Debates of Jan. 25th, 2016

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening. It is my first opportunity to rise in the House for a speech since the election. First, I would like to thank the residents of Huron—Bruce counties for their confidence in me in re-electing me for a third time. It is a tremendous honour. It is an honour that all members of the House, whether they have been here for many years or are just newly elected, will come to understand. This time, it being a 79-day election, or really almost a two-year election, it certainly put a lot of miles on the feet. For those at home who might be interested, we logged about 400 plus miles knocking on doors. That took a few treads off the shoes.

I should also thank volunteers, my staff, and family for the tremendous help as well. I could not do it without them.

This is the first Speech from the Throne that we have heard from a Liberal government in many years. Two of its themes are a strong economy and a strong environment. One thing that investors looking to reinvest in our country, or new investors, look for is certainty. The Speech from the Throne and the actions taken by the government in the first few months certainly would not give any investor certainty or confidence to make Canada a place to invest. It would probably be in spite of the government that they would make those investments.

There are a couple of points that are open to debate. One is the deficit. During the election campaign the Prime Minister talked about a target deficit ratio he had in mind, and almost immediately after being elected the Liberals admitted they would blow right through that and would actually measure their success by a different means, which would be a ratio. That would not give too many investors a lot of confidence. In addition to that was a price on carbon. It has been a longstanding commitment of the Liberal Party to put a price on carbon. This is at a time when the resource sector in our country, and really around the world, is on its knees and looking for a bit of good news. The news of a carbon tax is not reassuring. We are starting to see some themes in these respects.

In addition to that is the review of environmental assessments. We heard the Prime Minister mention them it in the House today and abroad when he was travelling. We can all debate what an environmental assessment looks like today compared to what it looked like just a few years ago, but if we look back to a few years ago at the height of the economic downturn, projects received funding from the federal and provincial governments. They went through two levels of environmental assessment, federal and provincial. We all agreed, and the provinces agreed at that time too, that if the provincial environmental assessment was suitable, we should cut the red tape and stick strictly to the provincial environmental assessment. It has worked out quite well. I know that in my riding it has worked out well. The municipalities, the engineers, and the contractors understand that red tape has been removed. However, when we hear the Prime Minister talk about environmental assessments, we need answers. The economy needs answers. Business needs answers.

When we look at environmental assessments of large projects that would warrant a federal environmental assessment, we hear there is a new day, a new time for these assessments. That is a cause for concern. There are environmental assessments that have already been undertaken, for example, of the northern gateway project. I have the numbers for the latter. There were 180 days of hearings, 80 expert witnesses, on top of many deputizations that took place. As well, the panel had 30,000 pages to review. Any business looking to make investments in our country, whether on a pipeline, opening a mine, or whatever it may be, even a green hydro electric project, is going to look at this and the words of the Prime Minister. If they are looking for certainty and reasonableness and a threshold to satisfy both what they are trying to do and the environmental concerns, they are going to have second thoughts.

When we are looking now at a carbon tax on the horizon and environmental assessments that may not even improve the current system, but just add layers of red tape that were previously eliminated, it is a concern. When we look at what we also heard about in the election campaign, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, it directly affects my riding. We have many in my riding, none of which are navigable except maybe by a kayak or a canoe. Now we would turn back the clock and ask Transport Canada to look at every project that may involve a river that has no navigation, by kayak or raft, and waste valuable resources at Transport Canada to ask them if there are any concerns. This would not improve the environment, the economy, or red tape. This would add layers and burden to the system. For the economy, we are off to a bad start.

In addition to that, we are asking business owners who want to add more staff or set up new shops in this country to increase their payroll taxes via a proposed addition or new form of the Canada pension plan. In my province of Ontario, the premier has talked about this, and it is disastrous. It would get rid of jobs. It is one more thing that would have business owners take a look and say they will take a pass. It is unfortunate to have this pessimistic view, but people are going to be in the board room, likely as we speak, trying to make decisions on where they are going to allocate their capital for the rest of this year and next year and years beyond, and they are going to have a lot of questions.

If we look at Australia, I do not know if the liberal party in Australia has eliminated the carbon tax that the labour party brought in there, but it was certainly one of the policies that they had. Why? It was because they saw what it did to the country.

