Debates of Jan. 26th, 2016

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that after 10 years of having all of our eggs in one basket this government is prepared to diversify its approach to economic growth. That means looking at all different sectors of the economy to ensure that families, professionals, and people who go to work each day have an opportunity to share in the socio-economic wealth of our great country.

In the riding I have the honour of representing, we have a tremendous research and innovation capacity to build on new ideas and new technologies that help us advance in the information technology sector, the manufacturing sector, and the natural resource sector. We are close to markets all over the world. It is these types of approaches that make me proud to sit on this side of the floor and endorse a Speech from the Throne that, as I said, is as forward thinking and forward looking as it is realistic and ready to accomplish good things for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Fredericton on his election.

I do know quite a bit about the situation in Fredericton, New Brunswick. My colleague, the leader of the Green Party of New Brunswick, David Coon, has suggested that because New Brunswick has a significant population of seniors, we should support a renegotiation of the Canada health accord and look at federal-provincial funding for provinces under that health accord. Those provinces that have a large population of seniors and are looking at additional health costs should receive more in funding as a result.

I wonder if the hon. member for Fredericton would agree that this is an appropriate approach for the federal government to take in dealing with assisting provinces with their health care costs.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the leader of the Green Party that I have a great working relationship with the leader of the provincial Green Party, who holds a riding right in the middle of Fredericton. I look forward to working with him as well as the candidate for the Green Party in the election, Mary Lou Babineau, who ran a wonderful campaign. I share her collegiality in helping advance the situation of my community and province.

I could not agree more with the idea that this government is working with the provinces to address situations such as we have in New Brunswick, where we have an aging population, which, as I said in my speech, should be seen as an asset to our prosperity. We have tremendous people who are retiring with a wealth of experience, knowledge, and expertise to deliver back to our communities.

I am working with researchers, professionals, and members of all political parties to make sure that the community I have the honour of representing and our province are seen as a place to demonstrate innovations in health care administration and delivery that will serve as the basis for health care supports right across the country.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that my colleague talked about was infrastructure spending and that after 10 years of Conservative rule, we are finally going to get infrastructure spending in our country.

I would ask my colleague what he feels infrastructure spending will do for his riding.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay for his early success in developing a voice about the need to look to Saint John as a place where we can demonstrate a reduction in poverty, especially of young people. It is certainly an issue that is close to my heart professionally and in this activity now.

There is no doubt that as a government we need to support opportunities for community growth. In my community, we know that every dollar invested in infrastructure helps enhance the quality of life, well-being, and health of constituents.

I look forward to working with the member to identify opportunities for community development and growth through our infrastructure investments.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome. I will share my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

I am very happy today to make my maiden speech in this Parliament, to be back in the House, and to represent once again the people of Beloeil—Chambly. I want to take the time to thank them for placing their trust in me once again.

Since this is my first speech, I would like to take a moment to say what a great honour it was to represent the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, the two municipalities that were removed from my constituency in the last redistribution process. Since Saint-Basile is where I live, I am heartsick when I walk around the town and talk with people. However, I always reassure them that I will ensure that the new member does his job well, because it seems he is my member too, now.

Even though those two municipalities are no longer in my riding, the issues are the same. I will come back to this, but first I would like to thank a few people, including my team. In federal politics, it is rare to keep the same team for four years. When MPs are re-elected, it is mainly because they represented their constituents well, but MPs cannot do the work alone. I would therefore like to thank Francine, Cédric, Suzanne and Sébastien, who have been with me from the beginning of this adventure and who have accomplished the herculean task of representing me in the community and ensuring that people received the services they were entitled to. The work they do is the reason that I am still here today and that some of them are still working for me.

I would also like to thank the team that supported me during the campaign. We knock on plenty of doors, but there are people, candidates and outgoing MPs, who spend a lot of time with us and who give us lots of great ideas. I would especially like to thank Jacques, Guillaume and Francine, who spent so much time with me on the streets of my riding.

I want to talk now about the throne speech, which is the subject of today's debate. Although we are pleased with the change in tone, I must say that the previous government set the bar rather low. Although we have noticed greater openness and a change in tone, that is not enough. We also need to see new measures, and that is unfortunately where I see certain shortcomings.

