world market, not just the Canadian market, and that is key.

Now people who live in my riding spend weeks at a time flying to places like Nigeria, Russia, Norway, all over Northern Africa, and, of course, Alberta and Saskatchewan, with the trades they have acquired. I bring all of that up because the only reason people were able to survive and flourish through the recession of 2008 was because the province was able to export its people, their trades, their skills and their talents.

The only way that happened was because back in 1992 to 1996, we were able to have a discussion about what would be best for not just those who were laid off in the fishery but for those who followed. Their children and grandchildren are now benefiting from the investments that were made back then.

That brings me to today with regard to infrastructure. We are doubling up on an infrastructure investment for a very good reason. We are investing not just in roads, bridges, and Internet connectivity, we are also investing in the future of our youth to provide them with the facilities, the jobs, and the skills that follow.

There is a myriad of opportunities presented in the Speech from the Throne that I am so proud of for several reasons, such as the well-being of Canadians and a new health accord.

I spoke earlier about the ABC campaign and how tumultuous it was, not just with my province but with other provinces as well. I mean, God forbid the prime minister of our country would have a discussion with the premiers. It seems like that was sacrosanct for a while. It was almost to the point where we took for granted that we could not have an open discussion within one room among three territorial leaders, the premiers of 10 provinces and one prime minister. This used to happen all the time. I remember the days when we would see former Prime Minister Trudeau and others, even Brian Mulroney, a true Conservative, have these discussions, but they just disappeared, and nobody had these discussions anymore. This is why the Conservatives get angry when we talk about having a discussion with the provinces. They know they could not get that part done. Nor did they want to.

I will get back to the health accord and the cuts that were made to the health accord. The one that was done ran out in 2010. In many cases, the wait times were reduced in 2005 when we brought this in. We also looked at a more generous home care, which is also in our platform and which I look forward to as well.

I want to get to something else that happens in Atlantic Canada. It is about employment insurance, but not just employment insurance. This is about seasonal work. It is about people who engage in seasonal work, not just in Atlantic Canada but all over the country, in construction, forestry, farming, the agriculture sector, and fishing. We know that many places need the workers, which is why many avail themselves of the temporary foreign workers program. However, the employment insurance program did not help either.

What bothered me the most in the last session was that people who were on employment insurance were treated as those who wanted to milk the system for what they could get out of it. However, employment insurance represented a way of life, because they wanted to succeed in their communities and it allowed industries to succeed. It is not just the people on employment insurance who needed it the most, but companies also needed it as well because they needed the workers. However, that discussion never took place.

In the last session I served as the democratic reform critic, and I am very proud of what has been said so far on our democratic institutions. The reason why I am proud is that we made a commitment regarding the first past the post system, because it does not work for most Canadians. We decided that it was time for us to have a national discussion.

We know that discussions took place in British Columbia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. It was a great exercise for many people, because they had to learn about our system and how we elected our representatives in a truly democratic and responsible way. Many ideas did not get off the ground, and the fundamental changes were not made. However, if that is the case, why can we not, as a federal government, make that discussion possible coast to coast to coast? It is about time that happened. We know we have the status quo. We know another party wants to have a particular type of proportional representation.

We decided to have this open discussion with people who had never had that discussion before. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have never had a provincial discussion based on what type of system we would like to transition to, if we chose to do that. Therefore, what I like about this is that we will undergo a process that allows Canadians to have that discussion. It may be with premiers. It may be with certain groups such as Fair Vote Canada and others. At least the discussion will be one that will be responsible.

The first thing I learned when I came here in 2004 was to listen far more than talk, and right now I will leave it at that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to stand in this place, I would like to thank the voters of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for putting their faith in me to represent them. I will do my best to not let them down.

I would also like to congratulate the member opposite on his re-election. I am happy to say that we went to the same post-secondary institution, and with that in common, I look forward to working with him.

I appreciated the member's comments on democratic reform. I understand the Liberals did commit to a process and will go through with that.

After that is all said and done, why not take it to referendum? Why not ask the people if it is what they actually want and let them have the opportunity to decide? This is a fundamental change to our voting system.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to point something out. It is nice to know that the member and I went to the same institution. Because I had graduated from that institution, I used to think it was a little mediocre. However, knowing that the member has graduated from there also, it is now a much greater institution.