Another thing I want to talk about is that brain drain. It has been many years since we have talked about the brain drain, but it will be on the horizon again. We know that many of the professionals in this country, especially in small communities like mine, are valued. We value these professions: the doctors and dentists and so on. With the Liberals' proposed increased tax rates on these professionals, and with the way the dollar is relative to the United States currency, this will cause a brain drain once again, something that was corrected over the last decade. We are now going to be having discussions in the near future about brain drain.

In addition, one of the pledges that the Liberals made in their platform was tax relief for the middle class and hikes in the top tax bracket. This was supposed to be revenue neutral. Shortly after that the Liberals took office, they were again shown to be wrong: it was not revenue neutral. It was at least $1 billion to the wrong side of the ledger, which again gives no confidence to the market.

The energy east pipeline is basically turning out to be a bungled mess politically. For the Prime Minister and some of his Liberal mayors throughout the countryside, it is causing issues. I have lots to talk about here. Perhaps in question time there will be lots of questions to bring up.

Another item I want to talk about is Canada's position in the world. In 90 days, the Liberals have diminished our place on the world stage. Now, we are not asked to meet with NATO countries in Paris to work out a plan to rid the world of ISIS, and that is a shame. Hopefully, we will get more questions.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear my hon. colleague across the way end with Canada's reputation in the world. Frankly, it is a matter of great pride and privilege that I and my colleagues throughout the House have had the opportunity to be on hand to help welcome the tens of thousands, now over 13,000, refugees who have landed in our country. We have demonstrated to the world that a compassionate and caring Canada is back. We have demonstrated to citizens that they should be proud and inviting once again, that despite our differences, we are much stronger when we work together in communities, provinces, and throughout the country. In my mind, that has signalled to the world that Canada is willing to, once again, be a human rights leader, a promoter of peace and democracy building.

I would ask the member opposite what he thinks the invitation, welcoming, and resettlement effort for Syrian refugees speaks to as it relates to Canada's role in the world.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would be happy to know that the Conservative government welcomed more refugees than any other government. We are quite happy to have these productive people come to our country and get away from the tyranny in which they were involved.

Unfortunately, in 90 days, the Liberals have created a two-tier refugee system. Over the Christmas break when the House was not sitting, a resident from one of my communities commented on how upset he was because his community was trying to welcome a family from Ethiopia and that application had been put on the back burner. That is unfortunate. The people who the resident was welcoming have to repay a loan. The Liberals have waived the loan for the Syrian refugees and have created a two-tier system.

In 90 days, the Liberals have diminished our place on the world stage to the point now where the Liberal strategy is coats, campfires, and cannabis, the three Cs. Those are the three ways the Liberals have to solve the world's issues and it is a failure and a flop. We used to have a place at the table and now we do not. What a shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up some very critical issues on how the new government is dealing with the economy. We all know that investors and money go where they are wanted. I listened with great interest about the environmental assessment process. As a government, Conservatives ensured that the environment was absolutely protected, but got rid of the unnecessary duplications.

I would like to use the example that the Kinder Morgan pipeline knew what the rules of the game were. It has been very actively going through the National Energy Board process, following what was in place for it to get to a yes or no or a yes with conditions. I would like to hear from the hon. member what it means to a company like that when the rules can, all of a sudden, be changed in a very arbitrary and unfair fashion.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, businesses do not have an infinite amount of money and time to decide where they are going to deploy their capital. They have to decide because they are responsible to their shareholders. More times than not, when there is uncertainty created by the government, they will take a pass.

The environmental assessment process is very rigorous. There has been an environmental assessment process going on in my riding since I have been elected, for seven and a half years, and there is still no yes or no answer. That, to me, would seem a very onerous and rigorous system and one maybe in some cases is warranted. However, if the average is that long, that certainly will not work.

If anything, I believe the Liberal government should find ways to make the environmental assessment process work quicker, better, and faster, so companies that are looking to invest in our country know they have certainty. Right now, unfortunately, the Liberal government has raised a multitude of red flags that will have investors scratching their heads and looking to see where else to invest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and everyone here a happy new year.

Today, I would like to talk about the throne speech. It was not very long and the text was so concise in many areas that I would have liked to have the government provide more details. I will read the passages that are too vague and tell you what I think should have been said.

