Debates of Jan. 25th, 2016

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too would like to congratulate the Minister of Democratic Institutions on her election to the House. I had the privilege of working as an international human rights observer in Afghanistan and I know the great distance that she has come, both physically and culturally, to be here in the House. I certainly salute her and her family for their accomplishments.

I also want to congratulate her on her concern for those who have been marginalized in terms of democratic reform. I want to ask a question that New Democrats feel was missing from the Speech from the Throne and that is about the commitment to fight poverty. There are a few individual measures that the Liberals have talked about, but no overall plan. One of the things that was put forward in the last Parliament was the federal minimum wage and re-establishing that, something that the previous Liberal caucus voted for, but then tended to ridicule in the campaign. There was nothing about a boost to GIS for low-income seniors, to make sure that those who built this country do not end up living in poverty. Also, there was no commitment to close probably the biggest tax loophole there is and that is the tax loophole for CEOs who are investing in stock options and avoiding taxation.

I would like to ask the minister, with great respect, with her commitment to marginalization, where is the commitment from the government to actually systematically tackle poverty in this country?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his service to my ancestral land and would like to remind him that the government is committed to addressing poverty.

Our middle-class tax cut is one example. Our initiative around providing a new benefit plan for families with children will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Our infrastructure investments are intended to create jobs. Surely we can all agree that creating good jobs is the most effective way to lead people out of poverty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the message the minister has put forward to Canadians and acknowledge she has done a fantastic job trying to encapsulate what Canadians believe is a very important issue.

They recognize we made a platform position of getting past the first past the post system in terms of voting, something that has served us well in the past. The need for change is there.

Can the minister provide assurances of how the government is approaching the whole notion of changing from the first past the post system to what will hopefully be a much more improved system for the next federal election?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that about 100 years ago this week the women in Manitoba fought and won the right to vote. We are in another stage of moving forward on revolutionary historic changes that will enhance our existing system.

The way we intend to go about that is through establishing an all-party parliamentary committee that will study this issue in great detail, and engage in a meaningful, thorough conversation with Canadians from coast to coast to coast before arriving at any conclusions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I have a polite reminder to hon. members. From time to time they will be having visitors here on Parliament Hill and in the galleries. I would remind them that recognizing such visitors in the galleries is reserved for the chair. Members might wish to, for example, make reference to guests who are visiting Parliament Hill today or perhaps visiting the nation's capital, but please avoid any kind of gesture that might recognize them in the galleries. That is reserved for the Speaker.

Now we are going to resuming debate, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the two democratic issues that are on the agenda at the moment. I suspect there will be more as time goes on in Parliament, but the two are electoral reform, changes to the House and lack of change, quite frankly, that the government is proposing in the other place with regard to the appointments process. Conservatives would like to see real change here, conducted in a manner that is fully reflective of the wishes of Canadians.

It has been the long-standing policy of the Conservative Party, going back to its inception, that no changes should be made to the electoral system without the consent of Canadians, as expressed in a referendum. That has been its policy for years. I had a hand in getting that policy adopted. It was a widely held sentiment among my colleagues at the convention where that was adopted. Conservatives have always believed that the electoral system ought never to be changed without the approval of the people. There are a number of reasons for this.

First of all, this is the practice in the other countries of the Commonwealth, nations that have systems similar to our own. It was the practice in New Zealand when New Zealand looked at changing its electoral system in the 1990s, and actually did so. It was the system used by the United Kingdom when it looked at adopting single-member preferential ridings in 2011, an option that ultimately was rejected by British voters. It was the practice as well in all provinces that have, within living memory, looked at changing their electoral systems. Prince Edward Island conducted a referendum, if memory serves, in 2006, but I could be wrong on the exact year. British Columbia conducted two referenda and Ontario had a referendum on electoral reform in 2007.

No province in Canada has changed its electoral system without a referendum since the early 1950s, when a Liberal government in British Columbia changed its electoral system without a referendum and, frankly, was punished for it by the voters in the next election, who tossed out that government and put in a new government, which then changed back to the prior system. I am not saying that is what will happen in this case if the government pushes ahead. Indeed, I anticipate that if the Liberals push ahead with their plan, as now expressed, to change the electoral system without a referendum, they will engineer that system to give them a partisan advantage.

