Debates of Jan. 27th, 2020

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Are there any questions for the hon. member for Davenport?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, happy new year to you and to everyone.

Did the Speech from the Throne address the issue of national unity that, as a matter of fact, is happening now and is a big concern in western Canada? I would like a comment from the member opposite on that topic, please.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne mentioned quite a bit about the fact that it is not always easy for us to reach a consensus about how diverse we are and that there is a diversity of opinion across this country, and we have talked about the different factions across Canada.

I assure the member that national unity is of the utmost importance to our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister and everybody in this government. I assure the member that it is a top priority for us. Every province and territory is of equal importance. We are stronger when we are together and when we move forward together in addressing the key issues of each of our regions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member relates to the topic of pharmacare, which came up in the Speech from the Throne. We know that many Canadians are making the difficult choice between taking their medications or paying for other necessities of life, like rent, food or the other things they need to survive.

Could the member comment on how important it is that we move forward with a pharmacare plan and what impact it will have on middle-class and lower-income Canadians?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that pharmacare is important to the middle class and to vulnerable Canadians, but in my riding of Davenport, the number-one group that mentions it to me is seniors. It is their top issue. They say that they have to make choices between their living expenses and housing and prescription drugs.

Seniors were elated to hear that we will be putting in a national pharmacare program in this upcoming term. I have told them that we have taken some of the initial steps. We have started on the drug formulary, which they were happy to hear about, and have also created the Canadian drug agency, which will help to establish prices for the drugs that would be covered under national pharmacare.

We still have one final step, which is to negotiate with each of the provinces and territories. We have to do this because the pharmacare program would actually be delivered through our provinces and territories.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Davenport for her speech.

I want to get to this question about pharmacare again, as I have been concerned. The Minister of Health recently said to the media that she is not certain that the current government can bring in universal pharmacare. An overwhelming number of voters chose parties that had pharmacare in their platform. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals all promised that universal pharmacare could be accomplished.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from Davenport, who has spoken about the work that has already started with the formulary, can assure Canadians that we will establish a national plan of bulk-buying pharmaceutical drugs to bring down prices. The provinces could then decide if they want to buy from that. I was disturbed by the comment from the Minister of Health that somehow nothing could move unless all provinces were on board.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the Minister of Health has mentioned to the media, but there is unequivocal and strong support from this government to put in universal pharmacare across the country. It is never easy to negotiate with the provinces and territories. That always takes a bit of time. However, I know that provincial and territorial leaders will be listening to their constituents, who will be saying that this is of the utmost importance. Ultimately, we all want the same thing, and that is to serve Canadians to the best of our abilities.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today in the House to address not only my fellow members but the many Canadians across this country who are tuning in to hear what their representatives on this floor have to say on their behalf.

I want to recognize that today is the international day of remembrance for the Holocaust. We are also on the cusp of Black History Month, which begins this weekend. In 2020 it is crucial to recognize the lessons history have taught us, the progress we have made on human rights and all the work that remains to be done. I also want to recognize the victims and the families of flight PS752.

Many of us have had the privilege of spending almost two months in our home communities connecting with constituents.

Over the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of meeting hundreds of people during public events and my first round of community gatherings.

The people of Fredericton, Oromocto, Marysville, Maugerville and surrounding communities are engaged, and I am so proud to represent such a dynamic riding.

Fredericton is the capital of Canada's only officially bilingual province.

Indigenous leadership in the arts is putting New Brunswick on the map. We are also a riding where consistent, devastating floods are making climate change real to people, and where parents are standing up to demand more support for their children struggling with mental illness. I am proud to stand with and beside them as their MP.

I want to address the Speech from the Throne. I was, in all honesty, very pleased to see where our priorities have landed: addressing climate change, healing regional divides and acknowledging the need to further advance forward relationships with indigenous peoples. I was ready to support the speech. I thought if there was ever a Speech from the Throne to support, this would be it.

However, then I was reminded of the last four years. I was reminded of the reason I decided to run in the past election and the promises I made to my constituents to hold the government accountable and challenge pretty words and superficial statements. As a wife and a mother to two indigenous sons, I must stand in the House to protect their future, to protect their inherent collective rights and be firm in my affirmation that their rights are non-negotiable.

