Debates of Jan. 26th, 2016

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the fall 2015 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons. These reports are permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present two petitions. The first is from residents throughout British Columbia, primarily in Armstrong and Vernon, who call on the House to take action for electoral reform. The petitioners point out that the current first-past-the-post voting system is one that is anti-democratic, and they call for electoral reform, a call that is resonated in the Speech from the Throne.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents throughout the area of my riding, primarily Salt Spring Island, although I do see that some petitioners are from as far away as Vancouver and White Rock, who call on the House to adopt a carbon policy that will allow greenhouse gas levels to be held to those levels that will avoid disasters and catastrophic levels of climate crisis.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from January 25 consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the citizens of the new riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the great member for Thornhill.

Time is valuable in this place and, thus, I will get directly to adding a few comments that are of great concern to my riding.

The largest single void in the Speech from the Throne is that there is zero mention of the need to prioritize a new Canada-United States softwood lumber agreement.

Let me provide pause, for a moment.

In Princeton, British Columbia, over the past few decades, a lumber mill has been the single largest private employer in that community. The same goes for Merritt, British Columbia, where there are a number of lumber mills. I also have to say it is the same situation in my home community of West Kelowna.

These mills drive local economies. Make no mistake, for every lumber mill, there are many spinoff jobs and small businesses that also depend upon the health of the B.C. forestry sector.

It is not just softwood lumber and the forestry industry on which the throne speech is silent. There is also no mention of mining.

In Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, we are fortunate to have two major mining operations that provide hundreds of well-paying resource jobs.

Right now, the mining sector is very nervous, as our Prime Minister recently slighted our former prime minister in Davos over the very subject of natural resources.

I am here to tell members, clearly, that natural resources and resource development are not dirty words. They may not fit into the new Prime Minister's narrative of sunny ways and selfies, but make no mistake, communities in my riding very much depend upon these well-paying jobs.

The Prime Minister should also know that the people who work in this industry are extremely resourceful, but they are also extremely technologically dependent. In fact, Canada is known to be the leader in the development and utilization of robotic mining. The mining sector itself is second only to the federal government in its use of computers in Canada. These are things that I think people should know.

Innovation drives the forestry sector because it is so dependent upon productivity. In fact, robotics and new methods of global positioning and satellite work are constantly being used to make that sector more productive.

To imply that resourcefulness is not involved in getting Canadian resources to international markets is an insult to those who work so hard to make our economies grow.

My other major concern in the Speech from Throne is the lack of clarity around infrastructure.

The throne speech references transit spending, social infrastructure, and green infrastructure, but it is largely silent on civic infrastructure.

Let me explain why this lack of clarity is a major concern, not just in my riding but throughout many parts of British Columbia.

The Prime Minister named only three members from British Columbia to his cabinet; however, none of these three has been named as the lead British Columbia regional minister. This creates challenges for municipalities—more so for municipalities located outside the Lower Mainland—as these Liberal ministers all represent ridings within a short distance of one another.

I have concerns on the throne speech, but the final point I will raise is that it is also completely silent on the subject of pipelines.

Why is that a concern? As an example, the Trans Mountain pipeline will generate $13 million annually in tax revenue for the regional district of Thompson-Nicola. Merritt alone, which currently collects $150,000 from the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, would see that increase to $250,000 a year, as a result of the expansion.

They are huge sums of revenue for small local governments, not to mention an estimated $419 million in pipeline-related construction just around Merritt and area and other communities.

Let us be clear. The Trans Mountain pipeline was first built in 1953. It does need to be replaced, and twinning is a cost-effective solution that would help communities in my riding.

However, the Trans Mountain project is not the only one missing from the throne speech. There is another kind of pipeline proposed for B.C., and that involves British Columbia liquid natural gas, or LNG.

B.C. LNG proposes billions of dollars of new investment for British Columbia. We should not overlook the good work of the B.C. government in signing roughly 61 agreements with 28 different first nation communities along the proposed LNG pipeline route.

