Debates of Jan. 27th, 2016

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, job losses across Canada are a chronic problem and our government will be dealing with these losses through our infrastructure investments. These will create more jobs to make up for those losses and stimulate our economy. We will be giving more benefits to those who have children under a certain age, so they can grow and reach and stay in the middle class.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, l will follow-up on the member opposite's question. Would my colleague not agree that spending the money is so much more important than just announcing it?

When we talked to mayors in the run up to the election and the run up to the party platform, we found that although hundreds of millions of dollars had been announced by the previous government, none of it was actually spent. If we look at the cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Mississauga, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and Saint John's, they were all promised infrastructure dollars but not one penny was ever delivered to those cities in the last two calendar years.

Would my colleague not agree that spending infrastructure money is more important than promising it?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only is this an important question but an important comment: Put your money where your mouth is”. I think that is what my colleague is saying. That was not done in the past but it will happen under our government.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first time rising in the House, I want to say that I am very honoured to be among my colleagues to represent the people of La Prairie.

I will remain true to my commitments and the ideologies of our party and our leader, the Prime Minister. I intend to work hard and with determination to be a spokesperson worthy of their trust. I want to thank my wife, Francine Gingras, for her unwavering support. Many thanks to my children, Carolanne and Jason, whom I love with all my heart, and to my wife's children, Michael and Jenny Mantha, for their encouragement.

Many thanks to the people of my riding and the hardworking team of volunteers who stood by me throughout the 78 days of the election campaign. Without their support, I would not be here in this place of democracy. Before getting into my speech, I also want to congratulate all my parliamentary colleagues on earning the trust of their constituents.

I would like to begin by painting a picture of the riding of La Prairie, which is one of three new ridings in Quebec. I could go on for hours, but I will stick to the basics. I know my riding like the back of my hand because I grew up there. Not only was I born there, but I watched it develop for 55 years. Located not far from Montreal on the banks of the majestic St. Lawrence, the riding of La Prairie is a study in contrasts. Within its roughly 295 square kilometres lies Quebec's most populous RCM, Roussillon, which has 99,815 inhabitants. The average age of the population is 38, which speaks to the many young families we have.

The riding is half urban and half rural. That is not surprising because it contains the best agricultural land in the St. Lawrence River valley. The Mohawk community of Kahnawake is in my riding too. La Prairie is blessed with favourable geographical features. Located on the shores of the St. Lawrence, it is close to metropolitan Montreal and major thoroughfares such as Highway 30 and the 15 south, as well as a major rail network and the U.S. border. This adds up to major economic potential, and we have so much going on in so many ways.

That brings me to our rich heritage and culture. La Prairie was established in 1667 and has held a very special place in Canadian history since 1975 because of its architecture and archeological finds. The Canadian Railway Museum in Saint-Constant, the largest of its kind in the country and the third-largest in the world, brings a major part of our history alive with its unique collection of railway rolling stock.

As for the city of Sainte-Catherine, it has a deepwater port with locks and all the development potential that goes along with that resource. Our rural municipalities with their fertile soil produce a wide variety of agricultural products, including vegetables, grains, and livestock.

The people I represent are proud of this unique heritage, and they care about their families' welfare. Throughout the election campaign, I promised to be their spokesperson in the House of Commons, to make the government aware of their needs, and to do everything in my power to contribute to their well-being.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister and his office for the trust they placed in me when they appointed me to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. As everyone will see during my term in office, agriculture is my life. I was born on my ancestors' farm. I grew up there and I raised my family there. This farm specializes in the production of milk, as well as vegetables and grains for processing, and was passed down to a fifth generation thanks to my son, who is taking over. During all the years I was an active farmer, I was always in tune with the agricultural community, sharing its joys and sorrows. Although with my new commitments I have had to take a step back from farming, I am still in touch with the agricultural community and what is going on there, and I am well positioned to understand farmers' everyday realities.

From the earth to Parliament, I will do everything I can to protect our agriculture. Farmers do not roll up their sleeves; they tear them off. This industry deserves to be seen for what it is, and that is a vital force. In Canada, agriculture and agrifood are the leading employment sector. They generate 2.3 million jobs and $108 billion a year, which represents 6.6% of our GDP. Every day, over 200,000 farms put food on our tables and provide us with grains, fruit, vegetables, dairy products, meat, and other food.

