Debates of Dec. 9th, 2019

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to provide further comment as to why it is so important that the government continue to invest and support Canada's middle class and the positive impact that has on the overall economy. A healthy middle class is a healthier economy.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our economy can only grow and only benefit all Canadians with what is called inclusive growth. We need to target policies that benefit middle-class Canadians. We did it with the first tax cut, benefiting nine million Canadians.

This tax cut would actually take 700,000 people from our tax rolls. That would be 700,000 people across Canada not paying anymore federal tax. That is real change, but it is also giving money back to Canadians who will spend it. What we call in economics the marginal propensity to consume and spend is actually very high. It will benefit those Canadians and benefit the economy the most.

We can only move forward as a country if all Canadians benefit from economic growth, and Canadians benefit from tax reductions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I look forward to those remarks as well.

I cannot begin without thanking the constituents of Calgary Midnapore for sending me here again. I am so very overjoyed to be back in the House representing them. I am truly grateful.

My parents are my constituents, so my mom is probably watching. I promise to be extra good in the House at this time.

I am very sad for my family today. My mother is from Quebec and my father is from Saskatchewan. It is not uncommon for Canadian families to have one parent from the west and the other from the east. We heard a similar story on the other side of the House last week. Families becoming divided has become a Canadian story, and that is very sad. We are divided because the other side of the House spent the past four years playing all kinds of political games. The government split us right in half. It pit regions against one another. That is truly sad.

My region, the west, and more specifically Alberta, where the energy sector has no support, obviously comes to mind. Also coming to mind are several bills, such as Bill C-69, which makes it practically impossible to start new projects. There is Bill C-48, which makes it practically impossible to build a pipeline and transport oil. That is very sad. The carbon tax is another example. Bills that impede the energy sector have serious consequences on families and individuals. Bills like these are completely destroying families and people's lives. The government claims to want to eliminate poverty, but it is actually creating poverty with these kinds of bills.

On more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said one thing to one part of the country and the opposite to another. The President of the United States called that behaviour “two-faced”. The President of the United States and Canadians have seen those two faces.

With the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to put the country on a new path. Sadly, he let that opportunity pass him by. However, he had previously taken certain steps in that direction. He specifically appointed a minister of provincial relations. He held numerous meetings with various provincial premiers. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister promised to listen carefully to what the premiers had to say. The Speech from the Throne would have been the perfect opportunity to prove that they had listened. Unfortunately, the speech shows nothing of the kind. The situation is different from what it was before the election.

There were words, but not much was said. There were platitudes, like talking about the good of our community and clichés such as “no challenges are too big.” There were also false attempts to show empathy and understanding for regions. There were parts of the speech that said that as much as Canadians had instructed us to work together, they had also spoken clearly about the the importance of their regions and their local needs.

What did Canadians say when they spoke? Did they say how their father had not been able to find a job in three years because the corporation he was working for left because of instability due to political regulations? Did they say how their neighbours could not get out of a deep depression because they had spent their entire retirement savings on just surviving? Did they say that they sent a suicide note to their member of Parliament because they had absolutely given up hope of ever finding a job?

We do not know, and we will never know, because it was not in the Speech from the Throne.

The speech said that regional needs and differences really mattered. Today's regional economic concerns are both justified and important. However, in what year on the planetary spacecraft will Canada's energy workers get an apology from the Prime Minister; when he sheds a tear for those who have committed suicide because they are completely destitute or for the women and children who have been beaten because, after years of not having a job, dad finally snapped? What year on this spaceship is that? Is that when we will know that regional differences really matter? For now, we do not, because the speech does not say so.

This was the opportunity to demonstrate action, and if not action, true understanding, and if not true understanding, at least respect. It would not have taken much: a timeline for the TMX pipeline or a promise to look into the national energy corridor. However, it was not there.

We can pretend that the world is simple and that the solutions to Canada's problems need not be complex or detailed, but that is not true. We can pretend that we do not need one another and that we are not dependent on one another, but that is not true either. Anyone who denies those facts will suffer for it eventually, even if they refuse to acknowledge it today.

