Debates of Nov. 30th, 2021

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to see Bill C-2 advance to committee so we can discuss it. I encourage the member to reconstitute committees.

There is so much missing from this throne speech. There are so many voices that are not heard: the voices of rural Canadians, the voices of those who work in the energy sector and the voices of those who have been impacted by the floods in B.C. The government can do more. The government can always do more.

I implore the member to include everybody in the throne speech and not just the select few of the Liberal Party.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Thornhill on her first speech. We did actually attend the Senate building together to hear the Speech from the Throne, which was very underwhelming. In fact, it left out major chapters that were talked about before as major features of the government, including broadband Internet.

My question to the member and her party concerns the spectrum auction that is coming up with regard to 5G and where they stand on Huawei. We have been opposed to Huawei's participation. Are they the same on that? More importantly, what regulatory elements could the CRTC have to bring down pricing for Canadians? Right now we pay some of the highest prices and have some of the biggest charges for broadband Internet connections. Would her party agree with a regulatory process to actually bring those in check because it is too costly for Canadians?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a party that has brought forward many ideas and many plans on expanding broadband and rural Internet. We welcome any work that we can do together on lowering the cost of Internet. I realize that none of this was mentioned in the throne speech. None of these things for rural Canadians were mentioned in the throne speech.

I welcome the work with members of this House to hold the government to account, to include every single Canadian in its throne speech.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Thornhill and commend her on her remarks. I noticed that she made reference to the importance of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I think that is so important. I appreciate her remarks on that.

Could the hon. member speak further to the importance of the relationship that historically exists between Canada and Israel and go into the future potential of that?

I also appreciated her remarks related to those who were left out of the speech, that they need to be at the table, including those who live in rural Canada and work in our resource sector.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to expanding on that in this House for as long as the constituents of Thornhill will allow me to.

This is an important relationship. It is an important relationship to Canada. It is one fundamentally based on the shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is unfortunate that some members in the House do not see the importance of the value of choosing democracies over dictators and not listening to the despots of the UN, frankly, to decide our foreign policy based on what is convenient and not on what is principled.

I look forward to many conversations about this issue and the importance of this issue for the people of Thornhill.

Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on November 23, 2021 respecting an order of the House made on March 25, 2021 in the previous Parliament.

The matter the member is raising emanates from the 43rd Parliament, which was dissolved on August 15, 2021. That terminates all business of the House of that Parliament. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, in relation to the effects of dissolution:

With dissolution, all business of the House is terminated.

It goes on:

All items on the Order Paper including government and private Members' bills die. The government's obligation to provide answers to written questions, to respond to petitions or to produce papers requested by the House also ends with dissolution.

The members opposite have relied on a 500-year-old precedent cited in the 20th edition of Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament that refers to a contempt carrying over from one Parliament to another. It is worth noting that this reference no longer appears in any version of Erskine May's treatise because, I submit, the context of the 16th and 17th centuries no longer applies.

This citation refers to a time that predates representative and responsible government and was used for the purposes of imprisoning a privy councillor for crimes committed during a parliament. The sanctions provided in these times generally exceeded the duration of a parliament, which were far shorter in length than our current parliaments, and the new parliaments had to reinstate these sanctions to ensure that the individual in question could be recommitted to the Tower of London for the duration of their initial imprisonment. This context no longer applies, and it would be a travesty to impose such a precedent on a situation that bears no resemblance to the current situation.

I submit that any business that died in one Parliament which members would wish to resurrect in a subsequent Parliament would require the adoption of a substantive motion for which notice would be required, and the facts before the previous Parliament would have to be resubstantiated. We no longer live in a world where a sovereign would order the execution of a member of Parliament or of a privy councillor, who is not a parliamentarian, without due process offered by a court of law. As tempting as it might be to hunt for precedents to suit an argument, the context of the precedent is at least as important as, if not more important than the precedent itself.

Having said that, I will respond to the substance of the member's arguments. I would like to begin by making it clear that ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for duties carried out within their departments and for the actions of their political staff in their political offices.

Page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following regarding the fact that ministers are responsible to Parliament:

In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament.

It goes on:

The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.

This is not a new concept. To reinforce this assertion, allow me to quote the former prime minister, who, in the 2006 publication entitled “Accountable government: a guide for ministers”, stated, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise,” and “Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.”

Former Conservative House leader, Jay Hill, strongly made the case on behalf of the former Conservative government on May 25, 2010. Mr. Hill stated:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs.

It is the responsibility of individual public servants and office staff members to provide advice and information to ministers, to carry out faithfully the directions given by ministers, and in so doing, to serve the people of Canada.

He went on:

Ours is a system of responsible government because...ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. We ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada.

I could not agree more with the remarks of the former Conservative House leader. Ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. As I have said, they report to and are accountable to ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions. Ministerial staff did not put their names on the ballots. They were not elected. They do not have the same rights and privileges as MPs.

The opposition will likely point to the ministerial staffers called before committee in 2010. There is a big difference here. There was clear evidence of staffers breaking the law. The Privacy Commissioner subsequently issued two reports that found that Conservative ministerial staffers had interfered with the release of records under the Access to Information Act.

It is critical to point out that there was much debate about the decision by the government to send ministers to committee, rather than staff. Ultimately, this position was accepted by the Liberals, who formed the official opposition at the time. We accepted that, and it was the right thing to do. There was a clear acceptance of the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Again, on this very important point, Mr. Hill stated:

This is no substitute for ministerial responsibility. When ministers choose to appear before committees to account for their administration, they are the best source of accountability and they must be heard. Public servants and ministerial staff support the responsibility of their ministers. They do not supplant it. They cannot supplant it.

By using its majority on committees, the opposition attempted to deflect accountability from the minister to the ministerial staff. That was and continues to be unacceptable.