One of the things that I have emphasized over and over again when addressing this issue over the years has been the fact that it is very difficult for governments, for members in this place, to objectively participate in a non-interested manner, a non-biased manner, in discussions over electoral reform. Each of us can figure out a system under which our parties would have done better than under the status quo system, and that includes the victorious party. We can all think of certain systems that we know would have been worse for us. We are all inevitably biased by that. Even if one titanic figure of such moral greatness that he or she could set all this aside found him or herself in the position of prime minister and another person of equal moral greatness sat as minister of democratic institutions, we are surrounded by a majority of people who are just ordinary people like you and me, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to want to have that which benefits them.

This is an insurmountable problem. I have written about this on a number of occasions. Those who go to my website can see an essay I wrote in 2001 and another in 2005 on this very subject, this very problem. How do we overcome this? What should be done is very simple. Whatever proposal the government designs should be taken to the people and the people, as a whole, have no bias. Some of them are Liberals, some are Conservatives, some are New Democrats, some are Greens, some are Bloc, and some vote for the Marijuana Party. All the bases are covered when people, as a whole, vote. The people themselves, as a whole, have no bias and they will accept a system if (a) they feel a need for a change and (b) they feel that the system that is being proposed is objectively better than that which exists. However, if they think it is objectively worse, then they will not support it.

This is very important. We talk about the alternatives to the system we have now. We talk about the single transferrable vote system, like Ireland has; the mixed member proportional system, like New Zealand has; and the single member district with preferential voting, like Australia has.

The fact is that there is more than one alternative under each of these rubrics, and it is not difficult to figure out how I or the minister could design a system under any of these rubrics that would have a predictably dramatically different effect. That is to say, it could affect one party beneficially and harm another party in a way that was demonstrable beforehand. Eventually, over a number of elections, patterns would change and that advantage to one party and disadvantage to the others would be lost. However, initially, that could be locked into the next election.

It is not difficult at all to imagine a system, and I invite Liberals to ask me a question about what I am talking about here, that would ensure their victory in 2019. Our point is simply this: designing a system that privileges the Liberals and the people who vote Liberal and takes away from those who would vote for others is not an acceptable alternative to the status quo. The Liberals were not given a mandate for that reform, obviously. They would never be given, through a referendum, a mandate for that kind of reform. They would be given a mandate for potentially a number of alternatives that were objectively better than the status quo if the Canadian people felt that the alternatives were objectively better than the status quo. How do we test that? We test that in a referendum.

I am just going to mention that I plan to divide my time with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

I have laid out the groundwork for explaining why a referendum is so important. Before turning to the issue of the proposed appointments process for the other place, I want to take a moment to deal with one last thing.

One of the arguments, and apparently some people on the other side regard this as the knockout argument against referendums, is this: referendums tend to fail. When the Prime Minister was explaining last June why he would not consider using a referendum, he said it is hard to get past the plebiscite; it is hard to get people to adopt these things. Therefore, the argument is that anyone who favours a referendum is really favouring the status quo and that it is really a way of trying to kill change.

I want to say for the record that, first of all, referendums on this succeed from time to time. In British Columbia, when they held a referendum on this subject in the early 2000s, about 57% of British Columbians voted in favour of changing their electoral system. The government had set an artificially high goal of 60%. That bar was not achieved, but a referendum in which the normal majority of 50% plus one was in place could be achieved. It was achieved in New Zealand in the 1990s, so the argument that it cannot be done is just not true. It cannot be done when the system is badly designed or unfair.

Second, if the Canadian people reject a reform, is that not their legitimate right? Are we allowed to have any right we want except the right to decide on retaining the status quo? I do not think so, especially when the status quo, if the alternatives suggested by the government were rejected, would effectively potentially be a placeholder while a better alternative was found. That is the point.

In my last minute I will turn to the question of the Senate. The minister and the government have proposed a system for suggesting appointments to the Prime Minister. This system, which is just starting to be in place now, is as minimal a reform as can be imagined. It is in fact no reform. A panel of five individuals, chosen by the Prime Minister, at the Prime Minister's sole discretion, makes recommendations to the Prime Minister as to who will be appointed to the Senate. The Prime Minister chooses from among those five individuals in secret. The names of the five individuals are never revealed. The reasons for the Prime Minister's choice of an individual over others is never revealed to us. If the Prime Minister decides to set aside that entire list and just chooses whoever he likes, that is permitted. In fact, the Liberal press release emphasizes that absolute discretion is a key component of this whole process. The absolute authority of the Prime Minister is a key component.

I did ask the parliamentary secretary why all the secrecy. I was told that people might be fired from their jobs if their employers learned that they had been considered for nomination to the Senate.