I want to speak for a moment on the proposed legislative and policy framework, the Prime Minister's two-track approach to a pan-indigenous policy. It is being called the “two-track termination plan” by many indigenous scholars and traditional leaders. It is reminiscent of the white paper on Indian policy from 1969. People have real, valid issues with what is being proposed, indigenous people, those directly impacted by this legislation. We owe it to them to listen.

The Government of Canada has been consistent in its top-down approach. The patriarchal relationship remains: Canada like a father to its children. Indigenous communities are not Canada's children. Their roots run the deepest on this land and they have the right to self-determination. We have convoluted, confused and complicated our end of the bargain, and that has gotten us where we are today: a deadlock over the land, the land we agreed to share. Canada's definition of sharing is not something I would feel comfortable teaching my children.

Reconciliation means giving back where we took too much. It is achieving an equilibrium. I have heard critics say that we are all Canadian, that we should all be treated equally and that there should be no special treatment. That only works if we are in fact equal.

I am not going to rattle off statistics to describe the disparity that exists. We know what they are. What they mean is that we have to do better. We need real action, real negotiations that find parity in the voices represented.

In Canada, the right to consultation is closely tied to free, prior and informed consent. That means issues must be considered at the individual level and that consultations must involve participants who truly reflect the views of indigenous peoples. The idea is certainly not that powerful and influential organizations and corporations at the top should have a greater say.

When Canada continues to ignore the voices of grassroots community members, traditional and hereditary chiefs, we have outrage and activism in the streets.

The delays on certain energy projects like Coastal GasLink or fracking in New Brunswick are not to be blamed on the demonstrators. It was the wilful ignorance of the players involved from the beginning who made indigenous voices an afterthought. To see that indigenous considerations have been prioritized is very encouraging, but forgive me if I remain suspicious.

I was pleased to hear the mandate for UNDRIP in the throne speech.

I hoped those words signalled that real change was coming soon.

However, in the past few weeks we see the way the government has behaved in the unceded territory of the Wet'suwet'en peoples. It bears a striking resemblance to the behaviour of a previous government in my backyard in 2014, when traditional elders of the Mi'kmaq nation and Elsipogtog built a camp to protect the land and water from the encroachment of a fracking company. At that time, it was only the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, on behalf of the Green Party of Canada, and David Coon, on behalf of the Green Party of New Brunswick, who stood with the Mi'kmaq hereditary and traditional chiefs.

The RCMP's deplorable colonial practices in dismantling a peaceful demonstration made headlines across the country.

I have a personal connection to this history, as I had to see a family member, a traditional chief, handcuffed with zip ties and arrested as he was conducting a pipe ceremony.

A lot has changed since 2014. We have come through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report of findings. Canada has reversed its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons and has been working on legislation to see it enshrined in Canadian law.

The inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls has published its final report, including the testimony of 2,380 survivors and family members of those lost.

I am proud to be a member of a party that understands what this really means and does not shirk its responsibility for the need to work tirelessly on reconciliation across Canada.

Unfortunately, Canada seems queued up to repeat the same mistakes it has been making for generations, the same mistakes it made in 2014.

Despite my support for some of the words in the Speech from the Throne, I have little confidence in the Liberal government to understand its responsibilities or to implement the changes we need.

I strongly believe that when we establish a real nation-to-nation relationship with the Indigenous peoples, our relationship with mother earth will be much better.

Our relationship with indigenous peoples is a step forward for climate action.

Earlier today my fellow Green Party members both spoke about the urgency of climate change. Ridings across New Brunswick have been hit in each of the last two years by historic flooding. The river systems at home are jammed. The snow is piling up in our forests. Our wetlands and buffer zones are compromised. We are seeing an increase in precipitation. All signs point to another bad flood season this spring.

Action is required. The Prime Minister and his government know that. I want them to know I am committed to working with them to make progress on adapting to climate change and that I am committed to helping facilitate the rapid transition that our economy must also undertake.

I want to talk for a minute about that.

I am so excited by the opportunities that lay before us in the new economy. We know we have to end our dependency on fossil fuels and I am convinced we can do it, while looking out for workers who will need new careers. We have always been and will continue to be a resource-driven economy. |Just look at the bounty of the resources we have to offer toward renewable energy: our long sunny summer days; powerful river systems across the country; beautiful forests; and right at home in New Brunswick, the highest tides in the world.