However, there is a threat hanging over this nice picture, namely that one day supply will not be able to meet demand. We have a duty to ensure that Canadians and their families can always count on having healthy, nutritious food produced sustainably and in a way that respects the environment. Meeting the public's basic needs also means ensuring the health of our farmers and our farms.

We cannot deny that in an ever-changing world, feeding our people has become an issue of national security. Agriculture and agri-food is our second-largest export sector. As borders collapse, our agriculture sector must redouble its efforts and find creative ways to adapt to the ever-changing effects of globalization, not to mention climate change.

Some producers are faring well, while others are not. Between 2001 and 2006, Canada lost more than 17,500 farm businesses. We must put a stop to this, because it is having a physical and psychological impact on our farming families. Throughout our election campaign, we saw how important it is for Canadians to have the tools to access healthy food every day. We need to develop a national food policy. In my riding alone, food bank use jumped by 28% in the last two years. It is estimated that two and a half million Canadians are struggling with food insecurity. The government defines that as the inability to acquire or consume an adequate diet quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways, or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so.

I urge all of my colleagues to put ideology and politics aside and make a national food policy a top priority. Our food policy, as I see it, will aim to find a responsible way to meet the current and future needs of Canadians and their families, in terms of quantity and quality. It will also relieve our farmers of the massive burden they have taken on, as we continue to ask more of them.

Our farming families work tirelessly to defend everything they have worked so hard to acquire under conditions that are not always equitable. There are discrepancies in quality and production costs, climate, and the size of farms, which says a lot. This has been going on too long and is completely unacceptable. We have to address it and ensure that these key players are part of the solution.

I am ready to work hard and give the best of myself in order to implement such a policy. That is why I am here in Ottawa.

The regions will play a crucial role in achieving these objectives. Every region is unique. We must recognize what they have to contribute and carefully manage what they have to offer. Therefore, we must listen carefully to what they need and the signals they send us. For example, my riding has had to adapt to urban expansion into the countryside. Many people have chosen to live in rural areas near major cities in order to enjoy the best of both worlds. That leads to friction. We know from experience that tensions subside when local initiatives foster understanding and better communication. The Marché des jardiniers in La Prairie is a good example of that.

With our positive attitude, we also want to improve the living conditions of aboriginal communities and invest in their education. For too long, their education system was underfunded and their children paid the price. They are behind in reading, writing, and mathematics. In order to correct this deplorable situation, programs from kindergarten to grade 12 will receive increased annual core funding. The academic success of first nations children is one of our priorities.

The action we are taking reflects our view that we must invest today in the society of tomorrow.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election to this House.

I would like to share with the member that in my riding we also have a strong farming community. In the communities of Black Creek and Merville we have many long-term family farms that have been a very important base to our community in the riding and its generality. Our communities are accessed only by ferry. Therefore, food security, as members can imagine, is a huge issue.

In the Speech from the Throne, there was nothing said about agriculture. I wonder how the member feels about this hole in the speech.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

In my speech, I spoke a lot about food security because Canada has a strong reputation as a producer of safe, healthy, high-quality food. We can build on that reputation.

The Government of Canada will invite the provincial and territorial governments, stakeholders, and Canadians to share their opinions in order to define the scope and direction of a food policy.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, during his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who is also the member for La Prairie, talked about how proud he is that the Canadian Railway Museum is in his riding.

The Canadian Railway Museum should probably add a new exhibit, given the accident that occurred in Lac-Mégantic a few years ago.

I would like to know whether the government intends to eliminate the use of the DOT-111 cars, the infamous bombs on wheels, increase the number of inspections, and improve rail safety. If so, who will pay for all of this, taxpayers or the railway companies?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question regarding the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

Our government is actively studying the railway transportation file in order to keep all Canadians safe.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech. I want to congratulate him and thank him for raising such a timely issue.

My riding, Shefford, is 80% agricultural, so a huge part of our economy depends on the agriculture and agri-food sector. We have many dairy and pork producers, as well as vegetable and berry growers.