Consider for example the issue of climate change and the environment, an issue that was raised over and over during the election campaign. I would even say that that will be one of the most urgent issues in the coming years, not only for Quebec and Canada, but for the entire world. To tackle this issue, we need to set targets. However, despite the work done in Paris, those targets are a far cry from what we are hearing from this government. The Liberals have not set any specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is very disappointing, especially since the throne speech would have been the perfect opportunity to begin a real shift away from what the Conservatives did.

When we talk about the environment, we are not just talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also talking about environmental assessments, which is another hot topic. We are being forced to accept the government's position on this, and that is to uphold the system that was dismantled by the Conservative government over the past few years, especially the past four years. This is unacceptable. That system does not work. It has to be reviewed and modernized. It did not even take into consideration the impact various resource extraction projects would have on climate change.

Change is needed if we really want our country to have a 21st-century system that satisfies Canadians and truly assesses the impact of projects on our environment in order to protect it. Despite the government's fine words, that change does not seem to be on the horizon. We will continue to push the government on this, because it is an urgent matter.

Speaking of urgent matters that were not mentioned in the throne speech, there was nothing about agriculture, despite the fact that supply management was a major campaign issue.

The government is prepared to sign an agreement that the Conservative government negotiated at the eleventh hour, in the middle of an election campaign. That agreement poses a serious threat to the supply management system, which guarantees the prosperity of our communities and our farmers, who provide us with healthy food and drive our local economy. That is very worrisome.

It is especially worrisome because farmers have lived with uncertainty for 10 years. They were constantly told by MPs that they should not worry and that the MPs would protect the supply management system. However, during the negotiations, it seemed that everything was on the table. The Liberal government must put a stop to such action, but that does not seem to be its intention.

Once again, this file was not mentioned in the throne speech. We must continue to push the government to ensure that it immediately changes direction. It is very urgent, and we must do so in the coming days, weeks and months, especially in light of the trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before us.

I want to talk about other things that were missing from the throne speech or other disappointments. Bill C-51 is another file on which the Liberals followed the Conservatives' lead in the previous Parliament. That was one of the greatest debates in the House in the 41st Parliament, and may have been the greatest one I ever I participated in. The topic itself was very troubling.

As the Conservatives spread fear, our rights and freedoms were being rolled back, which we thought was unacceptable. Despite the Liberals' rhetoric and their claims that they were against Bill C-51, they voted in favour of the bill and committed to making changes that would address a lot of their concerns. However, despite those promises, once again, we did not hear a single word about this bill in the throne speech.

The process so far has not been very comforting. For example, the government has not been open to the idea of having opposition parties participate in the parliamentary committee that will ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, will be transparent enough to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In closing, I would like to say that the Liberals' supposed openness to the middle class about the income tax rate is yet another disappointment. People who earn less than $45,000 will not see a penny of the Liberal Party's tax cuts. Those who will benefit the most are the ones who probably need it the least. That is very worrisome.

The NDP put forward a very simple proposal, but unfortunately, the government rejected our amendment, which would have broadened those measures to truly help the middle class.

When the government cuts taxes, it has to make sure that those who are not paying their fair share start doing so. I am thinking of big corporations whose taxes went down for years under one Liberal or Conservative government after another. The tax rate for big corporations is now among the lowest in the world.

We see no economic benefit from that. No jobs are being created. Some companies whose tax rates went down even left Canada, and people were left to pick up the pieces. That is very disappointing.

In closing, the throne speech is an opportunity for the government to state its priorities, and I would simply like to reiterate my short-term priorities.

I should mention that the Liberal candidate in my riding shared these same priorities during the election campaign. I therefore hope to have the government's support for these measures.

We want to resolve the conflict between the federal government and the City of Chambly regarding the payments in lieu of taxes once and for all. The federal government owes the City of Chambly $500,000. We also want to resolve the issue of boating safety once and for all by protecting the shores of the Richelieu River and keeping boaters safe. We also want to talk about rail safety.

We asked a question during question period today, and we have yet to see the transparency we were promised.

There is a lot of work to do, and I am more than happy to continue doing it. I know that my colleagues and I will do everything we can to hold the government accountable and ensure that it acts in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague across the aisle for his great speech. My hon. colleague often mentioned how the NDP is a party that is for the middle class and for the Canadian family.

However, the Liberal Party implemented a tax cut for the middle class and is going to implement the Canada child benefit that is going to have more money for families, will benefit nine out of 10 Canadian families, and is going to pull over 300,000 children out of poverty.