This is not the way of Albertans.

What a great day to be in the House, the day when my predecessor and now premier, the incomparable, the Hon. Jason Kenney, is here to get a fair deal for Alberta. He brings with him my counterpart, minister of children's services and MLA for Calgary-Shaw, Rebecca Schulz. Together Minister Schulz and I will work tirelessly for the children of this nation.

We Albertans love Canada. We have always been proud to work hard and to share the fruits of our labour with the nation, to do our part for Confederation. We have never told others how to live their lives or that their way of life is not welcome in our country.

We will not let the Prime Minister divide us and we will not let the government push us out of Confederation. We will not allow that to happen. The government had an opportunity to do something profound, to say something profound and to unify, and it did not.

That is why I am sad today. I am a woman from Alberta. My mother is from Quebec and my father is from Saskatchewan. I am here for unity. I am here for Canada. Unfortunately, the throne speech is not.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a native Albertan and when I was a young fellow, the Turner Valley southwest of Calgary was pumping more oil than any other place in the Commonwealth. However, Turner Valley is dry now. The oil is gone. There should have been a lesson there for Alberta to diversify, but here it is, all these years later, and perhaps not enough has been done.

We also see, and this gets to my question for the hon. member, that in spite of the obvious difficulties that Alberta and many families are having there, Albertans' mean family income after taxes is still the highest in Canada.

While I agree as an Albertan that we need as a country to do more for our province, would the member not agree that diversification also has to be a priority and that income inequity in Alberta is also a major problem, which her predecessor and now Premier of Alberta should also invest time into solving?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the aisle for the question and congratulate him on his re-election. It is great to see him back here.

I think we only need to look at the world economy. We have the natural resources, perhaps sadly not in Turner Valley anymore, but in a lot of other places. The world needs these resources. Our own nation needs these resources. There is no need for us to bring these resources in from other nations that do not honour the rule of law and do not honour democracy. We have all of these resources within our backyard still. We need them and we need to use them.

I look forward to the path where we explore new energy sources and when we bring these new energy sources to market. However, we must evaluate the reality as it stands right now, which is that we have resources and the world needs these resources. The government has not allowed us to use these resources for our benefit, the world's benefit or Canada's benefit, but with that we would definitely see a continuation in the quality of life for all Canadians as we have for many years as a result of these resources.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for our Conservative Party friends.

This morning, various members spoke about the problems the agricultural industry is having, which are caused in part by climate change. All members of the House agree that there is a climate emergency.

Is the Conservative Party open to developing an energy transition plan that everyone can agree on?

There has been a lot of talk about oil sands development and about equalization. Those should be two separate conversations. I could talk for half an hour about equalization, which is no tremendous benefit to the state of Quebec in this federation. Over $4 billion of Quebec's money was invested in the oil sands over the past year, so no one is getting a raw deal.

My question is this: Is the Conservative Party open to start thinking about making the transition to clean, renewable energy? We need to start doing research and development now.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his recent election and welcome him warmly to the House.

I would also like to thank my colleague for mentioning the agricultural sector. My position, and my party's, is that farmers have received next to nothing from the government. The government has completely ignored this group, so I would like to thank my colleague for raising the subject.

Of course we are open to all the options when it comes to the future and the environment. In turn, I would ask my colleague to be open to energy from Alberta. Maybe it is worth highlighting the fact that Alberta energy is among the cleanest in the world. I am very proud of that. Maybe we could have a debate about Alberta energy and talk about how we can move things forward together.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute delight to present my first speech in the 43rd Parliament. To begin, I have to thank the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London for re-electing me.

Just to take a moment, I would like to thank my incredible campaign team. They were out there knocking on doors, putting up signs and having a great time spreading the word of what we can do here. I know I got back here because I have the most incredible office staff. They know about my constituents, they know what their needs are and they are always there to serve them, so a special thanks to Cathy, Jena, Scott, Jill and Charli.