This new economy brings with it the promise of new jobs for electricians, mechanics, manufacturers, truck operators and the list goes on.

In New Brunswick, renewable energy companies are already accomplishing amazing things, showing leadership, sharing expertise and building capacity. One solar company in Fredericton has already trained 200 people in solar panel installation work, half of which has come from the Alberta oil sands.

This is an opportunity that will help reunite New Brunswick families. At the same time, this will allow workers to participate in the economy of the future.

The people of my riding are ready and willing to be part of the new economy and they are eager to reduce their own carbon pollution. It is up to the government to give them the way forward.

What is the plan to expand public transit and increase electric vehicle uptake? Where is the plan to help everyday Canadians make their homes most efficient to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to congratulate you on taking on the role of chair occupant, as well as to extend my best wishes to the new member.

I suspect the hon. member and I may agree on some things and disagree on some others, coming from a riding that is very dependent on the energy sector. I would make the case for my province as well as for her province that the Canadian energy economy is very important.

For the foreseeable future, the world is going to be using hydrocarbon. Right now people in New Brunswick have jobs that involve the importation of foreign oil at world prices. It seems to be logical that as long as there is refining happening in her province, would it not be better if we could connect the country from coast to coast with pipelines so that western Canadian oil could be feeding jobs and opportunity in New Brunswick and in other parts of eastern Canada?

Given the reality that the energy sector exists and that right now we are importing foreign oil into eastern Canada, why not seize this opportunity for more Canadian innovation as we continue to grow and develop and try to improve our environmental performance?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have been criticized by some, saying that we cannot turn the taps off now as there has to be that transition. We understand that. We are not turning the taps off. We know that we need to get some of what we have in the ground to market. I do not think that building the pipeline is the way to do that. We have existing infrastructure that can continue to fuel our current energy demands. As we ramp up renewables, we can decrease that dependency. I do not see the need for that pipeline.

I also do not agree that connecting those resources would necessarily mean that we are off our foreign oil resources. That will continue. It is more that I want to see the concrete steps toward this future plan we hear about. I need to see the actual steps forward.

I continue to support the member's province and what is happening there, but not by building new pipeline infrastructure.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on her maiden speech in the House. My question comes out of some of the comments she made. She started by talking about the Speech from the Throne, that she very much liked the words that were in it and what it had to offer. However, she then seemed reluctant to support it based on her interpretation of what happened over the past four years.

I am curious if it is more important, in the spirit of trying to work together, to try to collaborate in a way that brings us together and that we approach this from a place of trying to have some trust in each other to bring forward ideas and to present them to the House.

Would the member not agree, at the very least, given that and given what she said, that she does support the Speech from the Throne, notwithstanding the fact that she might have reservations about voting for it based on her interpretation of what happened over the last four years?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thought that this is the Canada of which I want to be a part. This is the government I would like to support. However, holding the government accountable for its actions over the last four years is certainly a part of this process. I cannot just take the Liberals' words for it anymore.

My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands read some pieces from the 2015 Speech from the Throne. We cannot be kind of duped into believing that this is the time to believe.

As much as I want to be supportive, as much as I think the speech was great and well-intentioned and believe that even steps forward on reconciliation and on climate change are well-intentioned, the government is still missing the mark. I need the government to start hitting that mark because time is of essence. I have two little children who need a future they can live in, breathe clean air and have clean water.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can remember visiting Fredericton in 2016 when I substituted on the special committee on electoral reform. It was great to see strong support from the residents there. I know the member is disappointed in the previous comments, as I am.

I met some renewable energy contractors who were specializing in tidal energy. I would like the member to talk about some of the energy projects in the Bay of Fundy. I remember operators telling me that the tides were so strong there that their first prototype broke. I wonder if the member could talk more about those renewable energy projects.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, that turbine remains at the bottom of the ocean on our coastline. We were prepared with the technology to harness that amazing power we would have with tidal. I would like to see our technology catch up.

There are also great opportunities for offshore wind, but we need our provinces and some regulations to change as well. We need a willingness on the part of government to support some of these changes. There are so many exciting things that are so possible and are ready to be deployed. However, we continue to invest in old, outdated infrastructure that holds us back as Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kenora.

Rising now as a member of the 43rd Parliament, I appreciate the opportunity to address the government's agenda and at the same time present my vision and priorities for this Parliament.