The New Democratic Party stood with the Conservative Party and wanted to continue the universal child care benefit, which gave the same amount back to families whether they made $300,000 or $25,000 a year. Would my hon. colleague not agree that the Canada child benefit is a much better program for Canadian families?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can give Canadians all the money we want, but if day care is too expensive, what good will the money do? That is why the NDP proposed affordable child care.

Now I want to talk about the middle class and how best to help them. The parliamentary budget officer is the one who said that the tax cuts will not help the people who truly need it. People need more than tax cuts. How many times have we heard about the need to the bolster the health transfers that were slashed by the Conservative government? That topic comes up often. People are very concerned about the viability of the public health care system. Unfortunately, that topic was also missing from the throne speech.

I heard some comments and heckling from a Conservative colleague, but as a member from Quebec, I can say that the NDP proposed a transfer for Quebec's child care system. With the rising costs in this province, a transfer would have been greatly appreciated by the middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member has made on the record.

I look at it as priorities. The member makes reference to priorities. I believe the Government of Canada has gotten it right. We talked a lot about it in terms of the election, and incorporated it into our platform: if Canada has a healthy middle class then we will have a healthier economy. If we give strength to our middle class, we will have a stronger economy. By investing in infrastructure, by investing in our middle class, as a community, no matter what part or region of the country we live in, there will in fact be more hope for all regions.

If we take a look at the broader picture, in terms of trying to deliver hope to Canadians, we should be talking about investing in our communities through things like infrastructure investment. We should be talking about building value to our middle class by giving tax breaks, giving child benefits.

Does the member not see, in the bigger picture, that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have gotten it right in the throne speech, that we are delivering a throne speech that will inspire hope for our citizens, and that that is part of our job as parliamentarians here in Ottawa?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague when he says that strengthening the middle class is a good way to boost the economy. It is certainly true that a strong middle class will help the economy. The problem here is that he is talking about priorities and urgent matters.

I am thinking about how the government is dragging its feet when it comes to employment insurance. EI would help people who need it. At the risk of repeating myself, I am thinking about people who earn less than $45,000 and will not get one cent of the Liberal government's tax cut. I am thinking about people who need to have their mail delivered at home and saw this government go back on its word. As far as infrastructure is concerned, I see a party that spent the entire election campaign promising to restore the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds in Quebec, when it said nothing about it for four years while the NDP was championing this issue in the House of Commons. Here too the government is dragging its feet, which ends up delaying projects and investments. I think the government still has a lot to learn about setting priorities and the urgency to act. We would be prepared to give it some advice.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to deliver my first remarks in response to the Speech from the Throne, a very important speech. We are beginning a new year, 2016. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone on my team who helped me during the election campaign. We worked very hard for nearly an entire year on the campaign. We worked on the ground. We met a lot of people, who told us which priorities they want this government to address. The Liberals form the government, and my constituents brought forward many priorities they wanted to see in the throne speech. For the people of the Drummond area, the city of Drummondville and all the rural regions in the Drummond area, I am very pleased to represent them and bring those priorities to the fore here today.

One of those priorities, which remains very important for the people of Drummond, is the whole issue of sustainable development. Over the past few years, we have been very successful. Considerable investments have been made in infrastructure in the Drummond area, including investments linked to sustainable development. We are building a new LEED library that will benefit from federal funding. We in Drummond should be very proud of our approach, which we need to maintain for the future.

Unfortunately, in both the throne speech and the Liberal Prime Minister's approach at COP21, the climate change conference that took place in Paris, targets to fight climate change remain very weak, just like when the Conservatives were in power. The people of Drummond are shocked by this. They are upset that the Liberals, who made big promises regarding climate change, have yet to propose any concrete actions or serious targets to fight climate change. We look forward to seeing specific actions from the Liberal government. We want to see many more concrete actions in the days ahead.

I would like to thank the leader of the NDP for appointing me as the official languages critic and for his excellent work on this file. There are some interesting signs with respect to this issue as well, but there is nothing concrete yet. We do not know if the freeze on official languages funding will be lifted. The budget has been frozen for almost 10 years. It should be indexed, and there needs to be more transparency with regard to how funds are allocated to official languages programs.