Does the Liberal government support this critically important project? We have no idea. The throne speech was completely silent on these private-sector projects. Billions of dollars of investment is proposed for these projects at a time when jobs and investment are needed, and there is no mention of them in the throne speech.

Does everyone agree on these projects? No, but has there ever been a major project in any province at any time that does not draw naysayers? Absolutely, there has not. That is the final point on the throne speech that I will leave for this place.

For those who have been in government before—maybe they have served as a local councillor or as a mayor; maybe they have served as a cabinet minister in a provincial government—eventually, they all know that difficult decisions need to be made. Timelines are required. Processes need to have transparency as well as certainty. This is what attracts investment, creates jobs, and completes projects.

Naysayers and social licence did not create this country. Those things did not build Canada. It was hard work, investment, vision, and leadership from those who were not afraid to make those difficult decisions to build a bigger, stronger country. This is the vision my constituents were looking for in the throne speech. I might also add that these concerns are not only missing from this document, but many of the things I have mentioned today are also not mentioned in mandate letters, which is troubling and somewhat alarming to me.

In fact, as an example, we will take the important subject of interprovincial trade. Our Prime Minister has given himself the role of minister of intergovernmental affairs. However, where is his mandate letter for the minister of intergovernmental affairs? It is missing. What kind of message does that send?

There are many other concerns I would like to raise. However, I have summarized my comments today to illustrate some key concerns as they relate to my riding, to my province, and to things I would like to see as a proud Canadian. I would like to thank all members of this place for taking the time to hear my concerns today. I look forward to working with all of them together to build that Canada on which I know many of my constituents would agree we need to work together.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member opposite, it was hard to know where to begin to correct some of the misinformation. I will start with the mandate letters.

The Minister of Natural Resources has been very clear, particularly yesterday in this House when he took a lot of questions, and responded to them, around some of the things that the Minister of Natural Resources is going forward on. On the modernization of the NEB, the minister is going coast to coast to coast to talk to stakeholders.

One of the terms I heard was that naysayers and social licence are not what this country was built on. Collaboration is something this country was built on, and I would suggest that our position, our intent, and what we are demonstrating is that we are not going to discount naysayers. In fact, we are going to invite them to the table. We are going to try to bring them to understand the perspectives of lots of other people, and that is the only way we will move these projects forward.

We have said clearly that the modernization of the NEB will happen, as the minister said yesterday, as well as ensuring that we have an interim process for those plans already in process. The only way it will happen is if Canadians can trust that, as a government, we are making sure they are taken care of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. However, they seem to be a mini-speech of their own.

I would simply say, first of all, that all the items I raised were not in the Speech from the Throne. That is the perspective I was giving. Second, if it takes the official opposition to ask questions of a minister as to what direction his government plans to take on important private sector natural resource developments, something that this country is known for, that is a reactive position. That is the wrong position, and I think the member should acknowledge that.

Third, I am raising concerns that are important to people. The high-paying jobs I have talked about are what put food on the table for many families in my area. Consensus building is what leaders do. I appreciated what the Prime Minister did this morning with the mayor of Montreal, but we need to see more of this.

When I was at the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, British Columbia, last week, I heard two words, “vague” and “uncertain”. That is how the industry feels about the current government. It could do a lot more to drive consensus and certainty to bring the investment this country deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his passion and his remarks here today in debate. I was struck by a particular section of his speech where he talked about the vision previous governments have had to build a better country together. He talked about vision, but the new government seems to be based on division. In his speech in Davos, the Prime Minister was flippant about the role the resource economy plays in Canada. From B.C., with forestry and mining, to oil and gas throughout the country, to potash, these resources help fuel the programs Canadians enjoy. To mock or play off one sector against another is not leadership.

The other thing we see is division between provinces. The seed is already being sown. The Prime Minister had to go to Montreal this morning to ask his former parliamentary colleague, Denis Coderre, to stop halting the progress and opportunity for New Brunswick and for western Canada.