I represent Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, located in Alberta on Treaty 6 territory, the traditional meeting grounds and a travelling route to the Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot, Métis, Dene and Nakota Sioux.

Fort Saskatchewan's history as a community goes back to the 19th century, when it started as a fort for mounted police. It was put on the transcontinental rail line in 1905. Fort Saskatchewan is proud of its past and its present.

Sherwood Park and Strathcona County, where I live, has grown out of Edmonton as a politically and culturally distinct suburban community. The greater municipality of Strathcona County includes the large urban community of Sherwood Park and various small hamlets, acreages and farms. Whether one likes urban or rural, Strathcona County is a great place to live, work and raise a family.

The whole of my riding depends heavily on the energy sector and, in particular, on the downstream refining and upgrading activities that turn extracted products into everyday household items.

Opponents of our energy sector should remember that it is not just airplane fuel and diesel that come from oil, but also toothbrushes, election signs and many things in between.

I recall seeing Coroplast signs in the background when the candidacy of the Minister of Canadian Heritage was announced. He is a well-known opponent of the energy sector but I still presume, although I cannot say for sure, that he uses a plastic toothbrush from time to time. Therefore, as the MP for Canada's industrial heartland, I would like to thank him and others for keeping at least some energy workers on the job as we fuel the fight against halitosis.

Although I come here from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am conscious as I take my seat of the immortal words of Edmund Burke, who told the electors of Bristol:

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests...parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol...he is a member of parliament.

Therefore, as the deliberative assembly of one nation, we confront what I suspect will be the greatest challenge of the 43rd Parliament: the question of national unity. I see the question of national unity as broad in scope. Yes, it is a question of how we reconcile divisions between different regions of this country, but it is also about reconciliation of, and solidarity across, other divides.

We must be a country where people of all faiths, of all cultures and of all linguistic backgrounds see themselves as belonging to one nation. We are a community of communities, where the particular attachments that unite particular communities are good and right, but also must be transcended in the creation of a greater national community of shared commitments, of intertwining histories and of unifying solidarity.

I recently finished reading the beautiful novel Sybil, written by former British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. I have never read a book before that so combines sublime romantic narrative with weighty, provocative political theory and would recommend it to all members. Since I know the member for Spadina—Fort York will ask, the book is also available with pictures.

In the 1840s, while writing this book, Disraeli observed a society divided along lines of class. Class divisions did not primarily arise from differences in economic productivity but rather from moments of conquest, such as the Norman invasion and the quasi-conquest of the English reformation, in which the vast church land previously available for common uses was reallocated to the well-connected and wealthy friends of the new religious regime.

This process of redistribution, effectively from the people to the wealthy and well-connected, invested the newly enriched in the success of the new system and created a new oligarchy that could both oppose the monarch and oppress the people.

This appears to have been Disraeli's view of his country's past, but it is also deeply relevant to our own country's present. Taking from the people and giving to well-connected elites in the name of progress is central to the big-government agenda of our current cabinet.

The disproportionate privileges of the wealthy and well connected and the sufferings of ordinary people are often falsely blamed on free markets, when the real culprit is government expropriation from the middle class and government subsidy to the well connected. The unequal application of the carbon tax and so-called supercluster subsidies are particular examples of this phenomenon in our day.

Disraeli's novel Sybil is the story of a romance between Charles Egremont, whose family was enriched through the disbursement of church property after the English reformation, and Sybil Gerard, a working-class Catholic woman who intends to become a nun.

In the midst of overarching social injustice, there are well-intentioned and ill-intentioned people on both sides of the sharp class divide. Disraeli shows how understanding and solidarity between the classes, as opposed to class warfare, is the harder path, but is the only desirable way forward.

Friedrich Engels' famous book The Condition of the Working Class in England was published in the same year that Sybil was published. Marx and Engels recognized the same class divisions that Disraeli did, but instead of intercommunal harmony, they argued for the inevitability of heightened division and therefore the justness of class warfare. They said that the privilege hierarchy would be inverted through a dictatorship of working people.

Disraeli's ideas were in many ways more radical then those of Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels proposed to change who was at the top of the social hierarchy, but Disraeli sought to challenge the moral condition and the lack of understanding, solidarity and community that led to injustice in the first place.

Similarly, the problem with today's social justice warriors is that they are not radical enough. They seek to invert structures of privilege while still singling people out for bad or good treatment based on characteristics that they cannot control.