I would like to thank my family. Without the support I have from my family, my mom, dad, sisters, brother and of course my husband Mike, I would not be here. We know this job, especially for any of the newer parliamentarians, is not a job. It is a life. When members take this role on, it is not just a career choice. We live and breathe being a member of Parliament trying to always work for our constituents, and making sure what we are doing is in the best interests of our community and the country.

Following the election, I lost two dear friends. One was my former campaign manager, Brian Clements. May Brian rest in peace. He was my uncle, my dad and everything under the sky and I will miss him forever. The second was Dave Dillon, our regional coordinator, who I worked with as part of the Conservative Party for over the last 16 years. I thank Dave for always having that smile and crazy giggle.

It is because of people like them that I am here today and have the courage and strength to talk about what the throne speech mentioned and listen to the debate on how Canada needs to move forward.

It is very simple: We have returned to a minority government. Within Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces we saw huge changes. However, we also saw the wiping out of the Liberal Party in the west. When we talk about Saskatchewan and Alberta, we are all Canadians, so it does not matter where my friends are living. It is my job to worry about them as well.

One thing I have to say is that, throughout this debate, I see division is so strong. It is very hard to listen to my colleagues from the Calgary area talk about job losses and suicides and the fact that no one is taking those issues seriously because they need to diversify. Yes, that is fine, but let us please have compassion for those people in the west being impacted by some of these laws and regulations being made by the government. It is great to say that, but we are not losing friends and neighbours like people from Alberta and Saskatchewan are. I ask for a bit of compassion.

For the last number of weeks, I have been fortunate to work on many files. One of the big files I worked on was the CN Rail strike. The reason I am mentioning this is that one of the big things that the Liberals have said is that they are going to work with people. I wanted to bring up the CN Rail strike because it impacted Ontario a great deal, especially southwestern Ontario.

I received a call from Dowler-Karn CFO Dan Kelly, who is also the chair of the board for the Canadian Propane Association. He let me know that they were going to stop delivering all propane to any farmers who were going to be drying their crops. Last year in Ontario, we had bad mould on our crops and this year we have grain that cannot be dried. Whether it is soybeans, wheat or corn, they cannot be dried. With that, farmers are going to have a lot of damage and financial loss.

I received the call on a Thursday night, and by Friday morning we were working with our team and the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. We sat down with about 50 farmers and stakeholders and pushed this issue.

The next thing I did was reach out to my Liberal counterparts, and I would like to say a very special thanks to the member for London West, who actually picked up the phone and told me that the Liberal government was going to pick up the phone, call people and find out from stakeholders what was going on.

She did not know until she had that conversation with propane stakeholders what the impact was to our farmers and what the impact was to people who did not have natural gas flowing down their pipelines because they live in rural parts of Ontario. She was willing to take that phone call.

She was one member of Parliament from the Liberals who took my call. No other members returned my call and others sent messages saying they were not getting involved.

If we are going to work together, my stakeholders are everyone's stakeholders. That is why I am telling people that when I want to do something, I am going to make that phone call and I want my stakeholders to be heard. If I am wrong on something, please have the Liberal stakeholders contact me too. I want to know the whole picture. Instead of slamming the door and saying this issue is not important, please remember it is important.

The reason I bring this up goes back to what I am hearing from Calgary. It went viral on Facebook, and we saw a lot of comments on this. People from Alberta and out west were saying, “We do not care about Quebec. Who cares if they get propane?” People from Quebec were saying a different thing, recognizing that propane is heating their homes. We heard about nursing homes that were one day away from not having propane.

The reason I bring this forward is because I did not hear a single word from the government. We knew that our grain producers were going to lose money, and we knew that people were having problems with home heating but that the government would not stand up for them. If not for Conservatives, we do not know what would have happened when it came to some of the grain farmers because their voices were not heard.

One of the other things I hear a lot about is climate change, and of course that is going to be a theme throughout the current government. I do not think there is a person in this room who does not talk about climate change with his or her constituents. For me, it is one of those things that, as we are moving forward and talking about it, we all have different ways of looking at climate change.