I just want to say that this is arguably the most preposterous argument I have ever heard in 16 years in politics. I cannot imagine an employer who would fire people because they had been considered by a panel for a potential appointment to the Senate. However, I am looking forward to hearing from him or the minister a more realistic argument, and perhaps that can be provided in the question and answer period.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about democratic inputs and we can talk about democratic outputs. My friend repeatedly emphasizes democratic inputs, that in making this decision it should be by referendum. Ignored in this conversation, and what we emphasized throughout the campaign, is democratic output, and that is making sure that every vote counts.

A minority of Canadians, fewer than 40% who vote and fewer than one-quarter of Canadians who are eligible to vote, can give a government 100% of the power in this country. Does my friend think this is fair?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that member thinks that the current system is unfair and that it is unfair for the reason he cited, then he should go to his minister and argue in favour of some form of proportional representation, and he should then ask her to put the proposed proportional representation system to a referendum. That way we would see whether Canadians think that this system is unfair and that the new system the Liberals recommend is more fair and therefore deserves their support.

Nothing the member is suggesting indicates to me that we should abandon the idea of having a referendum. Let the Canadian people make that decision about fairness and unfairness.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has been vigorous in his support of the idea of putting any proposed reform to a referendum. He did mention in his speech the fact that part of the reason for the failure, in fact the reason for the failure of the B.C. reform, was that the government imposed a supermajority. Am I to understand that he would be satisfied with a 50% plus one outcome for change on a referendum on a proposal from the current government?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems appropriate that I am answering a question from the member on Robbie Burns Day. His father was one of the greatest bagpipers ever to serve in the House of Commons, and his presence at these events is much missed.

To answer the question about 50% plus one, yes, in my opinion, a referendum ought to be established on the basis of a simple 50% plus one majority, as opposed to the kind of supermajority that was imposed in British Columbia, where 60% plus one had to win in a majority of ridings. That strikes me as being in its own way undemocratic in a different manner, especially when we live in a world where it is very rare for governments to get mandates on the basis of a 50% majority, and yet they govern and decide on any number of issues. We are just dealing with one specific law, and I think 50% plus one is just fine.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a very eloquent speech. He made the offer to the Liberals across the way that if they wanted to ask him a question about how they could possibly rig this entire process for their immediate success in a future election, he would be happy to entertain that question. Because they did not have the courage to ask it, I will ask it for them.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine I could think of several ways, but here is the easiest one.

In the last election, according to an exit poll conducted by Nik Nanos, we know that between 10% and 15% of voters for the Liberals, Green Party, Bloc Québécois, and the New Democrats had no second choice. They only had their own party as a choice, but it was 46% for Conservative voters. I think this is a reflection of the fact that there are many parties that lean to the left and only one candidate that leans to the right.

If we design a preferential system like the one we used, which I designed, for electing the Speaker, what happens is that one ticks off those people one supports in the order one supports them. If there are five candidates and a person only supports three, his or her vote remains valid as long as one of those three stays on the ballot and it is put on the pile for that particular candidate. That is called optional preferential.

Now, if we design something called full preferential, something different happens. Under a full preferential system, if a person votes for three candidates and there are five on the ballot, that vote is put aside as invalid, or what is called “informal” in Australia, where this system is used. It is informal and cast aside.

If that is done, and one party has many more supporters who simply do not have a second choice, and that party does not engage in an aggressive program of trying to explain to its voters who are totally unfamiliar with the system that they have to vote for all those people they hate, that they have to rank them or their ballots will be cast aside, what will happen is that a substantial number of their votes, four or five times as many of their votes as anyone else's, will be cast aside and lost. That will virtually guarantee that the party is wiped out, losing seats where it gets an absolute majority of first preferences.

This is one way the Liberals could rig the system, and of course, it is something that is very much on my mind as I watch them move forward with a plan to change the system without having a referendum first.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, for splitting his time with me as I stand for the first time in the House of Commons speaking on behalf of the constituents of Markham—Unionville.

Before I begin to address the shortcomings of the government's Speech from the Throne, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the residents of Markham—Unionville for their faith in me and for entrusting me to represent their interests here in Ottawa. I promise here and now, and officially in Hansard, that I will work tirelessly to prove to them that I am worthy of the honour they have bestowed on me.

I also look forward to working with my colleagues to hold the government to account as Her Majesty's official opposition and especially on the immigration file, on which I have been appointed the deputy critic.