The prevailing SJW norms of call-out culture, wokeness and privilege inversion do not emphasize the truly radical and much more elevated messages of unity, universal solidarity and shared progress.

Disraeli's philosophy was called one-nation conservatism. He sought to re-establish the bonds of community and solidarity among different social classes and to engage all classes in the enactment of meaningful reforms to the conditions of working people.

He was part of a long and proud tradition of reform-minded conservative leaders. In particular, many of the great reforms of 19th-century Britain, most notably the abolition of slavery, were a conservative legacy.

Disraeli played a crucial role in the passage of the Second Reform Act, which gave some working people in Britain the franchise for the first time. He showed how intercommunal solidarity, as opposed to intercommunal division, is ultimately the basis for the advancement of justice.

One-nation conservatism is not a term we use often, but it is a concept that I believe we particularly need in this country, in this time, in this 43rd Parliament.

Canada faces divides not just of economic position, but also of region, of ethnicity, of religion, of religiosity, of social values and more. As in Britain, the most powerful moments of national reconciliation in our history have always been achieved under the leadership of Conservative prime ministers.

These were people like Sir John A. Macdonald, who reconciled English and French Canadians and connected our country from coast to coast; like Brian Mulroney, who came the closest of any leader since Macdonald to achieving national constitutional reconciliation; and like Stephen Harper, who recognized the aspirations of Quebec and therefore presided over the political decimation of the Bloc Québécois while building pipelines expanding opportunity in every region of the country.

Conservatives have always believed in Canada as a community of communities, emphasizing both the legitimacy of particular local attachments and the necessity of shared common values.

Canada needs a one-nation vision today, but this throne speech fails to advance that one-nation vision. It fails to even discuss the critical issues facing many regions and communities within Canada. It completely ignores the challenges of our natural resource sector, not only in Alberta but across the country. It fails to discuss the vital issue of economic development for indigenous communities, for whom hope and opportunity are key elements of reconciliation.

It has nothing to say about the badly needed reforms to our immigration system, such as the urgent need for reform to our system of refugee sponsorship so that private organizations can sponsor vulnerable refugees without facing massive wait times, arbitrary caps and unjustifiable red tape.

New Canadians are waiting for an immigration system that is fair to those who follow the rules. With this throne speech, they will have to wait a little longer.

The throne speech notes the ambition of the government to join the UN Security Council, but makes no mention of the ambitions of people around the world to be out from under the thumb of oppression, to live as we live, with freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The throne speech marks the continuation of a foreign policy that puts the Security Council ambitions of the government ahead of our nation's fundamental values.

Unsurprisingly, the throne speech makes no mention of the threats to the fundamental freedoms of many Canadians such as freedom of speech, association, religion and conscience.

Our sense of national solidarity should include goodwill towards the indigenous energy worker in Alberta and the francophone petroleum product manufacturer in Ontario, the Sikh public servant in Montreal and the Catholic palliative care nurse in Delta.

It should include concern for the well-being, the traditions and the rights of all Canadians. It should not seek, in the first instance, to decide whose rights or whose sufferings are more important but rather seek a national reconciliation of interests and concerns.

This is what a country does when it truly sees itself as one nation to which all belong. This is the work of the 43rd Parliament, the deliberative assembly of one nation.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to think about his home territory and the petroleum sector. He refers to it as the energy sector, and in that there is a problem, because when we use petroleum for energy we burn it, and when we burn it, we contribute to climate change, at least a lot of people believe that.

I would be interested to know what the member hears at home from that industry about its innovations in the non-energy side and the sorts of things that will continue, like the toothbrush that the hon. member mentioned, which have a need and a place in our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, it is an important point to make that many of the policies we have seen from the government have put all sorts of barriers in front of the extractive sector in general, which obviously greatly impacts the petroleum manufacturing sector that is important in my riding as well as the use of energy in other contexts.

There are all kinds of innovations happening in our energy sector, and I think the member knows that. However, on this side of the House, our view is that we should have responsible policies that incentivize the development of new technology in the context of that sector, which is why in the last election we proposed a business tax rate reduced to 5% for those directly earning revenue from a green patent.

Development is already happening, but this green patent incentive would have encouraged further, more rapid development in terms of technological improvements. I think the path forward is to encourage development and innovation at the same time.