Could the hon. member please talk about the role vision plays, having all industries play a role, from B.C. to Newfoundland, in our economic success?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just point this out. I was a little disappointed, as I am sure many people were. The Prime Minister said that he would try to unite Canadians. I appreciate that a prime minister, as a leader, should take to the world stage to encourage and influence world opinion but should not actually take a cheap jab at his predecessor on that world stage. A prime minister here should be using that to put forward a position that all Canadians can get behind.

There is a burgeoning tech sector in Kelowna. We see how technology has brought innovation to the forestry sector and made it more productive. I think the Prime Minister should acknowledge that those things are happening. I believe the vision he is talking about is something that can happen, but not, again, if we continue to see from the Prime Minister more division, more splitting, and not coming together as a country.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today as we continue debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Given that Her Majesty's loyal opposition hopes that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have received adequate briefings over the past two months to reconsider and recognize some of the promises made during the election campaign that could not or should not be kept, I will resist the temptation to say repeatedly, “We told you so”, and I will offer constructive suggestions on some changes and improvements.

I would like to use my time today to touch on a number of issues referenced in generalities in the throne speech that are priorities in my riding of Thornhill and I am sure in ridings right across the country.

It has been my pleasure over the years to participate in a variety of welcoming events for refugees from Iraq and from Syria, particularly those from oppressed minorities in those two broken states. I have been impressed, I have been inspired, by these newest members of Canadian society as they have embraced humble initial accommodation and have welcomed equally humble employment opportunities as they have begun the sometimes marathon process of learning new languages or waiting to have professional qualifications certified.

Notwithstanding Canada's traditional generosity in welcoming refugees from around the world, the government's rush to achieve targeted Syrian intake numbers has had a number of significant, although to be fair, I believe unintended, consequences. Welcoming refugees is one thing, but resettling them effectively and with care is quite another.

The original Liberal campaign promise during the bidding war in the campaign of 25,000 by year's end was clearly unrealistic. However, in the accelerated process, where almost half of the 10,000-by-January target were privately sponsored refugees, serious problems developed very quickly in the capacity of private sponsors and private sponsorship groups, such as religious organizations and community groups, to settle hundreds of new arrivals a week: finding accommodations, acquiring furniture and clothing, connecting new arrivals with schools and with services.

Privately sponsored refugees are allowed one night in hotels, then they become the responsibility of the sponsor or sponsors. On the other hand, government sponsored refugees have unlimited hotel stays, for weeks and even months, and that is not necessarily better. I am sure members have seen media reports of some government sponsored refugees held in hotels for weeks who have expressed frustration to the point that they have suggested that they would rather go home. I am sure that is only the frustration speaking, but it is something to recognize.

The government, to be fair, recognized the unexpected burden on private sponsors and implemented a pause last week, but of only five days. I have been advised by one of the more experienced private sponsors that they could actually use a pause of at least a month.

This is a non-partisan issue. There is no blame to be cast. There are no recriminations. Canadians can make this humanitarian effort work. However, adjustments must be made to manage the flow to some urban centres. In my riding of Thornhill, for example, available rental accommodation is extremely limited. In York region, we have a waiting list of affordable housing of more than 12,000.

I believe that the government should also reconsider the provision of one-night hotel accommodation to allow private sponsors and social agencies to locate, or give them greater time to locate, appropriate housing.

The second matter I would like to raise today has to do with the commitment in the throne speech “to work with Canada's allies in the fight against terrorism”.

The government is still incredibly vague and incoherent in explaining its fixation on fight fade with regard to the CF-18 component of Operation IMPACT. It defies the wishes of our allies. It defies the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It defies logic. It defies Canadian public opinion. Now is not the time for Canada to step back, to force our allies to take heavier burdens in the fight against Daesh, ISIS.