These producers depend a lot on temporary foreign workers. Over the past decade, the Conservatives made it much more difficult for temporary foreign workers to work here, and producers have been complaining about that a great deal.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on this problem, which affects producers?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector must have reliable access to labour. In many regions, temporary foreign workers make up a large portion of the labour force for some industries. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working with its federal partners to ensure that the policies and programs pertaining to the labour force take those needs into account.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on the Speech from the Throne.

On the first day of Parliament, I had the honour of acknowledging and thanking my family, the people who voted for me, and my organizers. Today I would like to take this opportunity to wish them a happy new year; much health and happiness to all these people who mean so much to me and whom I have had the honour of representing for 31 years.

Some members have asked me if I ever feel like I am running out of steam after spending so many years in the House. To the nearly 200 new members who arrived this year, I would say that one's passion for politics grows over the years. The longer they are here, the more passionate they will be about serving the public and about politics, and the more they will respect this great House, this place of democracy. It is truly a privilege to sit here. No one can enter here without wearing the mantle of democracy placed on their shoulders by the people of their riding. I always come back to work in this House with enthusiasm and passion. Often there are heated debates. It cannot be avoided because we cannot always see things the same way.

When people say that things are a bit crazy in the House of Commons, I tell them that we send our soldiers to fight all over the world to spread democracy so that people can have different opinions. Let us therefore make the most of our differing opinions here in the House of Commons. I am still very happy to speak here.

There is one thing I am not happy about. The throne speech was read on December 4, and because our party is considered to be made up of independents, we were 34th and 64th in line to speak. In any other democracy, we would have had a chance to speak sooner. The same kind of thing happened today. The hon. minister made an important statement on the environment, and the other parties got about as much speaking time as the minister. We asked for two minutes for our environment critic, but our request was refused.

The same thing happened with other ministers' statements, and we were also denied the opportunity to sit as members of a special committee. We could speak but not vote. When some members do not have the same privileges as others and the same resources to do their work in the House and in their ridings, that is not right. It is not right, and ours is the only democracy in the world where that happens. There is no provincial government, no democracy in the world that denies political parties the rights and privileges enjoyed by other members of the legislative body. Only here in Canada. There is no reason for it either, because there is no House of Commons standing order that says it has to be that way. It is the way it is because three whips from three parties arbitrarily decided that there must be 12 members.

The Bloc Québécois once held six seats and was denied rights and privileges. At one point, the NDP had nine seats and they were also denied rights and privileges. We have 10 seats and we are being denied rights and privileges, and we were also denied them when we held four seats. It is 2016, the 21st century, and there are many more schools of political thought than there were in the past. It is wrong that our party and the Green Party do not have the same privileges as the other parties. The Green Party has a presence throughout Quebec and Canada. It received over 500,000 votes and should have the same rights and privileges as the other parties, in proportion to the number of seats it holds.

I wanted to mention this in my speech. I am asking the members of the House to discuss this in caucus and to try to defend this way of doing things to their constituents by telling them that they have rights and privileges that other members of the House do not and asking them if they agree with that.

No legal expert or anyone with any judgment at all would agree with that. It is not the fault of the MPs. It is often because of the stubbornness of their whip, and the MPs should challenge that. It is not about giving us the same amount of time. We are 10 members out of 338. We should have the right to some time and a research and support budget, in proportion to our numbers, so that we can work in the House like all the other members.

I will now talk about the Speech from the Throne. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party created high expectations with its sometimes very specific promises regarding the environment, for example. Whether we liked it or not, the winds of change were blowing.

For 10 years, the former government had a very austere policy that Canadians did not agree with in the least. The government was tired, and people decided to listen to the winds of change and the very firm commitments made by the candidates and the Prime Minister.

However, in the throne speech, the first major official speech by the government, the speech that paves the way for all the bills to be introduced in this session and outlines how things will work in the coming months and what the government's priorities will be, many promises seem to have been forgotten.

In the throne speech, we do not see many of the commitments the Liberals made while they were the third party. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps this will come. However, at the end of the day, the throne speech is generally used to dictate the legislative agenda in the coming months.