Policies like the carbon tax advanced by the Liberal government unfortunately will push investment out of the country to less environmentally friendly jurisdictions. They will not help us as a global community in our response to our environmental challenges. They will just hurt Canada's economy. However, we can incentivize the development of green technology while encouraging development. That would be the policy we would recommend on this side of the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks from my colleague, in particular some of the more jestful ones, such as the notion that perhaps Stephen Harper decimated the Bloc Québécois. I would argue that the only thing Stephen Harper decimated was the former Progressive Conservative Party that he hijacked the branding for and turned into what we now see as the former Reform Alliance Party of Canada.

Nonetheless, what we have here is obviously a difference of opinion from the member in terms of the throne speech. There are so many initiatives that have had huge success over the last four years and those are looked to continue on in the throne speech and through this government.

The member spoke a lot about the international relations that exist, but I wonder if he could pick up on just one thing in the throne speech that perhaps he is supportive of. Even though he will vote against it, I am curious if there is just one thing that he liked in there.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I know it is a well-worn line, but one is entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own facts. It is an objective reality, with all due respect to my friends in the Bloc Québécois, that after a majority term of the current Prime Minister we have had a resurgence of the Bloc Québécois and we have had an unprecedented resurgence of separatist sentiment in western Canada. That is not Stephen Harper's fault.

We had a period during which the fortunes of separatism in all parts of the country were waning dramatically and then, all of a sudden, as a result of four years of Liberal government, of lack of respect for different parts of the country, a failure to build national unity, we have had the return of separatist sentiment in not one but multiple parts of this country. I certainly would invite the member across to visit my riding and observe the frustration that exists there in terms of what is going on.

In terms of whether there are one or two things in the throne speech that I like, it is a throne speech that sets out the program for the government, what it will do and will not do, and I think that the direction is fundamentally wrong.

I highlighted during my speech the fact that the government is really not identifying and responding to the key problems that we face, but that does not mean that there will not be things from time to time that the government does that we agree with.

However, the frustration is that the government is not attentive to, and does not really seem to care about, the biggest problems and challenges that are facing many Canadians, and many of those things are not even mentioned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is my maiden speech, I would like to congratulate all of my colleagues on their new or returning roles. I take the opportunity to thank the people of the Kenora riding for placing their trust in me to serve. I thank all of my volunteers and campaign team who worked so hard to make this possible, with a special mention of my good friends and family for supporting me along the way. To my parents, Joe and Charlene, who have always been there to help, and to my partner, Danaka, who has shown tremendous strength in adjusting to the challenges that public life presents, I express my thanks for their support.

Many people in my riding have shared concerns about the throne speech and how it will impact northwestern Ontario. My riding is rather unique. It is the largest in Ontario by land mass and it is the smallest by population. It is home to many first nations and municipalities, each with very different localized concerns. There are many challenges that we face in this region, from access to health and social services to broadband Internet, and a way of life that has been under attack by the Liberal government.

However, there are also many opportunities in this region. For example, people from all around the globe choose the Kenora riding as a tourist destination each year. I happen to know that my good friend, the member for York—Simcoe, is often one of them. Across all sectors there is untapped economic potential and resilient citizens who are working hard to see our region grow.

When we talk about growth and economic potential, residents in my riding want to see a responsible government spending plan that is focused on attracting investment and lowering the deficit. However, the government is unfortunately continuing with its high tax and reckless spending plan, which has Canada lagging behind others in the G7. We in the Kenora riding feel those effects, with many businesses struggling to get off the ground or closing up shop and a dwindling industry that has resulted in jobs and opportunities leaving the riding.

With that in mind, I was particularly concerned to see that there is very little support for the natural resource sector in the Speech from the Throne. There is no hope provided to miners in Red Lake and across my region, and there is absolutely no mention of softwood lumber or our forestry industry. In fact, there is actually a plan that will restrict forest access even further. Conservatives understand that sustainable forest management and, more broadly, resource management play a pivotal role in growing our economy, protecting our environment and providing a more prosperous future for the next generation.