Now to the point at hand. If we look at the process by which this takes place, in most of these provinces that step was not taken at that time because we wanted to have an open discussion. We cannot put something into the measures before the discussion even takes place because that would cause the conversation to be prejudiced. Most jurisdictions do that because that is a part of that open discussion.

My question to the Conservatives is this. They wanted a full reform of the Senate to have its members elected. Where was the vote on that? I did not see that one come forward.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your new role.

Speaking in the House is always a privilege. However, the opportunity to speak is a responsibility we must all honour and I promise to do that on behalf of the people of Trois Rivières who did me the honour of re-electing me.

The part in my colleague's speech about employment insurance in particular caught my attention. We know what workers and employers in our respective regions need in terms of employment insurance.

Does my colleague think that his government will make a steadfast commitment, a commitment that I did not see in the Speech from the Throne, to ensure that employers' and workers' contributions are used only for the purposes they were intended for or, in other words, not used for purposes other than those they were intended for?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that it is for the beneficiaries in this particular case. In most cases, I agree that is true. The first goal, and most important measure we need to take with respect to our short-term and long-term goals for employment insurance, is to ensure that the processing is quicker. We have reduced the waiting time period. Now we are looking at increasing efficiencies within the system to make it better. There are people who have to wait upwards of two months for that first cheque to arrive. That is two months of bills that climb up before they get paid. I appreciate the member's comments. Hopefully, these short-term measures will be in place soon.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, allow me the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. As well, I thank the voters of Cape Breton—Canso for the great honour of coming back to the House to represent them for a sixth term.

My riding and that of my colleague are similar. I know that in Atlantic Canada 54% of the regional GDP is generated from seasonal industries. What I heard over the course of the campaign was that the changes that had been made really had an impact on the EI system and depleted the workforce in these seasonal industries.

I would ask my colleague if he had heard the same and if he understands the urgency on the part of our government to make changes to ensure that these industries will have access to a workforce that is so necessary?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and to say I am a fan is the biggest understatement I have mentioned today.

Indeed, I did hear that, not only with respect to traditional industries but with respect to newer industries as well. I have mentioned forestry, fisheries, and mining. Of these industries that are seasonal by nature, the one that I forgot to mention is tourism. It is a major factor in tourism right now because employers are having a hard time finding employees based on the inefficiencies in the system.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue with the next speaker, I want to thank all members for their kind words. It is an honour for me to be here today, especially on the fourth birthday of my grandson Kade. I mentioned my grandson Kade. However, I cannot mention him without mentioning Kian, because he would be jealous that his brother was named here, and of course their little brother Preston who has just come out of ICU. He is only three weeks old. We wish him all the best in his recovery.

I want to say that it is an honour, and I appreciate all of the kind words from the members. I look forward to continuing to work with all members, and learning their names, their positions, their ridings, and their seats. Because it is difficult for us to see with all of these additional spaces that have been brought in, members will have to excuse us if we do not get the name of their riding right initially. However, please feel free to correct us.

On that note, I ask the hon. member for Provencher to begin his speech.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, congratulate you on your new position. I can hardly believe that you are old enough to have grandchildren.

I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I would like to begin by saying that it is an honour to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of the people of Provencher. I want to thank my constituents for their renewed faith in me and for voting me in to serve their interests here in Ottawa for a second term. I look forward to working with my colleagues in an environment of collaboration, in sunnier ways, while at the same time holding the government to account as the opposition. As the official opposition, it is clear that we have a lot of work to do, and I am confident that we are going to live up to that challenge.

I would like to take this time to also thank my wife, Irene, who was with me on the campaign trail. She tirelessly knocked on many doors with me and was at my side for the entire time during the campaign. I thank her for that, as well as the rest of my family.

I also want to take this time to address the many promises made to Canadians this past Friday during the Speech from the Throne. The Liberal Speech from the Throne was long on platitudes and very short on details. I am troubled by the long list of spending commitments that the Liberals have indicated that Canadians can soon expect, while simultaneously neglecting to describe how these promises will be paid for.

We know that it is easy to make commitments. What is the cost? Who is going to pay? These are all lofty promises.

I fear that when we choose to run large deficits, far too often the costs fall onto future generations. The costs fall on the backs of our children and grandchildren. I, along with many of the constituents I have spoken to, am not comfortable with the promises that come with that kind of price. I want Canadians to have resources, programs, and benefits that we can collectively afford, and I want to set future generations, my seven grandchildren, their children, and their grandchildren up for success.