Let us begin in the section of the speech where it says:

And recognizing that public investment is needed to create and support economic growth, job creation and economic prosperity, the Government will make significant new investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

I hope that when the government says “public transit”, it means that all the money will not go just to big cities but that it will be spent in rural communities as well. People in my riding of Sarnia—Lambton have no public transportation to get from the country to the city, and our connectivity to other cities needs to be enhanced.

When the government says “green infrastructure”, I hope it is including support for our nuclear industry in Ontario, which we are dependent on if we do not want to see brownouts. Our nuclear industry can help reduce our carbon footprint at an economical price as well as generate export opportunities for Canada's CANDU technology.

I hope that green infrastructure also includes the infrastructure at universities, colleges, and centres of excellence that promote clean tech. I hope it includes water infrastructure so that all Canadians can have a safe source of drinking water. However, I hope it does not include any more green energy priced at five times the alternate rate.

I hope that in social infrastructure, the government is including rural Internet. We have areas within my riding that have no and slow Internet, and that acts as a barrier to economic development and competitiveness.

I hope that the government is also including housing in social infrastructure. My riding has infrastructure needs, from homeless shelters to subsidized housing to seniors housing, and I am sure that this is true across the country.

One thing not mentioned in this infrastructure strategy to support economic growth are upgrades to trade routes. In Sarnia, we have an opportunity to create an oversize-load corridor to ship large equipment and fabricated modules globally, but funding support would be needed.

The trade corridor in the north will need support as well, as we can see from the most recent Nipigon bridge failure.

I also expected the sections on economic growth to mention science and innovation. I was hoping that the government would provide a detailed explanation of how it will encourage innovation, from basic research all the way to marketing, with a view to creating jobs.

I thought the government would announce targets to focus our efforts and enhance our position as a world leader in strategic research.

I thought that it would do more than just talk about clean technologies, health sciences, and climate change. I thought that it would also focus on the sectors that today represent nearly half of our GDP, namely the agricultural, forestry, mining, fossil fuel, energy, and aerospace industries, not to mention areas where there is a future, such as genomics, nanoparticles, and big data.

I then turn to the page in the throne speech that talks about a clean environment and a strong economy. Having just gone through the section on openness and transparency and hearing continually how the government will consult broadly on issues, I was disturbed last week to hear Perrin Beatty, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, say that they do not feel they have been adequately consulted on the plans to implement carbon pricing and that he is concerned about the impact on the business sector.

As a riding that is heavily invested in fossil fuel production, I am also concerned that the government is supporting provinces to implement carbon pricing mechanisms like cap and trade that have been shown to make money for those trading credits but that do nothing for the planet. During a period when this industry is struggling with low oil prices and demand, this could be the tipping point.

When I read that the government will introduce a new environmental assessment process, I was hoping I would see words that would give me confidence that we will see a balance between ensuring that environmental diligence happens and allowing businesses to implement economic development, like pipelines, sometime this century.

Patricia Mohr, who is the chief strategist for Scotiabank on hydrocarbons, has clearly stated that if we do not get pipelines built to the east and the west in this country to export oil, this will become a very poor country indeed.

Moving along to the diversity section of the throne speech, one of Canada's strengths, I am happy to see that we want to make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada. Hopefully this means that when we get engineers and doctors to come to our great country, we can accredit them from a list of known and approved university and country standards so that they do not have to drive taxis for years.

Hopefully that means that when they apply for permanent resident status, we do not make them wait for years, with multiple interventions from Service Canada once they qualify.

I am glad to see that there will be an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, but I hope that this inquiry will seek solutions instead of repeating what we already know.

In the throne speech, the government said that we must do more to support veterans. I agree, but I would also like the government to think about seniors, those who worked their whole lives here and who are now envious of the medical and dental care offered to Syrian refugees. These people cannot afford that care on their fixed incomes.

Next, I come to the section on security and opportunity. I see that the government plans to strengthen its relationship with its allies. From the lack of inclusion in Barack Obama's list of allies in his latest speeches to the non-invitation to Paris to talk about stepping up the fight against ISIS, it is clear that the Liberal government has to change from its campaign promises based on the new information and the new reality we are seeing.