I spoke very briefly earlier about our way of life. I must mention that firearms are important tools for people's way of life in my riding. Whether for law-abiding sport shooters belonging to a gun club, or hunters that rely on their firearms to feed their families, this is an issue that unites people from all walks of life in my riding. I have even heard from many people who do not own firearms, but who are concerned that this overreach, the government's proposed blanket ban and confiscation of firearms from everyday Canadians, will not be beneficial. The experts all agree that this ban will not do anything to combat the very important issue of gun crime and gang violence in our cities. In fact, in my riding, it may make rural and remote Canadians feel less safe.

I was recently in Fort Severn First Nation. This is the most northern community in Ontario and sits right along the edge of Hudson Bay. This community is only accessible by plane, by barge or by an ice road when the proper weather conditions permit. The people of this community rely on their firearms to provide for their families, especially given the disproportionately higher cost of living that they face. They also rely on these firearms to protect themselves from the threats of bears and other dangerous wild animals that live near, but more often within, the community.

I have spoken with these residents directly and they are worried that the ambiguous term “military-style firearm” may lead to them losing their guns and actually jeopardize their way of life and their safety. The Liberals have yet to provide us with their definition of what “military-style” means. I believe that Canadians deserve to know exactly what that is so we can know what the government's intentions are and have a thoughtful, fact-based debate about how we can best combat gun violence. To put it simply, we must focus on criminals and not law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

Rural and remote communities also face unique challenges when it comes to Internet access. A lack of reliable high-speed Internet hinders the ability of rural Canadians to access information, receive services and compete in the Canadian economy. Rural broadband access must be prioritized so that our students, workers and business owners can participate equally in society.

I was disappointed, as were many in the Kenora riding, that the throne speech made no mention of rural connectivity. Many of my constituents felt ignored by the throne speech. I believe I have made that very clear in my remarks so far.

However, I was very glad to hear that reconciliation will be a priority for the government. First nations and northern communities in my riding are underfunded and under-resourced. The people in these communities need access to health and social services. They need infrastructure investments to fix water systems and mould-infested homes. They need access to medical and mental health care and addiction treatments.

I hope to be able to work productively with the government to secure real results for these communities in my riding. This is, unfortunately, one of the files on which the government has been all talk with very little action. I do believe that in this minority Parliament we have a tremendous opportunity to work collaboratively and deliver meaningful supports.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Minister of Indigenous Services that I look forward to working together to achieve practical results. I appreciate his advocacy and collaboration on issues important to my riding. I hope we will continue this positive working relationship into the future.

This speech also makes mention of one important thing to me, and that is ambitious infrastructure investments. I will be urging the government to ensure that the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway from the Manitoba border through my riding of Kenora will be a top priority. This is not only a local issue for us, but it is also a national issue. When there is a crash on the Trans-Canada Highway in my riding, our entire economy shuts down. Our country is literally split into two. These highway conditions are notoriously dangerous. This project is tremendously important for the safety of all travellers.

The construction would also reduce barriers to economic activity in the region, and allow for further future development. We must ensure that we have funding from all levels of government in order to get this project done.

I will conclude my remarks there, but before I yield my time, I would like to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to share with this House some of my thoughts and some of my constituents' concerns with the Speech from the Throne. I believe that the priorities of northwestern Ontario can and should be much better represented in the throne speech and in the government's agenda. My riding and my region have great potential, but this Parliament must be able to work constructively to deliver the necessary support and investment to get the region moving again.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech. I agree with him on many points.

However, he surprised me when he spoke about the forestry industry's problem. He said that the government was being stingy with forestry companies and with this sector that is very important to his native northern Ontario.

I remember during the 2008 crisis, when the Conservative government rightly decided to invest $10 billion in the auto sector. These loans were never repaid. For example, Chrysler, received a $4-billion loan, and this debt is still on the books. The government bought shares in General Motors, which it sold at a loss.

During the same period, the forestry industry was also going through a crisis. However, the Conservative government invested just $75 million in this sector, even though it employed 600,000 workers, compared to the 400,000 employed by the auto sector.

Does my colleague not think that the Liberal Party is carrying on the Conservative Party's policy?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, in regard to 2008, I will not speak to that specifically. I was only 10 years old in 2008. However, what I do know is that the government's plan to restrict forestry access even further is going to make it much more difficult for the forestry workers in the industry in my region.

Over on this side of the House, Conservatives understand that responsible forestry management would actually help us reduce carbon emissions by planting new trees and sequestering more carbon. It would provide good jobs for people in my riding and across the country. I hope to be able to work with all parties in the House to support the forestry sector.