I want to give special thanks to my family, to Joe Reis, my campaign manager, and to all of my campaign team, who worked tirelessly to help me claim victory. Markham—Unionville is a diverse community with members from many diverse backgrounds who share the Conservative vision and elected me as their federal representative.

I want to move on to express my concerns, and those of my constituents, on the government's Speech from the Throne, delivered last month. While listening to it and then reading the speech, it often felt as though I were reading bullet points from a poorly drafted business idea. As a businessman before entering politics, I am very familiar with the business world, and I can safely tell the House that this is a very sad looking business plan for governing Canada for the next four years. Make no mistake, based on the baseless one-liner promises in this speech, the government's lifespan will only last until 2019. However, I digress.

While the government touches on institutional openness and transparency, there is no mention of its fiscal plan and how its platitudes will be paid for. As we all know, empty promises with no spending explanations are just nice words on paper, and are not even worth the paper they are printed on. It is quite shameful that the government did not even reference its plan for fiscal responsibility or transparency in its themes, as this is an issue both close to my heart and important to my constituents.

Canadians know very well that policies need financial backing, and one cannot go without the other. Governing cannot be done halfway without financial backup, and the government has not provided any fiscal explanations in its Speech from the Throne to support its care-bear economics.

Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a new report on household indebtedness, highlighting this issue as one the federal government needs to address. Unfortunately, this throne speech also ignores this issue, which affects so many families in Canada today. The best way to bring down household debt levels, in my opinion, and in that of my party, is to grow our economy, with higher incomes for everyday working people and their families, and not to have the federal government go into further debt. That would only make matters worse for us all.

Furthermore, the government's plan of platitudes continues to ignore many of the industries on which the livelihoods of the residents of Markham—Unionville rest.

There is no mention of the automotive sector, which employs so many Ontarians, including many of my constituents, nor any of the other manufacturing sectors on which many Canadians' jobs depend. This to me is one of the biggest losses in this agenda introduced last month; and so, I stand with my caucus colleagues in rejecting the government's Speech from the Throne.

The constituents of Markham—Unionville are hard-working Canadians. I am sad to see the Liberal government ignoring their interests and those of the rest of the citizens of the greater Toronto area. The government has already made it clear that this agenda is more focused on managing savings for them. Why else would the Liberals' have declared their intention to cut in half the limit that Canadians can put in their TFSA accounts?

My party and I believe that most Canadians know how to manage their own money. We will support only measures that would do exactly that, measures that would keep taxes low and keep more money in Canadians' pockets. Canadians know how to go about their lives and how to manage their own families and businesses. They know how to achieve their goals. They do not need the government to do it for them.

Finally, I would like to touch on one of the biggest omissions in the throne speech, namely, addressing the fight against ISIS and the government's plan with respect to fighting international terrorism. While this issue may seem remote to some Canadians, some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle directly felt it over a year ago in these very corridors. Every day Canadians hear about the international fight against ISIS or the human and material destruction that comes after, but they hear nothing on the matter from the government. It is quite shameful that the Liberal government's plan for Canada's mission against ISIS is indecisive, incoherent, and confusing to our allies and our fellow Canadians. Under the Liberal government, Canada is being forced to sit back while we let our international allies fight our common battle to defend our shared values. The biggest proof of this was the lack of an invitation to Canada to join last week's administrative level talks in Paris. The government is already developing a reputation for preferring to talk and lacking decisive action, and Canadians are embarrassed by this.

Once again, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for splitting his time with me and the residents of Markham--Unionville, whom I am honoured to serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend on his victory in October.

My friend spoke about a business plan. The Canadian public has given us a mandate to put together a business plan, and the throne speech delivered by our government last month speaks to that. It speaks to the volume of work that needs to be done in order to get the country back on track. For the last 10 years the Conservative government absolutely failed to control our debt. In the last 10 years under the Conservative government, $160 billion has been added to our national debt. That is the business plan we are competing with, and we will do a lot better than that.

Our government is proposing to invest $60 billion into infrastructure over the next 10 years. In total, that would be over $100 billion over the next 10 years. Could the member for Markham—Unionville tell me what type of benefit that would pose to his riding? What kind of requests would that kind of money fulfill to improve the lives of the people of Markham—Unionville and the lives of all Ontarians and Canadians?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question in two ways: first, the government will go broke as soon as it runs out of other people's money. I come from a business background and I understand the balanced approach. When we were in a minority government and went into a recession, we ended up borrowing money and doing what we had to do at that time, but today there is no business plan. In the regular business world, the CEO of the company, in this case the Prime Minister, would get fired because there is nothing to show for it. There is no business plan as far as I am concerned, and we need a balanced business plan that can present both sides.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the conflicts that now rage in that region caused by the extensive civil war and domestic strife in Syria, the refugee crisis, and within it the threat from Daesh, sometimes called ISIS, are just one part of a very large, disturbing, and dangerous conflict.