The government has the capacity to provide great programs and benefits to Canadians, but it involves careful, long-term planning, sound budgeting, and fiscal responsibility. I cannot say that I am very surprised that one promise that the Liberals will not even be close to keeping is the $10 billion annual cap on deficits. They are introducing a tax cut that actually costs people money. The deficit is now up to $14 billion and counting. This is taxpayers' money that has been committed by the Prime Minister in just over a month in his position. It includes large sums of taxpayers' money and funding to many international projects, without any parliamentary debate or review.

If that is what we can expect in one month, I do not even want to imagine where Canada will be in four years. It is truly unsettling to watch years of careful financial planning, which brought our Canada into a sound and secure financial place during challenging economic times, including a global economic downturn, being unravelled in so little time.

With the Liberals' sights set on spending, they also do damage by not addressing as priorities in the throne speech the prominent pillars of our economy. Again, the Liberals are long on platitudes and short on details.

Coming from a large rural riding with a strong and vibrant agriculture community, I can say that rural Canadians were left with questions following Friday's throne speech. In fact, farmers were left out in the cold and, apparently, not even deserving of a platitude. Not once were our farmers or agriculture sector mentioned. It is a sector that accounts for more than $100 billion in economic activity each and every year and employs more than two million Canadians.

The Prime Minister has stated to the world that Canada is back. What are we back to? Are we back to thinking that the issues and interests of rural and western Canada can be ignored? I hope not.

Farmers are the backbone of this country. Farmers work long days in physically demanding environments so that Canadians can eat and remain nourished. This cannot be emphasized enough. While it seems as though Canada's farming and agriculture sectors were passed over as a priority for the Liberal government, I can assure the House that the Conservative Party will be here to work for and represent the interests of Canadian farmers.

Farmers were not the only ones left out of the government's priorities. There was no mention of Canada's private sector or of its industries. Conservatives have long looked at ways to bolster this part of the economy, knowing full well that it is essential for job creation and a thriving economy.

Is Canada back, back to the old way of thinking that big government knows what is best when it comes to creating jobs and prosperity? It concerns me when a government speaks of growing the economy but neglects to acknowledge or make plans for its key supporters and sectors.

Where was the mention of Canada's small businesses and entrepreneurs? They are critical to the health of the Canadian economy. Small businesses represent 99% of all business in the country and employ half of all Canadians in the private sector, and yet they were not even brought up. The government needs to keep taxes low for these businesses, enable access to finance, ensure entrepreneurs have the tools and the resources that they need. Small businesses are vital to Canada's economy, and the Liberal government needs to invest in policies that help them to grow and succeed.

It is easy to promise job creation and a robust economy, but without a plan or consideration of key players, they are empty words and broken promises.

I am also concerned about a government that continually repeats its commitment to families but is seemingly unconcerned with the rights of families to decide what is best for them. Cancelling income splitting for couples, as promised by the Liberals, will hurt the middle class. It will punish the many families that I know have made a decision to have a full-time stay-at-home parent, and it will hurt families that have a low-income earner.

Is Canada back, back to believing that government is better at raising a family than mom and dad? I hope not. It wants to take away the universal child care benefit and introduce a middle-class tax cut. This cut will cost Canadians money.

Conservatives know that families are better off when families make their own decisions about what is best for their household. Cancelling income splitting for families will limit options for households that need it the most. Conservatives will continue to stand by families and advocate for fairness and choice.

I am not the first person nor will I be the last to rise in this House with concerns about the acts of terrorism occurring around the world. These violent and horrendous acts appear to be occurring more frequently. The Prime Minister, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in France, offered all of Canada's support, again simply more platitudes.

While our allies come together to address these real threats straight on, the Liberals are offering real change and Canada is simultaneously working to withdraw its fighter jets. Sadly Canada is back, way back when it comes to supporting our allies, when it comes to doing the right thing. My default, my preference would be to negotiate a peaceful solution. However, when this is not possible, we must do the right thing. We must stand with our allies. The fight against ISIS continues. The threat of terrorism is very real, and yet it seems the government would rather turn a blind eye. There was no mention of this in Friday's throne speech. I find it disconcerting that the government is more focused on the legalization and regulation of marijuana than it is with the growing threat of terrorism around the globe.