My first comment is that we have heard a lot about nation-to-nation dialogue with the aboriginal peoples, and I think that respecting nations is a wonderful thing. However, I noticed that the Quebec nation was completely ignored in this throne speech.

When Mr. Chrétien was leading the Liberal Party, his party moved a motion in the House, which was unanimously adopted, that recognized the existence of the Quebec nation. When a government recognizes a nation, it also recognizes that this nation may make choices that are sometimes different from those of another nation, and there needs to be a special agreement when the central government introduces a particular bill or makes a particular expenditure.

The throne speech did not mention the Quebec nation a single time, which leads many to believe that the intent and the recognition itself were nothing but empty gestures.

In addition, this is the first time in over 50 years that the Prime Minister has not appointed a Quebec lieutenant. The first time in over 50 years. This suggests that they think Quebec is just like all the other provinces and that we can dispense with notions of founding people and distinct society. That says Quebec is a province like any other and that this government will seek to provincialize it. That will not work at all with all of the political parties in Quebec.

No Quebec premier ever signed the Canadian Constitution. Legally, we are Canadian, but regardless of the party in power in Quebec City, we never signed the 1982 Constitution because it does not recognize the Quebec nation.

That brings me to health care funding. During the election campaign, the Minister of Health made it clear that she wanted to reinstate the 25%.

I would remind the House that under Paul Martin's Liberal government, contributions to the provinces covered 50% of the provinces' total expenditures. In order to balance the budget, transfers were dropped to 25% under the Liberal government of the day, and the Conservatives followed suit, while collecting the same taxes. The money, then, stays in Ottawa, although the needs are in the provinces, and transfers continue to diminish. What is needed is a readjustment based on 1994-95. Transfers should be restored to at least 25%, and the principle that applied back then needs to be restored. This means that in the provinces, health care should be regarded as a whole, rather than per capita, because some provinces' populations are aging faster than others' and those provinces will therefore need more money to provide services to those individuals whose needs are greater. This will be very important in the negotiations this government should have with the provinces. Things got off to a good start with a meeting of the health ministers. Let us hope the government listens to their demands.

As far as the environment is concerned, there is a clear intention in the promises and the Speech from the Throne to reduce greenhouse gases. Something tangible needs to be done. We cannot ignore TransCanada's infamous energy east project. British Columbia also had a pipeline project. The premier of British Columbia, many elected officials, and the general public opposed the project. The Liberal Party, which was not in power at the time, immediately supported British Columbia, saying that it was opposed to the pipeline, as were the NDP members.

The Government of Quebec said that at least seven conditions had to be met before it would look at this pipeline that will go through Quebec. None of those conditions have been met. This project does not have the public's approval or the social licence, as the Prime Minister calls it. Eighty-two mayors in the Montreal area representing four million people are saying no to this project. It does not have social licence any more than the project in British Columbia did. The government has to respond accordingly. Eighty-two mayors and the Government of Quebec are against this project. There is a lot to think about. The members from Quebec, no matter what party they represent here, have a duty to stand up and defend Quebec's interests ahead of TransCanada's. It is only right to listen to the public.

Given that the Speech from the Throne spent a lot of time on the environment, I would like to remind members that there will be environmental risks for the 160 rivers that the pipeline will cross in Quebec. We are not talking about two rivers, but about 160 rivers in addition to the St. Lawrence. Do we have the means to cover this risk? The maximum amount of liability covered is $1 billion. An accident in one of these rivers or the St. Lawrence would cost much more than that. Thus, Quebec is taking the risk and has no financial gain, other than 33 jobs. Therefore, the Bloc's position is clear: we must defend Quebec's interests and oppose this pipeline.

In regard to employment insurance, I would like to reiterate the commitments made by the Bloc during the election campaign and the promises made by some Liberal members here in the House. We wanted to get rid of the infamous reform proposed by the former government that would force a worker to accept a job requiring a 100-kilometre round trip, among other things. There was a firm commitment to correct that.

Today, the minister told the House that she was listening and that she was working on addressing this issue. Good. If she addresses it, I will have nothing but praise for her. However, I would like the government to do more about employment insurance. I would like it to create an EI fund administered at arm's length from government. This money belongs to workers and business owners. The government cannot dip into the fund surplus as we have seen previous governments do.