I would also quote from the speech where it says “And to expand economic opportunities for all Canadians, the Government will negotiate beneficial trade agreements...”. I hope this means that it will successfully sign the TPP and the EU agreement, both of which are being made with countries that share our human rights viewpoint. The government needs to clarify whether we really care about human rights. If so, how can we be entertaining making trade agreements with Iran and China? Either we only care about the jobs and economic benefit for Canada, in which case the government should just say that, or we really care about human rights violations, and we will either not engage with countries that are clear chronic violators or we will impose punitive measures for human rights violation into our agreements.

I want to talk about a few other things in the throne speech.

In his introduction, the Governor General brings this whole speech, the plan for the next four years in this country, as a representative of Her Majesty the Queen. Our Westminster style of Parliament is based on allegiance to the Queen. How then can we allow someone who has lived in Canada for 13 years, who has seen how our government is based, who knows this and wants to be a Canadian citizen, to swear their oath pledging allegiance to the Queen one day and then the next day revoke that allegiance and still retain their citizenship? Will we also allow individuals to revoke the other part of the oath where they pledge to obey Canadian law? My view is that, when people take the pledge to join this great country, they should not be able to pick and choose which parts they like. It is not a buffet.

Finally, the prelude to the throne speech says that Canada succeeds in large part because diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated here, not silenced. Is this true? Are we not more and more unable to express what we think because it is unpopular? A male colleague in the House said he was afraid to express his views for fear of being labelled a racist or a chauvinist, of which he is neither. I have heard Christians in our country say they are afraid to express their views for fear of being mocked—in our democracy that is supposed to have freedom of religion. The freedom of speech is so fundamental to our democracy. Although all Canadians may not agree on our opinions, we need to be able to say what we think and allow each other to do that without the punishment of bullying behaviours, but with respect.

The throne speech says that in Parliament all members will be honoured, respected, and heard, and I hope these words from the throne speech at least are true.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's conviction on human rights.

I have a question with respect to Saudi Arabia. As the member is aware, the previous government made an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, by which a very sizable amount of weapons is going to be shipped to Saudi Arabia. I am wondering if my colleague has an opinion as to whether or not the current government should continue with that deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we cannot change the past. In the go-forward position, all we can do is the right thing. Once we have committed to a contract, it is hard to break it without breach of contract. That being said, some kind of punitive action is needed in these situations, because it is not just that we want to do business with them; they also want to do business with us, and we have control over that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for her great opening speech and for her election.

Just last week in my riding, gas prices hit an all-time high. In Qualicum Beach it was $1.16 a litre, and $1.12 in Parksville. It was the highest in the country, more than even the Northwest Territories. A recent Bank of Canada report shows that record low oil prices that are rocking the Canadian economy are not being felt at the pump. In British Columbia, with an increase in MSP, it is affecting people and making inequality higher and higher.

Will the member join me in calling for a gas ombudsman to protect seniors, working families, and small business owners from gas gouging at the pump? Canadians need help and they are looking for the government. Will the member join me in calling on the government for someone to protect consumers and Canadians from what is happening to us at the pump?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I also am extremely concerned about the high price of gas, considering that oil prices are in the toilet. When it comes to the things that go into gas pricing we know about provincial and other taxes. Above and beyond that it is the companies that set the price of gasoline. I used to work for one of those companies. That said, people are really struggling. We see those on fixed incomes and seniors struggling in this area and certainly I would support having lower gas prices for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you back in the House of Commons. Congratulations on your electoral victory and your current posting.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague for her astute comments. She is obviously a very savvy and professional businesswoman who brings great esteem to the House in that capacity. Before I go further, I would like to pay homage to her predecessor, Pat Davidson, who was a great MP for Sarnia Lambton for almost 10 years.

I am going to ask a question on the commonalities between our respective ridings that both host some of the largest petrochemical installations with Nova Chemicals and so on. I represent the fine people who live and work at Joffre and some of my friends started working for Nova Chemicals in Calgary and are now living and working in Sarnia.