I was talking about the carbon tax in Elgin—Middlesex—London. If people are talking about the carbon tax in downtown Toronto, they are not going to talk about what my farmers are talking about in Elgin—Middlesex—London. They are not going to talk about the carbon tax that was put on their propane bills or put on their energy bills.

People had a $400 carbon tax when they were trying to dry their tobacco. How are they going to go forward if they have a new $400 tax that is already put on that? Those are the things we are seeing all the time, and they are extremely concerning to me.

People in cities do not understand the impact. I should not say that, but people who are in downtown ridings may not understand as well as those people who receive the bills what a carbon tax looks like when trying to dry grain, when loading up kids and going to a grocery store that is 20 minutes away, when people are buying grocery items and know a carbon tax has been applied to them because the cost of transportation has been increased. All of these things impact us.

A carbon tax is the decision that the Liberals have gone with, though there are many other ways we can look at this and other technologies that we need to address. I am asking the current government to please be listening.

I ask the Liberals to listen to our farmers, listen to our agricultural producers and the agricultural businesses that are wrapped around that. I ask that they make sure they understand, when the farmers are drying corn, how much it actually costs and what the carbon tax adds to that. There are lots of things that farmers are doing throughout this country to make farming work. We know that when the cost of inputs becomes higher, at the end of the day farmers are not going to be able to succeed. I ask the government to work very closely on that.

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to be in Aylmer at an event with about 700 people from the Bradley Street Church of God, and I can say that when we speak to Canadians there is a lot that we agree on. In this church assembly there were 700 people, families who were gathering for the Christmas season. Their issues were the top three for many of us here. It is about seniors. It is about veterans. It is about our drug epidemic. Those are some of the social issues that we need to address as well.

We know our seniors are having a tough time. We know that with interest rates not being as high as they used to be, seniors are relying on their old age security and on their Canada pension plan and some of the savings they have are drying up. We have to be cognizant of that. We have to ensure housing and make sure seniors have a good way of life. We need to be there as a government.

For our veterans, I applaud the government on the fact that we are looking at veterans' homelessness. That is something that we all need to do. We need to do that together, so I appreciate that.

Also, I am asking about the drug epidemic. We have had over 10,000 people die in this country and we could be doing better. It is not just the fentanyl that we are talking about. It is the crystal meth and it is all of those drugs. We need to work with all levels of government. Therefore, I ask the government to learn how to work with all levels of government, learn how to work with the Conservative Party, learn how to work with the provincial Premier of Ontario, unlike what it has done over the last months, and to please work with our municipalities. If the Liberals really want to get something done, I ask them to please work with us.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke at great length about the CN Rail strike. At the end of the day, our government listened. I am from Kings—Hants. I have a lot of agricultural producers in my riding. I heard those concerns. While the member opposite suggests that Liberal members were not paying attention to these issues, we were.

Would the member opposite have asked the government to step in and take away the legislative rights and the collective bargaining that were available to those CN workers? Is that what she would propose that this government should have done?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us not get tied up in the weeds on the CN Rail strike. Let us talk about the agricultural issue.

What I am talking about is the fact that we returned to Parliament about a week and a half after we had to. If this issue had continued, there would be farmers who could still not dry their corn. All of these things would be happening. It is fine to say that we are listening, but listening goes both ways. It is not just about hearing the words; it is about what we are going to do. A little compassion would be nice as well.

This is not about the CN strike. It is about the fact that we did not have a plan B ready. We were waiting for plan A, and if plan A had not worked out, we would still have crops in our fields right now falling apart, and we would be losing billions of dollars.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my first opportunity to speak to also thank the voters of my riding, who have given me the distinct honour of representing them here. As everyone knows, Drummond is the most beautiful and most vibrant of the 338 ridings we each proudly represent in this distinguished place.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear some members expressing doubts, but I invite all my colleagues to come and see for themselves. Everyone is welcome. However, I would advise them not to stay too long, for they may never want to leave.