Canadians have been magnificent in accepting tens of thousands of displaced victims from Syria and Iraq. However, they are the lucky few, in all honesty. That is because in the long run, the most important thing democratic peace-loving nations can deliver to the millions of suffering souls in the Levant is the restoration of peace and stability, allowing the displaced to eventually return to their devastated communities to begin to rebuild their lives in their homeland.

Finally, the government has, I believe, unrealistically optimistic intentions to establish diplomatic relations with some of the most dangerous individuals and groups around the world today. I know that many of the hon. members opposite justify their policy positions with the simple statement “because it's 2016”. Because it is 2016, I would like to suggest that it is time to put aside some of the Liberal Party's dated concepts about diplomacy, about war and peace and peacekeeping, and about the solutions needed to address global challenges today. There is certainly a place for optimism and a place for hope and sunny ways, but certainly not for wishful thinking and simplistic solutions.

When it comes to Iran, it is time for a reality check on the government's plans to ease sanctions, to normalize diplomatic relations, to reopen Canada's embassy in Tehran, to allow the Iranian mission to reopen in Ottawa, and to encourage Canadian businesses to explore business opportunities with the regime in Iran.

I was, frankly, disappointed by the indecent rush by some European nations to take advantage of trade opportunities that the lifting of sanctions against Iran's nuclear adventurism would allow. I am equally disappointed that a minister of Canada's new government would voice the same commercial justification to consider delisting Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism; reopening our Tehran embassy, putting our foreign service professionals at risk in the face of the Iranian regime's selective protection of diplomatic establishments; and attempting to engage with a regime that continues flagrant testing of ballistic missiles and that promises to spend billions of dollars in released sanctions funds to sponsor terrorist groups that are committed to the destruction of Israel.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that our government does not allow sunny ways cockeyed optimism to put Canadians at risk or to put any potential victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism at risk in the months and the years ahead.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as we were encouraged to put aside our dated ideology and then listened to a list of deficiencies in the immigration system that are creating a challenge as we seek to settle not just 25,000 but as many Syrian refugees as possible.

I believe what I heard listed was that there is a shortage of affordable housing, in particular in the member's riding, and that there is capacity lacking in the immigrant settlement services, largely as a result of cuts the previous government made.

The same could be said for housing. The cuts and the underfunding of the housing sector by the previous government are largely why there is not a housing program to absorb not just new arrivals but Canadians who need housing. Therefore, as the member encourages us to put aside a dated ideology, which I am not sure is an entirely accurate statement, am I now hearing from the members opposite, and particularly from the Conservative caucus, that they will put aside their principled and long-stated objection to investments in public housing and subsidies for public housing residents, that they will support the investments in immigrant resettlement services, and that they will help develop a society that has the capacity now to absorb, encourage, and employ new arrivals to this country? Will they put aside their cynical ideology, which has put this country in exactly the position that he says needs to change?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy engaging in dialogue with my colleague from Spadina—Fort York.

With regard to dated Liberal concepts of diplomacy, peacekeeping, war and peace, I think that Lester Pearson today would follow quite a different course than in the golden days of Pearsonian diplomacy when the United Nations was a very different organization and when protagonists and antagonists around the world, or warring parties, would eventually come to negotiated and reasonable settlements. We are dealing today with a new phenomenon where martyrdom is cherished over reasonable resolution and peaceful coexistence among differing groups around the world, not just in the Middle East.

With regard to housing, I would like to gently contradict my colleague opposite. During our massive and historic injection of infrastructure funding in 2009, 2010 and 2011, I had the honour and the pleasure of officiating at a number of new housing projects that were opened in downtown Toronto. With regard to York Region, we have been working collaboratively with the municipalities. They agreed that they have been negligent in the past in their city planning and bylaws in not encouraging developers who were building high-rises and condominiums to include by planning or bylaw affordable housing, rental housing, and to change the provisions of bylaws in the 12 communities of York Region which allow private homeowners to open up rental accommodations in their facilities.