I would like to ask the member what the importance and significance is of pipelines, energy mobility, and access to markets for these products that do all this great value added in our respective ridings, the value that those jobs bring, and her concern about the near absence of energy and petrochemicals in the Speech from the Throne.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not pleased to see energy not mentioned in the throne speech. It is an extremely important part of our GDP. When it comes to pipelines, I referred in my speech to Patricia Mohr who is the global hydrocarbon strategist for Scotiabank. If we look at our GDP and where we are are going to grow, there is nothing that we can immediately substitute in the fossil fuel industry.

There is $160 billion of opportunity in the upgrading of products that if we do not upgrade, one million barrels a day are being shipped down to the U.S. in place of the Keystone XL pipeline that was not approved. It is now going in a more dangerous way by rail. The U.S. will then upgrade those products into the solvents that we bring back. We are certainly losing opportunities. Pipelines are a great answer and I would encourage the government to spend the infrastructure money on energy east.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with another hon. member.

It is a real honour for me to represent the people of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who voted overwhelmingly for change on October 19.

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital is the birthplace and the resting place of the father of Manitoba and leader of the Métis Nation, Louis Riel. Mr. Riel is very well known, but aside from the leader himself, there are literally thousands of other lesser known and some completely unknown Métis who were born, raised, lived, worked, and today are buried in the cemeteries along the Red River in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

Today, I am proud to say that there are many citizens, young and old alike, who are reclaiming their Métis identity that has been historically oppressed and taken away by the powers that were in Manitoba of that era.

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital is also a franco-Métis community, and without a doubt the most vibrant one in all of western Canada. Institutions like the Université de Saint-Boniface, the Centre culturel franco-manitobain, the Cercle Molière, the Maison Gabrielle-Roy, Riel House, the Saint-Boniface Museum, and the Union nationale métisse, among many others, help ensure that residents can remain proud and retain their language for years to come.

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital is also one of the most diverse communities in the city of Winnipeg. We have some of the oldest, most historic communities in the city. We have some communities that are facing some real poverty challenges, as well as some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the entire city.

Immigration has been a positive force in my constituency. There are many communities and neighbourhoods that boast a wide variety of new Canadians, including many of East Indian and Sikh descent, and many eastern Europeans.

More and more French-speaking Africans are living in Saint-Boniface because they want to study at the Université de Saint-Boniface. This is great news, and I hope this will continue for a long time.

All of this to say that the citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital voted overwhelmingly to rebuild our cities through Canada's largest ever infrastructure program that is reflected in the throne speech. The citizens of my area voted overwhelmingly for a renewed middle class who will benefit from a middle-income tax cut as reflected in the throne speech. The citizens of my constituency voted for an enhanced, more generous and tax-free Canada child benefit that will raise over 300,000 children out of poverty. The citizens of my constituency voted for a Canada that recognizes that climate change is real and needs to be addressed in an intelligent, comprehensive fashion so that our future citizens, our sons, daughters and grandchildren, do not bear the brunt of the short-sighted, myopic policy of today.

As a former city councillor for many years, I can tell members that our cities from coast to coast are in desperate need of funding for the most basic of infrastructure. Regional roads, residential streets, sidewalks, back lanes, bridges, underground infrastructure, community centres and more all need the investment of the federal government.

I will give members a real-time city of Winnipeg example.

The city currently spends over $1 billion a year on infrastructure, underground and above ground, which is not nearly enough. A report, several years old now, said that the city should actually be spending an extra $400 million annually just to maintain the infrastructure at its current level. I repeat that this would not improve the infrastructure, but it would prevent further decay.

The time is right for federal investment in Canada's infrastructure and I am proud that the throne speech speaks about getting the ball rolling. We will create thousands of jobs across Canada in the construction sector of this great country, and with interest rates at historic low levels, there has never been a better time than now to borrow to invest in publicly owned infrastructure.

The citizens of my constituency also voted for leadership in developing and improving the relationship with our Métis, first nation, and Inuit citizens. Whether we recognize it or not, there are too many indigenous citizens represented in poverty statistics, on unemployment lines, on welfare rolls, in hospitals, in child welfare rolls. We need to turn that around. Canada needs to work with indigenous communities and indigenous leadership to improve indigenous health care, indigenous education, and indigenous employment.