I introduced a bill on official languages concerning the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. It requires judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court to have a good understanding of both official languages, precisely because it is the court of last resort for all Canadians. It is vital that all judges be able to understand both official languages, and this is extremely important for all official language groups in Canada. Consequently, I hope that the Liberals and the other members of the House will support this bill. We have been working on this issue for a number of years. My former colleague, Yvon Godin, the excellent member for Acadie—Bathurst, made this issue his personal battle and worked very hard for many years on it. He did a very good job, and I hope to complete what he started in the upcoming year.

We must not forget about fighting poverty. People in the greater Drummond area are extremely generous. Recently, there were all kinds of holiday charity drives in Drummond. People are generous and they give, but that hides the reality of poverty. There is still lots of poverty among young people, and that is totally unacceptable in a modern, wealthy society like Canada. It is unacceptable that there are still young people and children living in poverty who do not have the same tools and opportunities to create a future for themselves. We absolutely have to give them the opportunity to feed themselves, go to school, study, and eventually find a job and enrich our society.

That is why the Liberals must adopt our platform policy to end tax avoidance, which is a shameful and totally unacceptable practice in our society. Compensating the biggest CEOs of the biggest corporations with stock options is an appalling example of tax avoidance, and we have condemned the practice. We think that money should be taken and spent on fighting child poverty. We have been talking about that for a long time, and the time has come to act.

Speaking of inequality and the fight against poverty, the Liberals were very vocal about fighting poverty among seniors. That is a priority for the NDP too. We said that we would waste no time enhancing the guaranteed income supplement.

There is nothing about this in the throne speech. We said that we would drop the age of eligibility for old age security back to 65. People in my riding and the greater Drummond area told me that the age of eligibility for old age security must absolutely be returned to 65, and that it makes no sense for a senior to receive only the minimum pension and the guaranteed income supplement. It is extremely difficult to live on just that; it is completely unacceptable. To combat inequality, it is crucial that the Liberals, who are now in power, take action immediately to drop the age of eligibility for old age security back to 65 and improve the guaranteed income supplement. They made promises and we want immediate action.

Speaking of the fight against poverty and inequality, affordable housing is another issue that is very important to me and to the NDP. It was also very important to Jack Layton, our former leader, who led the charge in the fight for affordable housing. He did an outstanding job.

In my riding, local groups have worked very hard to get community housing called Envolée des mères. It is housing for single mothers who want to go back to school or find a job. It is a place where mothers can be given lodging, guidance, help, and support, and where their children can also get help to get on their feet and become people who contribute to our society. I am truly pleased to have supported this project. In fact, I sponsored a housing project that I called the Jack Layton housing project in honour of our former leader.

We want to see something tangible done about affordable housing. In Drummond, all the municipalities, not just Drummondville, but also the small municipalities that have affordable housing, want sustained funding. It is extremely important. I hope to see something tangible soon because the Speech from the Throne is unfortunately quite lacking in this regard. We expect a lot from the government. It is not just about fighting poverty, but also about helping people to enrich our community.

In closing, the plan to strengthen the economy must also focus on SMEs. The NDP had a great plan. The greater Drummond area is a dream location for SMEs. Things are going well, but we must continue to support our small and medium-sized businesses. We had a very important plan to do just that. I hope that the Liberals will also implement concrete measures to support SMEs so that the greater Drummond area can reap the benefits. Naturally, we want to continue providing economic stimulus for our region, which we are very proud of.

I would add that there is one sector in which the Liberals have not done much and where they are having little impact at present, and that is disappointing. I am referring to the agriculture sector, which is important to my riding, as is supply management. We are waiting for concrete measures in support of farms that depend on supply management. I visited a dairy farm last Friday. We must support our farms that depend on supply management. The principle of supply management is vital to all the farms in the greater Drummond area.

I hope that the Liberal government will be able to move forward on this issue.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague across the aisle for his great speech and to talk about, in particular, his comments on poverty. It is something that is near and dear to my heart, because my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, unfortunately, leads the country in child poverty. In ward 3, in fact, there are poverty rates of up to 50% for children, which is absolutely unacceptable for the city and the region.