The bombing missions started under the previous government have shown no signs whatsoever of ending the reign of ISIS and its spread of Daesh. In fact, what we are looking at is an opposing force to brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, among many opposing forces where he also poses a threat. That bombing mission also emboldened Russia to send bombing missions into the same region of the same country and now threatens again greater instability in the region.

We are a long way from knowing that bombing missions can actually work. Would the hon. member not consider that we should put our efforts into any multilateral efforts such as those that have not begun to end the civil war in Syria?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we stop bombing ISIS strongholds in either Iraq or Syria, or any other place, they will be all over the place. There is no other good outcome. Our allies are working with us to keep them intact in either Syria or Iraq or diminish them. That is the only thing they understand. There is no other alternative as far as I am concerned.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear about the business common sense that my new colleague in the House of Commons has, and I am going to ask him if the business community in his riding, as in mine, is concerned about the direction this country is going, which is because the government has no idea where it is going? Would my colleague agree?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I come from a business background and as I said, business has to make sense. The books have to be balanced just as they do in families. If the family is spending more money, the family will go broke. If the nation is spending more money than it is bringing in, the nation will go broke. However, it seems this is the way we are going with the Liberal government.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Central Nova.

Let me say at the outset that I am proud to be part of a government that intends to bring about real change in our country by focusing on things that matter most to Canadians, like growing the economy, creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

I also feel very privileged to take my seat in this place, having been given the confidence of the people of Thunder Bay—Superior North to serve as their member of Parliament, and the confidence of the Prime Minister to serve as Minister of Status of Women.

In both of these roles, I intend to fulfill my duties by working together with others in a renewed spirit of innovation, openness, and collaboration, just as the Speech from the Throne committed our government to doing. In these two roles, I am very proud to be continuing a tradition established by the Hon. Bob Andras, who in 1971 was Canada's very first minister of status of women. He also hailed from my home region, representing the ridings of Port Arthur and then Thunder Bay—Nipigon from 1965 to 1980.

In some ways, my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North needs no introduction. It has a distinguished history of representation in Parliament, and I intend to maintain that tradition through dedication and commitment to the people of my constituency.

For my colleagues and those Canadians watching who may not know, the riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North is in the northwestern part of the province of Ontario. It covers a vast area, nearly 90,000 square kilometres. It includes many vibrant communities like Greenstone, Marathon, Shuniah, Manitouwadge, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, and of course part of Thunder Bay itself.

However, it is the people of this vast riding who inspired me to want to serve as their member of Parliament, and they are the reason I am so proud to be here today.

This opportunity to serve the wonderful people of Thunder Bay—Superior North continues my own professional and personal journey that has focused on community service and social advocacy. What has most often motivated me in my career, and still does today, is the desire to improve the lives of others and to help ensure that everyone has a real and fair chance to succeed.

Over the years, I have worked to enhance my community by addressing adult literacy and access to housing and reducing harm associated with substance use. Most recently I was proud to lead an organization that focused on creating a safe and welcoming place for those most excluded and vulnerable.

My experience tells me that every action we take to ensure that those who struggle the most are supported to succeed has benefits not only for the individual but for our society as whole.

Supporting those who have been marginalized in our society, and they are far too often women, means not just helping them through a moment of crisis, even though that is the necessary and right thing to do. We must also support them so that their time of crisis does not become a lifetime of crisis, which then can lead to intergenerational challenges that will affect their families for years to come.

By supporting those who are most excluded, we enhance the prosperity of our communities and our country. As I said earlier, I believe that collaboration and respect for our fellow citizens are keys to achieving our shared goals whether they be small or large. It is only through working together that individuals, organizations, communities, and indeed countries, can succeed.

It is this same collaborative approach that our government intends to follow, and that I intend to follow as the Minister of Status of Women, as we identify innovative solutions that support women and girls to reach their full potential and participate fully in all aspects of Canadian life.

One of our first priorities is to address the urgent need to reduce and prevent gender-based violence in our society. It goes without saying that violence against women is not acceptable and should not be tolerated in our society. How we respond to this issue can make a real difference in the lives of women and their families.