There is much to be done. In providing advice following the minister's call for a response on infrastructure spending, I suggested that we should re-visit the original CMHC planning, which has sadly gone off the rails in recent years. This is one way to address the housing problem in Canada today.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out in his excellent speech some of the deficiencies in the Speech from the Throne. He mentioned the challenges that we are having with respect to our refugees. It is really important for a new government to have not only a good vision but also a plan forward. One of the important things with refugees is jobs. Jobs are a priority in my community of Oshawa.

There is another deficiency in the Speech from the Throne and the current government's platform and that is that there is no plan for manufacturing and no specific plan for the auto sector. When the Prime Minister was campaigning he said that he would like to transition away from manufacturing.

I would like to ask my colleague for some advice for the new government. It is great to have all of these visions but there is no concrete plan for a way forward. What is the importance of having plans for certain sectors, like great jobs in manufacturing, versus a vision with no plan?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the content of my colleague's question. I have met with the new minister responsible for regional development across the country and urged him to continue what was executed very effectively, in Ontario at least, under FedDev Ontario, in terms of funding for increased capacity in small and medium-sized enterprises and the creation of jobs.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal. It is a great honour for me to give my first speech in the House with my parents and my wife, Regina, in attendance.

I would like to thank the people of Pontiac who gave me a strong mandate and the privilege of representing them. I promise that I will serve them with determination, energy and integrity so that they can be proud of their federal MP.

The throne speech made our Liberal government's democratic vision for a dramatic change in Canada's political identity very clear. We made a specific commitment to listen to and work with other stakeholders and jurisdictions at community, municipality and first nation levels for the benefit of our country and our region in west Quebec.

My challenge will be to represent not only the diverse voters in the suburbs of Aylmer and Gatineau, but also those in rural Pontiac, who have so often been forgotten in the greater national capital region.

Together with my three Liberal Party colleagues in the Outaouais, I will help develop a regional approach based on improving social and environmental infrastructure.

I will stand up for rural Pontiac, which has so often been forgotten by the national capital region. We are going to develop a brand that is based on our wilderness, our farms, our forests, our arts, and our indigenous communities. Our people are our most precious resource. I will listen to them. I will listen to the diversity of Canadian voices that seek to define and redefine our electoral system, that strive for equality and who seek to defend our right to a healthy environment.

Over the past few months as I criss-crossed this rural riding I had the opportunity to listen to concerns far and wide. The simple fact is, our Canadian economy is not delivering for Pontiac. It seems to most of the people I speak with out in the country that our economy is stacked in favour of those who already have the most resources and those who live in big cities.

A vision of Pontiac has emerged as I have spoken with people, from Cantley to Chelsea, westwards along Highway 148, down through Shawville, Campbell's Bay, Fort-Coulonge, all the way out to Allumette Island and Rapides des Joachims. That same vision is one I hear when I go up the 105, all the way up past Low and Kazabazua, Gracefield, Maniwaki, the whole valley of Gatineau. People want economic stability. They want jobs. My job, and the job of my colleagues in the Outaouais, is to help deliver for small businesses, bring forward this vision from our Speech from the Throne and deliver infrastructure projects and new job opportunities.

The Pontiac is a place that is steeped in history. It is a place that was first inhabited by the Anishinaabe, the Algonquin people. This is a great indigenous nation that has experienced many difficult changes. It is now time to invite reconciliation with the Anishinaabe people to address our colonial past and unceded territorial claims. I say meegwetch to the communities of Kitigan Zibi and Barrier Lake for working with me to achieve this reconciliation.

Since the 1600s, the Pontiac has also been home to agricultural settlers, traders, and foresters of European descent. Irish, English, and French communities live side by side in harmony. It is one of the most bilingual regions in our country. It is such a diverse community, and now it is home to some of the newest Syrian families in Canada. We are very proud of that.

Standing behind a vision of Canadian unity, the Pontiac people have had strong federalist roots for many years. So many people in the Pontiac serve our entire country working for the federal government in the civil service.

Thousands of federal civil servants are devoted to helping the federal government create a better Canada.