I remind members that the last government claimed its budget was balanced. However, it took $3 billion from the EI fund to achieve that balance. That $3 billion was intended for the next two budgets. The government must put an end to that and create an independent EI fund. When there is a surplus, the government can increase access to EI, and when there is a deficit, it can increase premiums. The fund will remain independent and will not be used to help the government achieve its financial objectives.

There has also been talk about the revitalization of our regions. My colleague from Manicouagan gave an eloquent speech on this topic, but meanwhile, the government has hardly said a word. The government often forgets that Quebec is made up of many different regions. There are four million people in the greater Montreal area, but unlike Ontario, Quebec has many other regions. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to take that into account and does not adapt its infrastructure and other programs to the realities of those regions, particularly when it comes to forestry, tourism, and the fisheries.

I would also like to briefly mention the child benefit. It seems to me that there is a practical measure that needs to be taken before the government's proposed reform is implemented. Parents are required to report the amount they received for their children under the Conservatives' UCCB program on their 2016 income tax return. That could be corrected immediately so that those benefits are not taxable.

With regard to agriculture, and more specifically supply management, the government clearly promised to compensate dairy producers, who were overlooked in the Canada-Europe agreement and the trans-Pacific partnership. The government talked about it, but nothing tangible was done for dairy producers, particularly with regard to the importation of cheese under these agreements. We will be the watchdog for dairy producers on this matter.

A discussion is needed regarding political party financing. Mr. Chrétien's Liberal government rightly established that funding should be public and that only people with the right to vote could donate to political parties. They even quoted René Lévesque to back up this change. All corporate donations were banned. By way of compensation, every party was given $2 per vote in order to prevent government members from doing favours in return for slush fund money. It is high time to discuss this and restore the spirit of the bill introduced by the Hon. Jean Chrétien.

The Bloc Québécois will be very vigilant with respect to the promises in the throne speech. It will also be there to support deserving measures and propose real solutions to improve the lives of all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on being re-elected. He is the dean of the House.

His speech was interesting, but I did not hear him say much about infrastructure. Infrastructure is extremely important in my riding. Will an investment in excess of $60 billion or up to $125 billion over 10 years make a difference in his riding?

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

You are right, sir. I wanted to talk about infrastructure, but I ran out of time.

We support the government's infrastructure investment plan. We agree that stimulating the economy through infrastructure is a good thing.

However, small municipalities often have a hard time contributing their third. When it comes to infrastructure programs, I would like the government to consider taking on half the cost and letting the provinces and municipalities contribute one-sixth each. That would give municipalities that are a bit short on funds a chance to participate in this program and ensure that larger municipalities are not the only ones benefiting.

I also hope that green programs will get priority, which is something else the government promised.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member, who is by no means new here, that he must address his comments to the chair and not other members.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his passionate speech bringing forward the concerns of his region.

Coming from a coastal community on Vancouver Island, I know that families, seniors, and small business people are having a harder and harder time making ends meet. The costs of our ferry system have gone up. The price of getting to mainland North America is out of control. As members can imagine, BC Ferries is our highway system, our link, connecting many Vancouver Islanders to the mainland.

In the election, both the previous government and member of Parliament for my riding said that the building Canada fund would include upgrades for new ferries and infrastructure. Later on the provincial minister for transportation in British Columbia said that we did not qualify for the building Canada fund. We have now found out that ferry infrastructure is not included in the building Canada fund.

Because coastal communities that need improvements in ferry infrastructure are affected all across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, I call on the member from Quebec to join me in calling on the government to serve residents in coastal communities right across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for that remark, and through you, I wish to respond to the member.

The member first mentioned seniors. Indeed, we agree with the NDP's proposals in terms of improving the guaranteed income supplement, for instance. That was also part of our campaign platform.

As for the ferries to Victoria, I would suggest that, if Victoria needs a brand new ferry, the Davie shipyard in Quebec City would be happy to build one of the highest quality and at a good price.