To conclude, I believe there are occasions when it is necessary to run deficits, but I am not convinced this is one of those times. After years of careful financial planning, Conservatives promised and successfully delivered a surplus. The Liberals, on the other hand, made lofty promises when they campaigned to curry favour with voters and are now willing to put the economy into jeopardy to immediately put forward those plans.

These commitments, as evidenced in the Speech from the Throne, lack important details, key players, and long-term vision. I want to remind Canadians that all these promises come at a cost. Deficits put additional burdens on future generations. Our Prime Minister continues to tell us he plans to increase the tax on the top 1% of Canadians. This will only begin to offset the cost of expensive promises already made.

How do the Liberals intend to pay for their spending spree? Is Canada back, back to tackling huge deficits by slashing health care and social transfers to the provinces?

Conservatives are a party for the Canadian taxpayer not a party of platitudes. We will continue on behalf of all Canadians to push the Liberals for details as to how they plan to finance all their lofty promises.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his submissions and congratulate him on his re-election.

Investment in infrastructure is a critical component for Canadians. As we know, our roads are broken, our transit system is in dire need of a boost, and the economy is in tatters. We need to spend money on critical infrastructure so that we can create jobs. Small businesses have demanded that we invest in our infrastructure. They need people to be able to move in order for them to have a market in which to do business.

The Conservative government has added $150 billion to the national debt in the last nine years. By my calculation, that works out to about $16.66 billion for every year that the Conservative Party was in government.

My question is, how do we reconcile the record of the Conservative government for the last nine years with the Conservatives' assertion that we need to have a balanced budget immediately?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too want to offer my congratulations to the member on his election to this honourable House. I am looking forward to the contribution he will make to his constituents, and of course all Canadians.

In answer to his question, the Conservative government had the longest and largest infrastructure spending in Canadian history. During the Conservatives' tenure, we also increased transfer payments to the provinces every single year. We invested heavily in infrastructure that is critical for small businesses. We also invested in trade, and in training the workforce to adequately meet the demands of a growing economy. The Conservative government focused on the things that are important to small business, that are important to keeping our economy moving, and on infrastructure.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your new role. I am sure that you will take on this new role with grace.

I want to thank the people of Salaberry—Suroît for choosing to re-elect me for a second term. I am very proud to rise today in the House to represent them.

I have a question for my colleague. There was very little mention of greenhouse gases in the Liberals' throne speech. It did not talk about greenhouse gas reduction targets or deadlines. However, the Conference of the Parties is currently taking place in Paris. Now would be the perfect time to talk about how a reduction in greenhouse gases could be incorporated into pipeline projects, for example.

Yesterday, residents in Sainte-Justine-de-Newton, in my riding, protested the decision to reverse the flow of line 9B. People are very worried.

Would my colleague agree that we should continue to work on reducing greenhouse gases, especially with respect to pipelines, even though, in theory, the Conservatives are not in favour of this?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member from Vancouver on her election to the House as well. I wish her well as she serves her constituents.

The Conservative government was the only government in Canadian history to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has a very strong record when it comes to looking after the economy. The climate talks in Paris will come up with new and interesting ideas. I hope the representatives from the Liberal government are very careful as to the commitments they make there. The Conservative government was always very careful to make sure it balanced concerns about the environment with the economy, and Conservatives will continue to advocate for those kinds of results.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned there was nothing for agriculture in the Speech from the Throne. I come from Oshawa, and there was absolutely nothing for manufacturing or automotive, but there were a lot of anti-competitive policies that the Liberals put in the throne speech. I am talking about the increase in payroll taxes for the pension, a new carbon tax, and, of course, the huge deficits, which are deferred taxes.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the anti-competitive policies that the Liberals have said they are going to be implementing and how they are going to affect small businesses in his community.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, which requires a lengthy answer.

My guess is that with the legalization of marijuana, the new government is going to hope that everybody is living in such euphoria here that nobody will notice the extra burden.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Thank you very much.

Before we resume debate, in my nervousness a while ago, I wanted to also thank the people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for re-electing me, for putting their trust in me. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to represent them, and I know that this position will help to elevate the knowledge of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing throughout not only this riding, but across Canada.

On that note, I would like to resume debate with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment. It will be a pleasure to work with you to make the House a place where, with your assistance, my hon. colleagues from all ridings across the country will provide Canadians with a voice.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Mégantic—L'Érable for placing their trust in me on October 19. They have bestowed on me the privilege of representing them in this noble chamber, and I can assure you that I will work tirelessly to prove that I am worthy of this honour.