The city I represent is the indigenous capital of Canada. We have more Métis, first nation, and Inuit people in Winnipeg today than Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territory combined. The fastest growing populations in Winnipeg today are young Métis, first nation, and Inuit people. Canada needs to partner on a nation-to-nation basis to create opportunities for those young indigenous populations. The throne speech lays out the framework for addressing these challenges.

The citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital voted for the Government of Canada to finally put forth a critical path to resolve the Manitoba Métis land claims issue of 1870 as per the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision was clear and unambiguous. The court ruled that the Government of Canada at the time acted inconsistently with the honour of the crown when it bungled land distribution to Métis families as negotiated by the provisional government as Manitoba entered Confederation. Thanks to strong leadership and 30 years of challenge by the Manitoba Métis Federation, we now have a clear legal ruling and finally have a federal government that promises to make good on the Supreme Court decision. I am proud to stand as a member of that government.

The citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital also voted for justice for the Métis people of Manitoba and Canada and for a federal government that will follow a critical path to resolve the land claims of 1870 as per the 2013 Supreme Court decision. Employment is a major issue for our Métis youth, and our people demand better of the federal government.

The throne speech laid out a positive and encouraging plan and highlighted many of the elements I spoke about. I am proud to support these important initiatives. My constituents are pleased that our great country is finally moving toward a positive plan that will create jobs, rebuild our cities and communities, and fight poverty and climate change.

The throne speech of 2015 lays out a positive, hopeful agenda. It outlines actions on many of the initiatives I have identified.

I am proud to support these important initiatives, and the people I represent are proud of our great country finally moving in a positive direction that creates jobs, rebuilds cities, addresses poverty, addresses indigenous issues as well as climate change.

As a final clarification, I am sharing my time with the member for Steveston—Richmond East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and opportunity to know the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital and have seen much of his good deeds as a city councillor. It is great to see him being a part of the House of Commons. I know he will be a very strong advocate for the Saint Boniface community, which he very boastfully talks about, and justifiably so.

My question for the member is in regard to what he feels is the most important issue for his constituents today. Could he provide a comment from his personal perspective, thinking as a former city councillor and now as a member of Parliament? How does he see the relationship with the city of Winnipeg and how important it is that the Government of Canada work closely with our municipalities going forward, especially on programs like the infrastructure?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that in the last eight months I quite literally knocked on thousands and thousands of doors in Saint Boniface and Saint Vital. Many of the issues were paramount to the citizens I now represent, not the least of which was infrastructure funding.

As the hon. member has mentioned, I was a city councillor for many years. I was chair of public works and infrastructure renewal at the city of Winnipeg. I know that people care and people want better infrastructure for the taxes they are paying, whether it is transportation infrastructure at Marion and Archibald, or the Waverley underpass, or the many other priorities in the city of Winnipeg, or simply better residential streets for citizens who live all over the community, better regional streets, which not only is needed but it enhances productivity. As high a priority of any for people to whom I have spoken with is infrastructure renewal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital makes reference to infrastructure. Another major platform issue from the last election is trying to address the needs of Canada's middle class, and that has been done through tax breaks to the middle class. It has also been done through the Canada child benefit.

Perhaps he could comment on those two platform issues.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Again, Mr. Speaker, after my intensive consultations of the last six months, the middle-income tax cut was very well received at the doors.

I also know there were some questions in the past about what we were doing for people who were struggling to join the middle class. That is where the Canada child benefit comes in. It is more generous and is tax free. That was a huge attraction for many of the young families to which I spoke. It will put more money in the pockets of young families. In fact, it will raise 300,000 children out of poverty over the long term.

If we couple that with a 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, we will be doing an incredible job when those initiatives are rolled out all across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a similar question to one that I asked of the NDP. I know that we all believe that we have to move forward with reconciliation in our relationships with indigenous communities.