As for infrastructure, all kidding aside, the member is quite right and the program must be adjusted. Some extremely worthwhile projects have been turned down in the member's province as well as in Quebec. These modifications could only be beneficial for projects as important as those mentioned by the member.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I really liked the speech given by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, especially when he spoke so enthusiastically and so passionately about the importance of democracy. I want to congratulate him on what he said today, as well as on his many years of service to our community.

I would like to kindly ask him if he has any advice to offer our younger members, based on his years of experience.

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

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the minister something about the many years I have spent here.

I began my political career 31 years ago, and after two or three weeks I got into the habit of making statements. I had been on the news three times and my party had not really appreciated it. When I went to a caucus meeting, an old Conservative senator—I was elected as a Progressive Conservative, a party that no longer exists— told me that he would like to speak to me in his office. I went to his office and after addressing me as “young man” and pointing out that I had just been elected, he asked me to look on the wall. There was a magnificent stuffed fish on the wall. The senator told me that had the fish kept its mouth shut, it would still be alive, and that it was pretty much the same in politics.

The best advice that I can give new MPs is to make sure, before they speak, that what they say will not come back to bite them. It was a life lesson. The work done with constituents, and not necessarily making political speeches here and there, is what most benefits voters. I suggest that they listen to their constituents and be there for them. That is the best recipe for success.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for holding the deanship in this chamber.

I wanted to share a statistic about seniors, since he shared with us that it is our duty to defend our constituents and made a comment about seniors and the GIS. I would like to share a statistic.

In my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, 35% of seniors have an income of $20,000 or less. I would like to know if the hon. member has any insight about the demographics in his riding, and if he thinks the throne speech adequately addresses those very serious statistics.

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

Madam Speaker, the statistics are about the same in all our ridings. Seniors are getting poorer, and the cost of living has increased substantially. By comparison, their pensions have increased only slightly in relation to the cost of living and now in all our ridings there are problems with income for seniors.

All parties must think about that. The minister should know what is happening. We need to increase the guaranteed income supplement as quickly as possible.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today for my maiden speech in the House. Let me first thank the citizens of Edmonton Centre for placing their trust in me in electing me to represent them here in the House of Commons. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the volunteers who worked tirelessly through our campaign and in the days since.

Edmonton is truly an amazing place to live, work, and play. In our city, it does not matter where one comes from, what colour of skin one happens to have, or whom one chooses to love. People are welcome, and they should have the opportunity to succeed.

A dynamic technology sector, profitable businesses in a wide range of fields, some of Canada's leading post-secondary institutions, jewels in our nation's cultural crown, and successful sports teams call Edmonton home.

For first nations, Métis, and Inuit people, an increasing number of whom call Edmonton home, there is much work that our government must do, and we are committed to renewing our nation-to-nation relationship and improving the quality of life for all indigenous peoples.

In 2016, Edmonton is a vibrant city where residents can fulfill their dreams and where their family, community, business, or non-profit can be successful.

Our collaborative city owes a debt of gratitude to Edmontonians who have served in the House, very notably, my predecessors in this seat, the hon. Laurie Hawn, a devoted and tireless example of public service, and the hon. Anne McLellan, my mentor and dear friend and the former deputy prime minister of Canada.

In the early days of my nomination, people told me that electing a Liberal in Edmonton simply would not happen, yet, as an openly gay man, I have become used to people telling me what is not possible, what simply cannot happen, and then working really hard to prove otherwise. I am thrilled to be part of the largest Liberal caucus from Alberta since 1993. I am honoured to represent Alberta in the government alongside the hon. member for Calgary Skyview, the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs, and the hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. It is a privilege to chair this Alberta caucus. We may not be many, but we are mighty.

Right now Albertans need strong advocates such as our caucus because things are tough back home. Edmonton, like the rest of Alberta, has been hit hard by the slowdown in the economy and the energy sector. The effects are being felt across our nation: 100,000 lost jobs in Alberta; tens of thousands of jobs lost across the country; tragically, suicide rates are up 30%; food banks are barely able to meet demand; unemployment is on the rise; and hard-working men and women are at risk of running out of their EI benefits with no plan B in sight.