My question for my colleague is this. The NDP was full of a lot of talk with respect to the middle class and families, but besides the $15-an-hour minimum wage that it proposed, which was going to help fewer than 1% of Canadian workers, and despite the $10-a-day day care plan that it proposed, which was going to take years to implement because many of the provinces were not on board, what other policies does the NDP have to help with children's poverty?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

As he mentioned, we cannot continue to do nothing to combat child poverty. That is why the NDP suggested closing the tax loophole for stock options in the next budget.

Therefore, I would suggest that my colleague tell his colleagues and the Prime Minister to eliminate the loophole, which only benefits CEOs of major corporations, who are already millionaires. It is an unjust and unfair tax measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Drummondville. I want to congratulate him on his election and wish him a good term of office.

He did not mention the TransCanada pipeline in his speech, although this is very important to Quebec. His party does not seem to have a clear position. Eighty-two mayors and four million people have spoken out against the pipeline. Furthermore, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously set seven conditions. The member for Québec was also there at the assembly. None of these seven conditions has been met.

Is it not time for the NDP to take a clear position? Where does my colleague stand on the energy east pipeline?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize my colleague and neighbour from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. I have a great deal of respect for him. Over the years, he has come to understand the inner workings of the House of Commons.

The NDP is totally opposed to the energy east project in its current state. It makes no sense. The existing project is flawed, has no social licence and has not been subject to the kinds of environmental assessments we should expect in a country like ours. Our safety standards should be world-class.

During question period, we repeatedly asked the Liberal government why it would not start the assessment process for the energy east pipeline over again. That is what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. When will they follow through?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Manicouagan.

When voters give us a mandate to represent them and speak loudly and clearly on their behalf in the House of Commons, the seat of democracy, it is an honour and a great privilege. I was a member of the National Assembly. I have been teaching democracy for 30 years, and I believe it is important that all members have the opportunity to express themselves in this place, the very heart of our democracy, the legislative branch of government.

I would like to thank the people of Montcalm and assure them that they can count on me to speak on their behalf. I vow to represent them diligently and with determination. I will do everything I can to deserve their trust next time around as well.

I would also like to thank all the volunteers. We often forget that politics is not just one person's story. I would like to thank the entire team of people who believed in me 28 days before the election and who supported me so that we could have a strong presence and win a seat in the House. I would also like to thank my daughter, Laurilou, and my spouse, Josée, who has supported my political involvement for 25 years. At the end of the day, the only things a politician really has are his family and his integrity.

In Montcalm, there are 13 municipalities and three RCMs. It is a magnificent riding criss-crossed by several rivers and dotted with farms. Montcalm's main industry is agriculture. I will come back to that later.

The people of Montcalm sent a separatist MP to Ottawa. There is an old adage in democracy that says that if you pay taxes, you are entitled to be represented. Quebeckers pay taxes and they are entitled to be represented. I am a separatist MP, but I am a democrat. I would even say that since the Quiet Revolution, the separatist movement has demonstrated on a number of occasions that it is fundamentally democratic. I would say that the separatist movement is deeply rooted in democracy.

Look at the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. At the time, in response to an appeal by the Lévesque government, the Supreme Court declared that although this unilateral patriation was legal, it was illegitimate. We know full well that in a democracy, legitimacy is the foundation of legality. I would remind the House that still today, and since 1982, no premier of Quebec, whether federalist or sovereignist, has signed this Constitution. Nevertheless, Quebeckers continue to respect the courts, pay their taxes, respect democracy, and even send their representatives to the House of Commons.

Look at the 1995 referendum, where Quebec legislation was flouted when the no side exceeded the spending limit. Quebec's referendum legislation was completely disregarded. Many say that referendum was stolen because at the time there was no requirement to identify oneself and present photo ID to vote and there was a lot of duplication on the voter list.

This system was in fact updated in 1998. In 1999, Quebec began requiring voters to identify themselves using a voter card to be able to vote. Since 1995, however, Quebeckers have respected the results, despite the very narrow margin between the yes side and the no side, which was just 1% or 33,000 votes.

That was the case because the democratic ideal is at the very core of the concept of the sovereignty of the people. The democratic ideal is the very foundation of liberal philosophy, the very reason, in fact, that we, the members from all the parties, are here. Every nation state has the right to secure its own future and break free when another state is repressing it.

That is why the people of Montcalm elected a member who will represent them on issues such as gender equality, supply management and the TransCanada pipeline, which is not welcome in Quebec. They elected a separatist member who believes in democracy.