I would like to thank everyone who supported me by working on my election campaign: volunteers, friends, and my in-laws, Laurent and Viviane. I certainly would not be here today without them.

If I could, I would have the House adopt a motion to change, once and for all, the old saying that behind every great man, there is a great woman. In my mind, Caroline, my wife of almost 25 years, has never been behind me; she has always been beside me, in the good times and the bad times. We have had many adventures together. Naturally, our greatest joy and source of pride are our three children: David, Marie-Soleil, and Justine. I would like to thank them for their support, because entering politics is a family affair for us.

I have not often had the opportunity to speak about my parents. I would just like to take a few seconds to talk about my father, Yvon, who died of cancer when he was only 48 years old, which is about the same age as I am now. I am sure he would be very proud to see his grown-up son in the House of Commons today. My mother always let me follow my heart, even though she must have sometimes wondered what I would become.

Given that this is my first speech in the House and a somewhat solemn occasion for me, I would ask all parliamentarians to take a few moments to remember the victims of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Just as we must always remember the victims of terrorism and violence against women and children, we must never forget the 47 men and women who lost their lives in the terrible accident that occurred on July 6, 2013.

Since the House never sits in the summer, I wanted to take the first opportunity I had to commemorate this sad anniversary and to remember the families and friends of the deceased.

[A moment of silence observed]

The Lac-Mégantic disaster is not over. All parliamentarians are presently being asked to help the people of Lac-Mégantic in their quest for peace.

In the coming weeks, I will have the opportunity to convey to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport the expectations of citizens and newly elected officials concerning rail safety and the search for a long-term solution to the railway running through the downtown area.

Lac-Mégantic is no longer a town like all the others, and the government must find an extraordinary response to an extraordinary situation. The riding of Mégantic—L'Érable includes three RCMs and three different administrative regions, and the various parts of this large riding face very different challenges.

As the former mayor of Thetford Mines, I had the opportunity to work on many projects and files with municipal employees, the Société de développement économique de la région de Thetford, the Community Futures Development Corporation, our chambers of commerce and business people. Together, we built a new drinking water plan, natural gas plant, and new cultural and sports facilities. We also created businesses. The honourable Christian Paradis, former MP for Mégantic—L'Érable, who served in the House for nine years, made a major contribution to establishing these businesses.

I also went through some tough times, including job losses and the closure of the last asbestos mines in Thetford Mines. As I mentioned earlier, I witnessed one of the worst tragedies in Canada, a tragedy all the more poignant when the victims are people in our own community.

As mayor, I was familiar with the everyday lives of the people: their recreational activities, organized sports, the holes in their streets, their heroics, the food banks, birthdays, seniors' dances, and high school graduations. I attended activities hosted by social groups in my community. All those dedicated people deserve our admiration and deserve to be recognized here in the House.

As mayor, I also had to make choices, make easy or tough decisions, and take action when everyone felt like giving up, doing nothing, or even yelling even louder. Every year, I had to draft municipal budgets and announce tax increases to people who were sick of paying taxes.

Like them, I had to cope with government decisions, top-down decisions that were supposedly for our own good. I can guarantee that the people at the top figured out how to get their hands on what is good for us. I have always been close to the people, and every person who came to see me found the attentive ear they were looking for.

Reflecting on my years as mayor, I realized just how much the federal government's decisions could affect our lives. In our case, it was altogether positive. The Conservative government was there for us in the good times. The people of Thetford Mines drink clean, clear water today thanks in large part to our work with governments.

We worked with economic decision-makers to convince the Government of Canada to fully subsidize bringing natural gas to our region, which desperately needed it. When the mining industry shut down, the only government that shouldered its responsibility for communities that depended on asbestos was the Government of Canada, which provided a $50-million fund. That fund was used to create a space for entrepreneurship, a business incubator that empowers young people to forge a future for our community.

Which is the only government that did not pick our pockets over the past 10 years? It is the Conservative government. Not only did it not pick our pockets, it also chose to weather the worst economic crisis in years by lowering our taxes and investing in our infrastructure in order to retain jobs and prepare for the end of the crisis. That bears repeating, and I think that Canadians should remember our track record in this new era of Liberal deficits.

Let us now talk about my first disappointment as a member of the House: this government's inaugural speech.