My caucus colleagues and I know the pain and suffering that this economy is causing. I heard clearly in 10 budget round tables how the previous government's policies ignored the advice from the energy sector and environmental experts for the need for a balanced approach. The sad irony is that after 10 years of misguided handling of Canada's environment, the previous government eroded the confidence of Canadians in our number one exporting sector and systematically failed to create access to new markets. Perhaps if there had been less cheer and more leadership, our economy would be in a better state of affairs today.

Edmontonians and Albertans are looking for leadership to grow our economy. I am proud to say that our government has a plan to deliver that leadership. Our government is committed to ensuring that the environmental assessment and regulatory review processes for pipelines and other natural resource projects have the confidence of Canadians. We understand that the natural resource sector is a critical component of the Canadian economy. That is why our Speech from the Throne outlines our balanced approach to creating a 21st century economy built on the fusion of energy and the environment. This new triple-E, energy, the environment, and the economy, is the way forward.

Edmontonians and Albertans have always been strong contributors to Confederation. We are once again more than ready to roll up our sleeves with Canadians from coast to coast to coast and get back to work.

Our government has already cut taxes for more than nine million Canadians.

Edmontonians also know that now is the time to invest in repairing and expanding our infrastructure and now is the time to build up our communities. We want to see our government pay our fair share for the new Valley Line LRT, the west leg of which will run right through my riding. We want to see federal leadership on building new social housing, seniors' housing, and affordable housing. We want to keep our city growing and our citizens working.

I am also proud to sit in the House as a franco-Albertan. Alberta's francophone community has been experiencing a boom as of late, fuelled by the arrival of francophones from across Canada, as well as the arrival of many immigrants from French-speaking countries. As a result, bilingualism is on the rise in my province, and we are seeing more and more interest in French and French culture in Alberta.

During the campaign and since, we have heard loudly from Edmontonians and from people around the world that we must fix a broken immigration system. That is exactly what our throne speech sets out and our government is already delivering on real change. Our commitment to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to our country has renewed our sense of community spirit and reminded us and our international partners of the special role that Canada can and must play in the world.

In conclusion, I want to share some words from His Excellency the Right Honourable Georges P. Vanier, former governor general of Canada, who had the following to say about public life and serving others:

We must approach our time here in that spirit of service. Our constituents elected us to serve them, but it is the entire country that demands our attention. It is our task to serve this great modern mosaic north of the 49th parallel that we all call home. Each of us, however long we may be called to serve, must bear this purpose in mind and act accordingly so that on our last day in this place, we might say that we leave a better, more prosperous, and more united nation than when we first rose to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and on his election.

The government promised Canadians that it would run a deficit of only $10 billion, but current promises are already adding up to way more than that. The government says that it is going to be open and transparent, but it is not telling Canadians how big this deficit will be. We can do the math. The Liberals added more than $2 billion to give away to developing nations like China and India related to climate change. They increased spending for Syrian refugees by half a billion dollars. They introduced tax breaks at a cost $1 billion to $2 billion, and they added money for public sector workers and the long-form census, for another couple of billion, and it just goes on and on.

How high is this deficit going to go?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond, on behalf of our government, that it is our commitment to grow the Canadian economy, to increase international trade, and to have a review process for pipelines that has the confidence of Canadians. As it pertains to the budget and to the fiscal situation of our government, we are committed to ensuring that the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to track downward, reflecting a healthier economy in each of the years of our mandate. We will hold to that promise, because that is what we promised Canadians during the election and that is the type of government they have in the House.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the hon. member mentioned was infrastructure, which is very important to municipalities. As a former mayor, I wonder if the hon. member would join with me in encouraging the minister responsible for infrastructure to change the formula, as municipalities struggle economically. The general formula is that municipalities have to come up with the first one-third for infrastructure funding. The province provides one-third and the federal government provides one-third. Coming up with that first one-third is very difficult.

Would the hon. member join with me in encouraging the minister to change the formula and provide more funding directly to municipalities?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, our government will be undertaking broad consultations as we fan out across the country to make sure that we have the best bang for our buck when it comes to infrastructure spending. We will be looking at shovel-ready projects. We will be looking to work with communities across the country. That is what can be expected from this government.