The Pontiac is a huge playground. We have the Coulonge falls and rafting on the Ottawa River. There is tremendous potential for a new national park. Among other attractions in our region are the Gatineau valley with its many cottages and Nordik Spa, one of the best in North America.

The Pontiac is a land of forests, lakes, and rivers that provides a livelihood for so many residents and abundant opportunities for recreational activities. It is a land of agriculture. It is a land of forests.

The Pontiac has a proud tradition of local producers, both small- and large-scale farmers who supply food to markets in the Outaouais, as well as Montreal and Ottawa. Our best restaurants are just 20 minutes from Ottawa. They offer a local menu, sourced from farmers in the Pontiac.

However, all is not well in the land of Pontiac.

Canadian society is less egalitarian than it used to be. Income disparity is increasing. Our government's throne speech clearly acknowledges that.

I am worried. Actually, I am outraged by the economic situation in the Pontiac. It is unacceptable that some areas of the Pontiac and the Haute-Gatineau have some of the highest poverty rates in the province of Quebec. Our region has been too long forgotten.

Our region's unemployment rate went up after the mills shut down. Our seniors living on fixed incomes and our young people are having a really hard time. On top of all that, there have also been massive cuts to the federal public service over the past decade, as well as to employment insurance.

Pontiac families today are stretched in so many directions, and so are their budgets. Out of pocket costs keep rising faster than wages. I hear this everywhere I go.

A single mom in Shawville talks about juggling a job and raising three kids. If only her child assistance payments were increased, it would ease that situation. Our government will be there to help.

There is the grandmother in La Pêche who works around the clock providing child care to her three grandchildren. She is proud of her work, but the pay is barely enough to pay the rent. She needs affordable senior housing. Our government will deliver.

There are the young entrepreneurs who dream of opening a small business but are hampered by substandard Internet connectivity and cell phone access. Our government will help.

All these trends are real and not going away, but they do not determine our destiny. The choices that we make for our nation and for Pontiac matter. The choices we make over the next four years will set the stage for the middle class and those who aspire to join it in western Quebec.

Our region, the Outaouais, needs a boost. That is why it voted in Liberal MPs and a government that will be able to raise employment rates, improve economic development in the region and restore respect for the public service, our workers and our seniors.

I am committed to working with the people of Pontiac so that, together, we can protect and respectfully and sustainably develop our natural resources. Our lakes, rivers, forests, and agricultural lands are the pride of our region. They unify us, serve as a source of well-being and prosperity and define who we are.

I would like to conclude by saying that I look forward to hosting an economic summit, bringing together all of the municipal and regional governments of our riding. I look forward to bringing together all of these small businesses and all of the communities who want to work together to build a better Pontiac.

I hope the next four years will be the best the Pontiac has ever known.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on a very effective maiden speech in Parliament. He is a natural politician. I think he named every town in his riding in the course of his speech. It was very well done.

There is one thing I would like the member to comment on. I listened to his remarks about how some people in Pontiac feel that cities have been getting ahead but not parts of rural Canada or suburban Canada. I said this to one of my colleagues who spoke earlier about the problem of pitting one industry and one future against another, or saying that Canada is moving past manufacturing and resources and will only rely on high tech or IT and the information economy.

Representing a riding that has a mixture of rural parts, would the member comment on how we could build a plan so that both rural Canada and urban Canada respect the various industries and move forward together?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a great question, which has been asked of me many times.

Pontiac is a challenging riding because there are so many people living in Gatineau now who are represented in this riding, but also many small towns that have been decreasing in population and are looking for a new industry and a boost to their existing economies around agriculture and forestry.

Honestly, we need to accept the fact that we need to improve some aspects of our economy of the past, such as agriculture and forestry. We need to support those sectors and reduce interprovincial trade barriers for agricultural products. We need to develop the forestry processing sector in various ways, all across the Outaouais. We cannot overlook those aspects of our economy.