I have spoken to a lot of people since I was elected. I have talked to hundreds of people: working women, white-collar workers, blue-collar workers, factory workers, unemployed workers, elected officials, entrepreneurs and others. None of them begged me to raise taxes and incur deficits, so I am very worried after hearing what the members of this new government are proposing.

We heard a long list of very expensive promises, and we all know that this government does not have the money to fulfill all of them. I do not know whether it was because the throne speech was read in the same month as Christmas, but it reminded me of my children's list for Santa Claus. Obviously, mom and dad always found a way to explain that Santa could not bring all of those presents, and despite their young age, the children understood that Santa had to bring gifts to other children too.

I am therefore concerned for my children's children. The Liberal government is preparing to drive Santa, Mrs. Claus, the elves and the whole North Pole into debt because it is not reasonable enough to say that mom and dad do not have the money to keep their promises. Let us be serious. This government, which is promising in advance that our country will have a minimum deficit of $10 billion a year, will one day have to pay the piper, and that means all taxpayers will have to go to the bank.

Mégantic—L'Érable is a beautiful riding. There are many reasons why this large riding is now well known around the globe. Whether tragic or happy, these events, which put it on the map, brought out the best in all of us. I am particularly aware of the projects undertaken by our people, and the economic factors that will allow us to create jobs.

We have plans in place to achieve that goal. Natural gas is an important economic development tool and we need to make it more accessible to our small businesses.

Because this is 2015, it is unacceptable that the people of too many rural municipalities in Canada still do not have high-speed Internet access or cellular service. I helped the dairy producers in my riding establish a committee to make sure that their rights are fully respected, specifically by preventing American producers from circumventing the supply management system with diafiltered milk, and ensuring that they get the compensation they were promised and are expecting.

It is time to prepare for the future. I offer my services, my experience, my knowledge, and my passion and I will stand up for my riding and my constituents over the next four years.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my honourable colleague on his election and inaugural speech.

This side of the House understands full well that there are economic challenges at present. There were economic challenges under the Conservative government, which repeatedly ran up deficits.

Getting back to my hon. colleague's speech, he asked whether we would be taking care of children. Yes, it is very important to take care of children. Is he not aware that we are going to increase the child benefit and lift 315,000 children out of poverty in Canada?

Would he put balancing the budget, something his government never did, before addressing child poverty?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by this question.

We should remember that we weathered an unprecedented financial crisis and that Canada came out the other end in better shape than any other country because we made good decisions.

It is easy to make endless promises in order to get elected. However, when the time comes to follow through, there is the realization that it will not be possible to keep those promises to everyone and to their children and grandchildren.

One day, when the bank calls to say that there is no more money in the account, which Canadians will not receive services because the government overspent and did not consider Canadians' ability to pay?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his first speech, which was quite interesting. His bits of humour kept me interested, especially when he said that the people at the top knew exactly how to get their hands on what was good for us.

My question is directly related to this statement and to the statement he made about the previous government apparently making good choices. My question is very simple.

When the Conservatives and Liberals used the employment insurance fund for purposes other than those for which the money was collected, was that just another way for the people at the top to get their hands on what was good for us and for all the contributors to the EI plan?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a mayor, I dealt with all kinds of situations in the community. Sometimes, I would come across people looking for work, but I also come across employers who were unable to find workers to fill jobs.

Throughout our region back home, in Lac-Mégantic, Plessisville or Thetford Mines, our big problem is unfortunately that we do not have enough workers to fill the jobs. This limits our economic growth.

Why not give all Canadians the opportunity to take these jobs in Thetford Mines, Lac-Mégantic or Plessisville, so that these people can earn a decent living?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. I found it very interesting that the Liberals continue to attack our members for what we did during the 2008-2009 post-economic crisis.

First, we went into stimulus, and it was temporary, while what the Liberal government is proposing now is at least three years of deficits. There was also a demand for it at that time, because banks were not lending and also we actually saw demand fall. The economy would have spiralled and it would have been more like a Great Depression rather than that. What we have today is that the Liberals are saying it is not going to be temporary but it will be three years at least. It probably would be structural based on some of the decisions.

Last, I would just point out that the Liberals are not even targeting it. They are talking about green infrastructure, social infrastructure, bridges and roads, and whatnot. Some of those may have some value. However, this approach that the Liberals are taking is completely contrary to the reality of the economy. I would like the member to point out his thoughts on this magical thinking.