It is with both humility and pride that I am pleased to bring my constituents' concerns to the House. One such concern is high-speed Internet access and cellular service in all rural areas. I am sure that many of my colleagues are also concerned about that. Internet access is inadequate. In some ridings, farmers, businesses and self-employed people cannot keep pace and cannot adapt to the realities of their markets. As a result, they are really losing out and often have to move to urban areas, which is not necessarily what they want to do, obviously.

Worse still, there are regions, particularly in Quebec, but probably elsewhere in the country as well, where emergency services are at risk. The problem is so acute in the municipality of Amherst, Quebec, that people's safety is in jeopardy. We are not fearmongering, but this is something the government should really pay attention to.

When the safety of our constituents is at risk, I think it is time to act quickly. I am asking the government whether it intends to ensure that the process for providing high-speed Internet in the regions keeps moving forward and whether it could speed up—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Unfortunately, we only have enough time for one more question. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many small providers, but in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, there are pockets of people who do not receive high-speed service. We know this hurts farmers, small businesses, our students and families. We will continue to work to achieve this, and I think it should be an important mandate for all Canadians.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London on her return to the House. It is always a pleasure to work with her.

In the member's beautiful speech, she mentioned seniors. The throne speech said the government wants to strengthen our pensions, as the member mentioned, and make sure that our seniors have a healthy living. However, we were told last week in the House by the Minister of Seniors that old age security would be strengthened, but only at the age of 75.

Does the member support what is in the throne speech or does she believe that this increase should start at age 65 for all pensioners on old age security?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, if I have a right answer, it is not yes or no. However, we do need to look at this, because we have to understand that many people's RRIFs are drying up when they get to the age of 75 and still have time to live.

The government is supposed to be a backstop for many of these programs, like the guaranteed income supplement, but we have many seniors in need. We need to do an overall review of this. Because of the rise in taxes, because of the carbon tax, because of all these things that seniors did not have at one time, what they used to have is not enough. I believe we need to do a full study on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address those in this beautiful chamber. I would first like to thank the constituents of Winnipeg North for once again affording me the opportunity to be here representing what I believe is the best and most diverse riding in our country. I suspect there might be 337 other people who might challenge that thought, but it is an absolute privilege to be representing the residents of Winnipeg North.

That said, I want to reflect on a number of the issues I heard from constituents. Another member gave his perspective earlier on what people were saying. We often hear about the middle class. When I sat in opposition in the Stephen Harper era, it was very rare to hear about Canada's middle class. If one were to perform a word search, one would find that to be the case. We would hear it periodically, but this would come from the Liberal Party, the third party at the time, and particularly its leader.

Nothing has really changed with respect to this government's priority. Whether as the third party or as we are now, having received a second mandate, we talk about the importance of Canada's middle class. We understand and appreciate how important the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it are to our society, economy and the social fabric that we call Canada today.

In terms of some of the actions that have already taken place, the Minister of Finance today talked about another tax break coming to Canada's middle class. One of the very first actions we took after the 2015 election was a tax break to Canada's middle class. We have seen consistency from this government with regard to Canada's middle class, which I believe is the reason we have seen, with the help of Canadians in all regions of our country, the generation of a lot of good, positive news. This is highlighted by the fact that over one million jobs were created in the last four years.

I know there are significant portions of the country that have not done as well as others. If we look at the history of Canada, we find that at different points in time some areas have been more challenged than others and that at times it is necessary for the government to be more involved. We have seen this in the Prairies, specifically with the province of Alberta and the federal government. When one region has been suffering more economically than others, the government has listened very carefully and supported regional interests where it could.

I suggest that members take a look at issues surrounding western diversification funds and their allocation or at the percentage of infrastructure dollars that have been committed or in many ways spent in some of those areas. This federal government has worked more with municipalities than Stephen Harper ever did, because we recognize that in many ways it is the municipalities that deliver so many of those services, particularly in relation to infrastructure services.