Our government intends to take action. We have launched a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and in the coming weeks and months I will be meeting with experts, advocates, and colleagues to discuss innovative ideas that can be part of a comprehensive federal strategy to reduce and prevent gender-based violence, which aligns with provincial and territorial strategies.

Our government is also committed to growing and maintaining Canada's network of shelters and transition homes across the country to meet our commitment to enhancing the safety of women and children.

The Government of Canada is also committed to taking actions that will help our country move closer to the shared goals of equality between women and men in many fields, and it is leading by example.

Under the Prime Minister's leadership, women now hold 50% of cabinet positions, a decision that is receiving much positive international attention. We will continue to equitably include women leaders by ensuring that the federal government's senior appointments are merit based and demonstrate gender parity. We will ensure a gender lens is applied to the decisions we make so we fully reflect upon how these decisions will affect women.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment today to acknowledge how fortunate I feel to be sharing the honour of so many women who have sought election and served in the House of Commons over the decades. In fact, I have made history, along with many of them, as I am the first woman to be elected from the riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North in Ontario.

We need to keep in mind that diversity does not have it easily or automatically. The women in the House today, in all parties, are heirs to the women of courage who came before us and who forged the important place we now hold on Parliament Hill.

Having more women in Parliament and in positions of leadership across our country not only enhances the role women play, but it helps change the conversation about the many important issues in our region and our country. As a result, I think we can safely say that issues important to women are no longer seen as women's issues; they are simply Canadian issues, and rightfully so.

Finding lasting solutions that help Canada thrive and ensure intergenerational success will be possible if we address them, as the Speech from the Throne suggested, with a renewed spirit of innovation, openness, and collaboration.

My commitment as minister is to do just that. I believe that at the end of the day we are stronger working together than individually to achieve the kind of equality between women and men that will ensure a strong economy and a healthy inclusive society.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the community work the minister did before coming to the House.

I want to quickly ask her two questions.

First, as she may be aware, I put forward a bill to provide equal protections for transgendered Canadians, transgendered Canadians being some of the people who are quite often forced to use shelters and who are subject to some of the worst violence in the country. Would she join with me in urging the Minister of Justice to bring that forward as a government bill?

My second question has to do with the situation of those who are involved in sex work in Canada. Under the previous government, the Supreme Court decision that decriminalized sex work was, in effect, overturned by Bill C-36. Now many people, for whatever reason, involved in the sex trade are being subjected to discrimination and to a great deal of violence as a result of that bill.

What is the minister's position is on the recriminalization of sex work?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are both are very important questions.

I believe that as part of our mandate we committed to shelters that are more accessible. From my perspective, that is all women, regardless whether they were born as women or whether they are now women. As a shelter operator, there are ways that we can support shelters to ensure they are as inclusive as possible, while ensuring that safety for all is respected.

In terms of sex trade work, we know those women are incredibly vulnerable as well. We hear that over and over, not just through the murdered and missing indigenous women inquiry, but from many sectors of our country.

I look forward to hearing the recommendations of the Minister of Justice about how we can protect women in the sex trade and in other vulnerable situations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the hon. minister on her election, although she will know that I am very sad to lose the member she replaces, but I welcome her in her new role. I also commend the minister and her colleagues for starting the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous.

However, I want to support the decision just taken by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, that Bill C-36 represents a threat, not just for women in the sex trade, but to any sex trade worker, which it has. I have heard first hand from groups working with sex trade workers and from sex trade workers themselves. They say that Bill C-36 has put them in more vulnerable positions than they were in even before the Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, it has done the opposite of what the Supreme Court has urged us to do.

I take the minister's point that she awaits a decision and recommendations from the Minister of Justice, but I hope this new government will pursue the repeal of Bill C-36.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand here to represent the constituents of Thunder Bay—Superior North, despite the excellent representation they had before me.

Through the the inquiry on murdered and missing indigenous women, we are hearing that women in the sex trade are particularly vulnerable. Minister Wilson-Raybould is part of the pre-inquiry consultations and is hearing the same message. I am confident that our government will move forward to review laws that further place women at risk, and I look forward to her comments about the best way to do so.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the member on her appointment as Minister of Status of Women and her election in the riding of Thunder Bay.

The Speech from the Throne was particularly silent on natural resources and what we were doing and where we were going. I know that in the community the minister represents forestry and mining are incredibly important. I would like to hear her perspective on moving that agenda forward in spite of the silence from her government on things that are going to be very important to her constituents.