With respect to the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, would the member not agree that any government should not only analyze their implications but also provide all parliamentarians with the costs? I think we absolutely agree that it is important to move forward with many of the recommendations, but is that not a responsibility of any government?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud when the government said it was going to implement all 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is very important and groundbreaking work that the commission did. I think that once the report flows through the systems of the House of Commons, it will be analyzed very closely, in all degrees and in all aspects.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand in this House for the first time to discuss and debate the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my nonno and nonna. Bless them. They are not here any longer.They took care of me. They raised me. They gave me values and principles that I hold dear. My mum and dad, Lorendo and Marguerita Peschisolido, came from a small town, Ceprano, just south of Rome. My mum worked at a drycleaner. My dad started out picking up stuff on streets, and they owned some stores and whatnot. They gave me everything, but while they were away working and doing business, my grandma and my grandad, my nonno and nonna, took care of me and in many ways I am here because of them.

In my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, I have many folks like my parents, grandparents, and I who come from a variety of parts of the world. I perhaps have the most diverse riding in all of Canada, be it ethnically or socioeconomically.

I am proud to be the MP for a riding like Steveston—Richmond East, which is home to people from all over the world, people of Chinese origin and people of English origin.

If a person or his or her parents or grandparents are originally from England, the Philippines or Punjab, we would probably find them in Steveston—Richmond East.

I am also blessed to have a riding that is very diverse economically. I have an airport just a bit north of my riding. I have a harbour. I have a port. The Speech from the Throne talked about reinstating the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, and that was done. For a place like Steveston—Richmond East, where we have the south and north arms of the Fraser River and a lot of boaters going out on the water, to have the security that there is now a Coast Guard station not that far is a good thing. We promised that during the campaign, it was in the Speech from the Throne, and it has been done.

I talked about my parents and my nonno and nonna. There are a lot of folks in Steveston—Richmond East who are waiting for their parents or for their spouses. We talked about changing and revamping our immigration system in the Speech from the Throne. We should not have a system where depending on where one is coming from in the world it takes four to nine years to bring one's parents and grandparents here or where one has to wait two years before putting in an application to ask for a spouse to come over. I do not know how I would have dealt with not having my mom and dad around, or my nonno and nonna. I do not think anyone should have to be in that situation. Therefore, the Speech from the Throne spoke to a commitment to doubling the funds, and the processing of family members. We need to do that. It is wrong for individuals to wait four to nine years to bring their parents and grandparents over.

I discussed a bit about the port and the airport in Steveston—Richmond East. One of the things that we talked about in the Speech from the Throne is the fancy word “co-operative federalism”. Basically, it means that we will be talking to one another. I have been blessed to have the opportunity to sit down with His Worship Malcolm Brodie. I have had the opportunity to sit down with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia and to talk to the MLA for Steveston to discuss a variety of issues.

We also had the fancy word “stakeholders” in the Speech from the Throne. That basically means community groups and people. I have had the opportunity to go out and talk to a whole slew of folks.

One thing we talked about was infrastructure spending. In the Speech from the Throne we talked about implementing that. Infrastructure spending will go to transit. There is a lot of folks in Steveston—Richmond East who want to get to work and do not want to drive. There are bottlenecks. In the campaign and in the Speech from the Throne, we do not dictate how we will use this infrastructure money for transit. I have had the opportunity to sit down with His Worship Malcolm Brodie and the councillors as well to talk about ideas on the best way to get rid of those bottlenecks.

I have had great conversations with the food bank, with Pathways and with other organizations to see how we can also use money from the infrastructure spending to get the economy going because we need to kick start our economy. We also talked about how we could help those who needed social housing, or who needed help with a bit more than just a roof over their heads, or who maybe needed a bit of help on some issues of abuse, alcohol or mental health problems.

That is the type of approach that this government will take. I look forward to spending at least another four years as the member of Parliament for Steveston—Richmond East, speaking to the good folks there and hearing what they would like to see moving forward.

The last thing I would like to talk about is the nature of Steveston—Richmond East. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan and some parts of the Bible, I believe that Steveston—Richmond East acts as a beacon to the world, a land of a wonderful light on a hill, although we are not on a hill but on an estuary. We have folks from everywhere. We have folks who have different faiths. We have No. 5 Road in Steveston—Richmond East. We call it “highway to heaven”, where we have churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, and where people from different faiths and backgrounds get together. Sometimes, the human condition is such that there is conflict. Our role, as members of Parliament, is to ensure that if we cannot eliminate the conflict at least we can manage it. I believe our co-operative federalism approach will be taken in dealing with the good people of Steveston—Richmond East.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment and the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.