For Canada's middle class, Liberals have made huge strides in the area of international trade. We have seen a government that has not only had discussions but has also signed off on some very important trade agreements around the world. In fact, this government has signed off on more trade agreements with other countries than any other government. We even did more than Stephen Harper did, because we understand and appreciate the value of those trade agreements.

No matter what the Conservative Party attempts to say about trade, it cannot rewrite history on the facts. What I just stated was factual.

There are many things we have done over the last four and a half years that have had a profound and positive impact on all regions of our country. Thinking about the years ahead and reflecting on the mandate, and based on discussions I have had with my constituents, I believe Canadians want us to continue moving forward on the many progressive policies that we have brought in over the last four years and to lobby and advocate for those progressive policies. A vast majority of them would want me to say that. I am committed to doing that, and I believe the government will continue to do that as well.

I also recognize that Canadians want to see a higher sense of co-operation, a higher sense of responsibility from members on all sides of the House, not just from the government side.

The biggest disappointment I had at people's doors was a negative attitude toward politics. Many people did not vote because they were discouraged by the negative attitude that too many politicians have, and we see it virtually every day when the House is sitting.

In my previous speeches in the House, I often talked about the character assassination by the official opposition of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or other selected individuals, whether justified or not. Conservatives put politics before people. It is that sense of negativity, the “Prince of Darkness” negativity or whatever we want to call it.

At the end of the day, Canadians want to see a higher standard in the House. I would suggest it could start right on the floor of the House. We do not need to make things as personal as we have witnessed over the last four years. It is not warranted. As my colleague would say, park the politics as much as possible. Personal character assassination does not do well to build a consensus.

There are many areas we could agree to support. The previous speaker talked about the importance of our children and that she is going to work with the minister in Alberta regarding them. This government has done a great deal for Canadian children. We have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty through the Canada child benefit program. This has helped children in every region of our country. Over $9 million a month goes into Winnipeg North alone through the Canada child benefit program. That has an incredible impact on disposable income to support our children. It helps to lift children out of poverty.

I have good news for members opposite. This government is going to continue to support our children in all regions of Canada. As the Conservative member opposite just alluded to, when we have positive measures, and there are a lot of positive measures, members can support what the government is doing.

There has been some criticism of the throne speech. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years and I have been in opposition for most of those years. I hope to tie it up at the government level at some point. It was 20-plus years in opposition and five or six in government. I am an optimistic person.

I am suggesting that, at the end of the day, throne speeches are very much general documents. We are always going to find things, whether it is in this throne speech, Harper's throne speech or the 10-plus provincial and territorial throne speeches that come out. It is very rare that one will get into the real nitty-gritty specifics. We are always going to find things that we would like to have seen incorporated into a throne speech.

However, if we take a look at the important issues that we are highlighting, such as Canada's middle class, the environment and reconciliation, these are all ideas that I believe should generate support from both sides of the House. One does not need to vote against it because it is a government throne speech. There are many things within this throne speech that I suspect everyone will, in fact, support. I would suggest the vast majority of things stated in this throne speech are things members on both sides of the House should get behind and support.

I have heard members across the way talk about seniors. We did a great deal in the previous four years. I ask members to remember that one of the very first initiatives we did was to reverse the Conservatives' decision to increase the age of retirement for OAS. When I was first elected a person had to be 65 in order to collect OAS, old age security. The former Stephen Harper government increased the age to 67, but one of the very first things we did was to put it back to 65.

In addition to doing that, we recognize that there is always a limited amount of finances to be put into any given envelope. We wanted to help the poorest of our seniors, so we substantially increased the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted hundreds plus thousands of seniors in all regions of our country out of poverty. In Winnipeg North alone, hundreds of Canada's poorest seniors were actually lifted out of poverty because of that particular initiative.

However, it does not stop there. We talk about moving forward with our seniors, and there are a couple of other items, one of which is highlighted quite well in the throne speech.