I am emphasizing democracy because in the throne speech, the Prime Minister of Canada said that he really wants to reform our parliamentary democracy. He said, “all members [of Parliament] will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit.”

I would therefore humbly submit to all my colleagues that the 10 Bloc Québécois MPs, who were elected under the same banner and without a shadow of a doubt form a parliamentary group—that is a statement of fact and not a value judgment—do not have the same rights as all parliamentarians who sit in the House. We do not have the same means of ensuring that our voters are heard in the House.

The Prime Minister also said that he wanted to reform the electoral system. In a democratic society, the first thing to do so that the debate is not held by the experts or the politicians, but rather by the people, is to make a commitment to hold a referendum because it is the people who must ultimately have their say on changing these democratic rules. That was my experience when I was the official opposition critic on the reform of democratic institutions in Quebec and an attempt was made to change the voting system in Quebec.

It is my experience that a model that is put forward is often biased and quite often gives the advantage to the party that wants to implement it. How can the Liberal majority believe that unilaterally imposing a model respects the tenets of democracy?

Democracy is based on principles such as gender equality and the separation of church and state. That is why we said during the election campaign that people must vote, take an oath and provide services with their faces uncovered. Those are important symbolic moments when we show our commitment to our democracy.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague on his speech. I think this is one of the first times I can rise in the House and say that I agree with something he said. I am talking about holding a referendum, because it is necessary for our democracy and it is really up to the people to decide whether individuals should show their face when voting.

That said, I would like to know whether, on the other side of the House, the government agrees that individuals should show their face when providing services, as my Bloc Québécois colleague is requesting.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for the members opposite, but I think that my colleagues opposite will have to review the position, or lack thereof, that they took during the election campaign. Sometimes we do things to include newcomers, and sometimes newcomers do things to show that they want to belong. There are some very important occasions in our democracy. The right to vote seals the social contract. It is therefore not unreasonable, under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ask that anyone who wants to be part of my society show their face. It is not unreasonable, under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ask someone who wants to take an oath, to join the new country's culture and democratic society, to show their face. Section 1 of the charter guarantees rights “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. That is the position of the Bloc Québécois.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member of the Bloc is related to what I believe is one of the most significant policies Canada has as a nation. Many Canadians from all regions appreciate our health care system. One of the greatest treasures that we have here in Canada, and what many people identify with, is that we have a health care system that is there in times of need.

One of the biggest differences between this government and the government before us is that the current Prime Minister recognizes how important it is that we work with the provinces, our partners, in delivering on a number of services. One of the services that is important to me and my constituents and, I would argue, even to the member's constituents, is a strong national health care system.

My question for the member is related to health care. Does the member believe that the federal government should be working with all partners of our federation in trying to come up with a new health care accord, keeping in mind that the record amounts of money that we see today in health care are in good part because of a health care accord agreement that was achieved in 2004 and lasted for 10 years, guaranteeing a certain level of funding to ensure that we have good quality health care in all regions of our country?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, health falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. During the 1990s, the federal government's commitment to health waned. Quebeckers contribute around $45 billion in taxes to the federal government, yet they are supposed to feel grateful for the $12 billion they get back.

Various federal governments have cut back their health care contributions. There was a time when the government gave 50¢ per dollar. If the Conservative government had remained in power, we would be down to 18¢ per dollar now.

I would like the government to maintain health transfer increases at 6%, let the provinces decide what the needs are, and raise that amount to 25%.

That would be acceptable because Quebec is capable of managing its own health sector.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Manicouagan, I must inform her that she will have about seven minutes for her speech. She will have time to continue her speech when the House resumes debate on this subject.

The member has the floor.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak in the House, and I would like to begin by recognizing my constituents and thanking them for choosing me to represent the riding of Manicouagan. With 42% of the vote, I feel I have a strong mandate to represent them here in the House.

I would like to say a few words about something that seems to have been forgotten these past two days in the House, and that is the matter of respect. I see it on many faces and in certain speeches. The Speaker has also seen it today.

Of course, I could speak on behalf of the 42% who voted for me. At the same time, I am here to represent everyone in my riding. When I rise here, I do so in order to address the House, but as I promised, I also have the honour to do so on behalf of my constituents. It is a question of showing respect for all of my constituents, regardless of their political allegiances and despite the fact that I am a staunch and resolute separatist.