The reality of the situation in Pontiac is such that we need to look at both the economy of the past and the economy of the future, and marry them together. There is no one solution.

The greatest asset that we have in the Pontiac is the natural capital. We are bounded by the Ottawa and Gatineau Rivers. There are so many lakes and areas to go canoeing, fishing, and camping. Therefore, we need to build the Pontiac brand. If we can achieve a brand around wilderness, agriculture and forestry, and marry that to high tech and connectivity through the Internet, we can build small businesses that will help us succeed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Pontiac on his election. We have known each other for quite some time. I can presume that the hon. member will share the concern of his former colleagues at Ecojustice for the calls and support for a transitional process for the NEB process, for the reinstatement of protections of navigable rivers, legislation that was the key driver for federal assessment, and that his members support instigating federal protections for the participation, access to information, and effective enforcement under the environmental bill of rights.

Will the member for Pontiac be an advocate for these issues, which are concerns of the public, in his caucus?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and I appreciate that it is near and dear to the hon. member's as well. I look forward to working with the hon. member over the coming months and years on these important matters, and yes, we have so much ground to catch up on.

Our environmental governance regime at a federal level has been stripped to the bare bones, the scientific capacity reduced tremendously. We need to restore and improve upon our regulatory regime so that it is efficient and it works for our businesses, but at the same time provides for that level of protection of the environment that ultimately achieves the right to a healthy environment that all Canadians maintain.

We need our whole system to be rebuilt, whether that is environmental assessment, whether that is toxins management, whether we are talking about species at risk and habitat protection, or whether we are talking about national parks, including, I hope, a national park one day in the riding of Pontiac. We need to get to a better place in terms of sustainability. I believe we can achieve that working across the aisle with our partners in other parties.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House in response to the Speech from the Throne.

As we all know, when we respond to the throne speech, when we look at the throne speech, we look at it from the background we come from. I look at it from my professional background. I was the general counsel of a multinational company with operations around the world. I understand the frustrations of Canadian businesses that are trying to do business abroad, and the frustrations in the R & D sector when we look at what monies companies are entitled to through R & D tax credits or otherwise.

I look at it through the perspective of having been an elected official at the municipal level for 21 years, 11 years as a city councillor and 10 years as a mayor. I fully understand why we want to look at the fact that municipalities are truly one of the levels of government that need to be represented at the table.

Finally, we look at it from the ridings we come from. Everyone in this chamber believes that his or her riding is the best riding in Canada. Of course, I feel the same. My riding encompasses the Town of Mount Royal, the city of Côte-Saint-Luc, the town of Hampstead, and Côte-des-Neiges NDG, which is a borough of the city of Montreal.

It is an incredibly diverse riding, a riding that has been represented by great men and women. The Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau represented this riding in this place, so did Sheila Finestone, and so did Irwin Cotler.

I have quite a legacy to carry on. I promise that I will be a member from Quebec who fights for a united Canada here and elsewhere.

It is very important to recognize that Canada is more than a collection of communities. Canada is a country with a vibrant population from coast to coast to coast.

As an MP, I will fight for bilingualism across Canada so that francophones can feel at home from British Columbia to Newfoundland.

An individual can be an English-speaking person and be at home in Pontiac, in Montreal, and in Quebec City.

I will fight for a strong Charter of Rights and respect of individual liberties. I will fight for a country that recognizes our multicultural heritage and the fact that people who come from whatever countries in the world to Canada bring us richness and diversity.

I also intend to follow in the footsteps of my predecessor, Irwin Cotler, and be an MP who respects all parties in the House.

We need to get along in a non-partisan way. I was so pleased that the Speech from the Throne talked about a new tone in government that would also empower MPs with stronger committees, with no more omnibus bills that bundle different issues and make people vote in different ways that they do not want to. And most importantly, there would be more free votes for members in the House of Commons so that we would all have a chance to pronounce ourselves according to the will of our riding and our own principles.