My New Democratic friends talk about the guaranteed income supplement increasing at age 75 and ask why not have it increase at age 65. That is a good question. It is a very good question. I raised this issue at the doors of my constituents. If there are x number of dollars to put into supporting seniors and trying to assist seniors in the best way possible, there is a big difference between a senior who is 65 years old and one who is 75 years old. I am going to be 65 pretty soon myself. I am 57, turning 58.

If we have the choice of giving a greater increase to those people who are 75 as opposed to those at the younger age of 65, I suggest that there is a greater benefit to society if we can give a larger percentage increase to those who are 75 and over. As a direct result of targeting it that way, we are going to be able to assist them more. My colleagues will find that there are many 65-year-olds who choose to continue to work. It does not mean that we have to stop there.

At the end of the day, one of the good things we did was to bring forward a seniors directorate. This is a government that genuinely and truly cares about the future of our seniors. That is one of the reasons we have been very selective and effective at getting more money into the pockets of the seniors who need it the most. That is what we should be striving to do, and we have been very effective at doing that.

I ask members to stop and think about this. We are giving a bigger increase to those who are 75 and older. We are giving another tax break to Canada's middle class. These are things that reinforce the tax cuts and the increases that we gave to the Canada child benefit and the GIS in the previous Parliament.

All of those money breaks are going to put money into the pockets of Canadians in every region of this country. By doing that, we are increasing overall disposable income, and by doing that, we are allowing Canada's economy to do that much better. With an increase in disposable income, we see more expenditures in our communities. That is one of the reasons that this government has been so successful. By investing in people, we have had an economy that has done relatively well.

I was a bit discouraged when one member tried to point out that because of job losses there have been people committing suicide, and that somehow the government should feel guilty. When hundreds of thousands of people were finding themselves out of work in the manufacturing industry, in particular in Ontario and so forth, the Liberal Party cared. We were compassionate toward that. Equally, we care about and are compassionate toward those who have been losing jobs in our natural resources sector.

Sadly, when a person loses a job, and it does not matter in what region of the country, it can be a very trying time. To say it is one person's fault or the government's fault is somewhat irresponsible. Let us look at the bottom line and the way the economy and policies have been presented in the last four years. If we listen to what is being said in the throne speech and what is being said by the Prime Minister in the many speeches he delivers, and the speeches of ministers and many of my colleagues, we will see that we are on the right course.

That is why a major theme for us going into the election was that we want to continue to move forward on what is important to Canadians. We know it is important to Canadians because we have a Prime Minister who has continually said to members of Parliament, in particular Liberal members of Parliament, that here in Ottawa we represent the constituents first. We do not represent Ottawa to our constituents. It is the constituents and their interests that we represent first, here in Ottawa, and that is why we have the relationships that we have built within our caucus.

We have a great caucus that is committed to the long-term viability and strength of building Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We have a caucus that understands the importance of the economy and social programs. One of those social programs that has to be highlighted is Canada's pharmacare program.

Prior to this Prime Minister, I very rarely heard the word “pharmacare”. It is only because of this Prime Minister and this government, and through the members of Parliament and their constituents that we have raised that whole issue to where it is today, a point where I feel very confident that we will have a national pharmacare program.

I would like to see all members of this chamber, whether they are New Democrat, Bloc, Conservative, Green or independent, get behind a national pharmacare program. This has taken a great deal of time to put together.

We have a government that is prepared to work with all the different stakeholders and listen to what they have to say. However, if the need is there to make that decision, we should make that decision for the betterment of all Canadians. This is a government that understands that every day is an opportunity to work hard and provide better results for all Canadians in all regions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend on his nail-biting return to this House.

He said that the government cares about the middle class and that the evidence is just to do a word search in Hansard to see how many times that word appears. I took him up on the challenge and went to openparliament.ca. There is a feature on there where one can find a member's favourite word, the word a member uses most frequently in the House of Commons. Do members know what the favourite word of the member for Winnipeg North is? It is “Conservatives”. When he speaks in the House, the thing he talks about most is not the middle class or pharmacare. It is the Conservatives. That is revealing in many ways about his speech.