I want to reiterate to my constituents my commitment to build bridges, to be available and to be worthy of their trust by taking this noble action of rising in the House to speak. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

I am talking about Manicouagan in response to the Speech from the Throne because I did not hear much of anything in the House that was meaningful to me. Canada is certainly large; so is Quebec. The riding of Manicouagan is in the easternmost part of Quebec, next to Labrador, and is 250,000 square kilometres in size. It is an immense riding. We refer to it as a region both in French and in English.

When I come to the House to represent my constituents, I bring their fears with me. I would have liked to see those fears dissipated in the Speech from the Throne, which makes no mention of the word “region”. I could provide a number of examples.

This morning, the hon. member for Mount Royal talked about infrastructure, something that everyone is interested in. Infrastructure is a big part of the Liberal plan, and we are curious to see what will come of it. When I hear someone talk about a stretch of highway or a road that they would like to see built to stimulate the economy or add to the economy, I can certainly understand what they are talking about. However, with a riding like mine where there is 1,600 km of coastline and where 600 km is not covered by a road, I get inspired to rise in the House to represent the constituents.

I agree that improvements could be made everywhere. However, when we talk about economic stimulus or an economic plan, and this may be how the government feels as well, I would like to see one road from coast to coast. There could be one.

This is important to my constituents, who have to travel 600 kilometres to access health care or who are virtually stuck inside during the winter.

In my riding we have the White Trail. I do not know if people know what that is. It is a trail for snowmobiles. The only way to get around in my riding is to travel 600 kilometres by snowmobile. These people do not have access to some services or to democracy, in a way. It is unrealistic to have riding offices that cover my entire riding.

I wanted to talk about this notion of region, because we too often talk about what the economic benefits will be for Canada. However, when discussing development, we must also be daring. I do not know what is in the Liberal government's plan in that regard.

At this time in the House, I see from their faces that some people are being disrespectful, and that makes me sad. However, I will continue my speech about the 600-kilometre trail. I invite these members to travel on the White Trail.

I would also like to have talked about democratic reform, which was also touched on in the Conservative government's speech. My colleague from Montcalm mentioned it earlier. As a member of a political party, if I were to talk about just one principle, I would talk about the representation of ideas. We talked about debating ideas. The Speaker often talks about it; in this place we discuss ideas. One party can talk about democratic reform and representation if it wants to, because I believe that all ideas can be presented to the House and that we must have the same means.

As the representative of a riding or region, I believe that my constituents should have the same rights as all other Canadians. Just because one party, such as ours or that of the Leader of the Green Party, is not recognized, whether or not it is separatist, that does not mean that limits can be placed on its rights, its powers, and the means at its disposal to equitably represent the electorate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Manicouagan will have three minutes to finish her speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I now rise in the House on the opposition side to ask a question of the government. For the last 10 years it was the other way around. However, due to the results of the election, that has been turned around.

At this time, let me congratulate the member for Burlington on her election to the House of Commons and her appointment as the parliamentary secretary for international development, a position I held before we changed positions up here.

The question I had asked the minister had to do with the international response to the Syrian refugee crisis. We all know that the situation is dire. We have seen a massive amount of Syrians taking dangerous risks while travelling across Europe to try to get away from the ravages of war. That is a very small answer to a bigger problem in that region.

During my tenure as the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I had the misfortune of visiting refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan, where we saw refugees who were running from the war, and they are in Lebanon too. Of course we are looking forward to the peace talks that will be taking place soon. We hope there will soon be a resolution to the Syrian conflict, and the Syrian people can go back home from the refugee camps.

The larger issue is that these people who are living in the camps need assistance from the world community. Canada has been one of the leading countries in providing this kind of assistance in the past. During the election campaign, our government announced that it would give over $100 million to the refugee crisis, as well as matching funds. I have noticed that the Liberal government has carried on with that program, which is a good thing to do. However, in the larger scheme of things, with respect to a long-term solution, it has not addressed what it will do and how it will assist the refugees in the camps in Syria, which is my question.

The Liberals have made the announcements that they will match the donations of Canadians who wish to help. By opening up their doors to the refugees, Canadians have shown that they are concerned about it and are willing to provide assistance. My concern is that I do not see any efforts, publicity, or anything on the part of the government to address this issue. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can tell us what our government is doing.