I was also very pleased that the throne speech talked about infrastructure and the biggest infrastructure program that has ever come to Canada. Those of us who come from municipal backgrounds in cities and towns across this great country, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, know that we need money for hard infrastructure like roads, aqueducts, and sewers. We need more money for public transit in our great metropolises, particularly in Montreal, where we need the money for the STM.

In my riding, a project of particular importance is the Cavendish Boulevard extension.

Cavendish Boulevard is the most important missing piece of the Montreal Island road network. We have talked about it for 50 years and it still has not happened. All of the cities in the agglomeration of Montreal, which is our regional government, strongly support the Cavendish extension. Over the last 10 years we put $5 million into developing the engineering plans to make this project happen.

The cities in the agglomeration of Montreal have earmarked $44 million to cover a third of the cost. Money also has to come from the federal and provincial governments. I hope that everyone in the House will show their support. This project is very important to me.

I hope we can all make that a consensus as well.

In the campaign many of us did a lot of door-to-door and wore lots of pairs of shoes out. Fortunately, I wear a lot of sneakers. In the campaign I met many people who need our help, people who need social housing, people who are living in social housing where the agreements between the federal government and their place of residence expired and were not renewed. Their rents dramatically escalated. Seniors living on their own had to choose between buying medication and paying for food.

I am so pleased that we have in this budget money for infrastructure for social housing, money to give seniors with the increase of a 10% guaranteed income supplement for seniors living on their own, and money for families with the child care benefit that would allow people who make less to get more so they can take their children out of poverty.

I am also very pleased that our government intends to improve our relationship with our best partner and friend, the United States of America.

Having worked in a company where 80% of our business was with the United States, I know how important that relationship is. I was very pleased that it was singled out in the throne speech as being of paramount importance.

Finally, I want to talk about diversity. Like many members in the urban environment, I represent a very diverse riding.

Some of my constituents are among the wealthiest, while others are among the least fortunate.

I have people who have come from different communities from all over the globe, from over 100 nations and speaking over 100 languages, just in my riding of Mount Royal.

We have a unique riding in Quebec. In our riding, the majority of people speak English, and with the Jewish community, we have a diversity of people. It is quite rare.

The heart of Montreal's Filipino community is in my riding. Despite our differences, despite our linguistic differences, our religious differences, our cultural differences, we get along like gangbusters and that is diversity of Canada. Therefore, if I can leave one message in this chamber, it is this: let us appreciate the diversity of this amazing country from the territories, to Newfoundland, to British Columbia. Let us appreciate the different peoples who have come here and our aboriginal founders, the English, the French and all of those communities that have come here to join us. Let us recognize that in working together as we have as Canadians, we have developed the greatest country on earth.

I know now that we have had this incredible honour of being elected to this place. All parties have the opportunity to convince Canadians that politicians should not be ranked next to used car salesmen at the end of the list of people they trust, but way up at the top. As a Parliament that works together across party lines, we will achieve great things for Canada.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first start by congratulating the member on his electoral victory to the House of Commons. He is absolutely right that this is a great country with diversity. Over the 18 years that I have been here, we have worked toward achieving the goal that the member is talking about. I have enjoyed my journeys to Quebec and all around the country.

I have a question for the member. At the current time, the mayor of Montreal, where the member comes from, has said that he is not going to support one of the most important projects that would unify this country. I am asking if the member will talk to my good, old friend. I should say he is an old friend because he was in this chamber, sitting exactly where the member is sitting, as the former minister of immigration. He was a friend.

Will the member tell Denis Coderre what he just said here, that this unity is required, that east and west should not be pitted against each other, and he should approve this thing? He should be selling that out there. Is he going to do that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am actually sitting in the place that the former member for Bourassa sat in the chamber since I am a little further back. That being said, as someone who served as a mayor on the island of Montreal in the regional government, I speak to the mayor of Montreal all the time. I will certainly share the member's observations with him.

Our government has clearly said we are looking at all sides of this situation and we have to look at it in the interests of the entire country.