In the last four years, taxes went up for the middle class. The government did everything it could to increase taxes for the middle class. It took away income splitting and brought in the carbon tax. Why is the member so much more interested in the Conservatives than he is in the middle class?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is that I am constantly trying to compel the Conservative Party to do the right thing. When one compels a party to do something, it is much better to say “the Conservative Party” than “Hey, you over there on the other side.” Conservatives will find that if they look beyond my favourite word, they will likely find me asking when the Conservatives will do this or that, or why the Conservatives complain about this or that. That is likely why that is my favourite word.

I can say that one of the issues I raise more and more is the benefit of the tax cut that the Conservative Party voted against in the last Parliament. However, the Conservatives are going to get another chance and they will hopefully vote in favour of it this time.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House for the first time in the 43rd Parliament and take the opportunity to thank the great people of Vancouver Kingsway for once again placing their trust in me. It is a privilege and an honour to represent them in this Parliament.

I am glad my hon. colleague raised the very critical issue of pharmacare. The throne speech talked about his government's desire to take steps toward national pharmacare. Those are the words in the throne speech. We know that the Liberal Party has been promising universal pharmacare and a timeline to accomplish it since 1997. The New Democrats campaigned on this issue in 2015 and worked hard to put this issue on the national stage. I am glad his government is paying attention to it.

Will Canadians see his Liberal government introduce legislation in this Parliament to establish universal, comprehensive and publicly delivered pharmacare through the single-payer system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful if all we had to do was make that decision internally in the House of Commons, on the floor of the chamber, but that is not possible. There is a need for us to work with the provinces.

I was an MLA for many years and the health care critic. The provinces have a very important role, ultimately, on health care. If we are going to have a truly national health care program in every region for all Canadians, we need to work with the provinces. That is why I said at the end of my comments that we will potentially have to make some very tough decisions, but right now there are many different stakeholders.

I am a very optimistic person on the national pharmacare plan and have been talking about it for many years. I hope to see it in place and the sooner it happens, the better.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I gather that my colleague really liked using the term “Conservative”. I wonder if he could use the term “Quebec” once or twice.

I would really like him to tell me when the current government plans to increase the health transfers, so that Quebec—which manages hospitals, whereas the federal government does not—can improve the care provided by hospitals. When will Quebec see investments in green technologies? When will we be able to invest in electric vehicles rather than oil, pipelines, Trans Mountain and so forth? We want to hear the term “Conservative” a little less and the term “Quebec” a little more.

What will they give Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not disappoint the member. If he does a word search, he will find that I have also often said “Quebec” in the past. In fact, in the last budget, I gave Quebec credit as a province, because one of the initiatives it had in dealing with the environment was to have a rebate for electric cars. That is an initiative that we have adopted as a national government. Many wonderful, positive policy initiatives originate in the province of Quebec. Because of that, we have been able to ensure in some cases that it becomes a national policy.

As a confederation, we need to recognize that there are many things that happen in the different regions, and Ottawa can play a role in ensuring that some of those wonderful things, such as the electric car rebate that was brought in by Quebec, can be carried forward to other jurisdictions. Today we have the opportunity to get a national rebate and a provincial rebate in the province of Quebec, and I believe that might even have been extended to one or two other provinces.

Quebec is always a part of my thinking. After all, my historical roots ultimately go back to the province of Quebec.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my hon. colleague, and it seems he subscribes to the former minister of the environment's rule that if we speak loudly enough, people will believe us.

Let me say this. My province of British Columbia is the largest producer of softwood. Over 140 communities are dependent on forestry. Just two weeks ago, in one fell swoop, we saw Mosaic Forest Management go out of business. That is 2,000 jobs. The next day Canfor, the largest producer of forestry products in our country, announced curtailments all across our province. This is on top of the thousands of jobs lost over the summer and the last year, yet there was not one mention in the Speech from the Throne—not this time, not the previous time. It seems like we are going back in time.

The Liberals talk about it being the Prime Minister's job to stand up for Canadian jobs. It seems the only jobs the Liberals are standing up for are their own or SNC's. Why?