I will end my remarks with some words from the former Conservative government House leader, whom I have quoted extensively today. He stated the following about staff.

They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee.

Our government will continue to defend the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament. There is no appropriate substitute for ministers to be accountable to Parliament for the activities of their department or for the activities of their political staff.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member for the additional information he has provided. We will certainly take it under advisement as the decision is being made.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, after hearing the throne speech drafted by the Prime Minister's Office and read by the Governor General, my reply will be as short as its content. Was it really worth putting Canadians through an election that cost $600 million, in the middle of a pandemic when inflation is at an all-time high and Quebec businesses are desperately short of workers? The answer, obviously, is no.

The Prime Minister lost his bet. He gambled at the expense of Canadians, hoping that the polls would be right and he would win a majority in the House. The member for Papineau, the Prime Minister, gambled and lost.

I will therefore offer the people of Mégantic—L'Érable my own opening speech to thank them for placing their trust in me for a third time. I intend to use every resource available to me to defend the people, businesses and organizations in my riding.

One of the things I will use is statements by members, which allow us to bring issues of concern to the House. Here is an example:

“Madam Speaker, for more than 100 years, the people of Thetford Mines and the surrounding area survived thanks to the miners who worked hard to search, dig up the ground and break stones to extract what, for a long time, was described as white gold. Over the years, scientific advancements would turn this white gold into public enemy number one, which had to be eliminated at all costs. The white gold that had lined the pockets of provincial and federal governments was asbestos. Although this fibre has some extraordinary physical properties, it turned out that, when it was misused, it caused cancer in the miners and workers who handled it.

After a years-long battle to ensure that the chrysotile fibre could continue to be used safely, the anti-asbestos lobbies ultimately came out on top and the use of asbestos was banned in Canada. After claiming victory, the lobbyists moved on to other things, leaving the region of Thetford Mines without jobs and with mountains of asbestos tailings, mine shafts that were slowly filling with water and facilities that still sit rusting in the middle of town.

I am urging the new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who was once one of the activists who wanted to shut down asbestos mining, not to abandon the people of Thetford Mines.”

That was an example of a member's statement.

I am also going to use question period to get public answers to questions that go unanswered when we write to certain ministers who are too busy promoting their own political agenda to look after the people in every region of Canada, including mine.

Here is an example of a question that might be asked during question period.

“Madam Speaker, people in the region are proud of their mining heritage, which has contributed to our economic growth for almost a century. However, this heritage has left an indelible mark on the region's landscape. What is to be done about these huge mountains of asbestos tailings, the land that is considered to be contaminated and the crumbling abandoned warehouses?

The Liberal government killed asbestos mining. What does the Prime Minister intend to do to support the people of Thetford Mines?”

Most of the time, the answer to a member's first question is a talking point, and so I will rise again and ask the government a second question, such as the following:

“Madam Speaker, the asbestos tailings present in the Appalaches RCM have significant economic value. Many projects could be developed, which would help to diversify the region's economy. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change asking for a meeting, but I still have not received an answer. Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change meet with the stakeholders of the Appalaches RCM to finally clean up the damage caused by 100 years of asbestos mining, yes or no?”

We will use question period to get answers for the people of Mégantic—L'Érable. I will never hesitate to ask these types of questions and if I do not get answers, I will ask a question during adjournment proceedings so that the voices of the people back home are heard once again.

What might an adjournment debate look like? I will give an example of a debate we might have at the end of a sitting. When all the other topics have been exhausted, we have the opportunity to speak to a minister or their representative to talk about something going on in our region or a question we raised earlier in the day. Let us pretend it is the end of the day and time for the adjournment proceedings to begin.

“Madam Speaker, today during question period, I asked the Minister of Transport for more transparency on the Lac-Mégantic rail bypass file. Six years after the tragedy that cost 47 people their lives, no new tracks have yet been laid to get the railway out of the downtown core. Worse yet, no agreement has been signed for the home owners who will have to give up their property for the bypass project.

I brought this issue to the attention of the Minister of Transport when he was appointed last January. In May, concerns were raised about probable delays and the inability to meet the deadline, which governments had scheduled for 2023. The minister publicly upheld that deadline, maintaining that the bypass would be in place for 2023.

I reiterated my concern after the last election. The minister said again in early November that the 2023 deadline would be met. Shortly thereafter, the president of Canadian Pacific himself questioned the deadline, given the current pace of work. I have yet to hear back regarding my request for a meeting.

Of course it is important to act swiftly, but it is even more important to do things right, out of respect for the residents of the three municipalities involved, namely Lac‑Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac. Lac‑Mégantic bore the brunt of the tragedy, and the rail bypass route will go through the two other towns, to keep a tragedy like this from ever happening again.

Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with elected representatives and citizens who are worried about the lack of information on the project. I think we should do whatever we can to provide answers to their questions about the route, rights of way, costs, the proposed compensation scheme and timelines.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government said nothing about the project in either the throne speech or the latest budget. I feel that the agreement between the government and Canadian Pacific about the steps for completing the bypass construction should be made public.

When will the minister deign to meet with elected officials in Lac‑Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac, as well as their federal MP?

On Facebook, the newly elected mayor of Nantes wrote that, given how difficult it is to talk to or meet with a politician or even a government official, the meeting should include three people whenever possible. He also wrote that he received an invitation by phone to a meeting on Friday. He was given 24 hours' notice. He rejected the invitation, provided his availability and was still waiting for a response. The mayor said he wanted to know what was really going on with the project and that the had many questions he wanted answers to.

A meeting, some respect, transparency and, most of all, the facts. That is all the elected representatives of Lac‑Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac are asking of the government with respect to the Lac‑Mégantic bypass. Is it too much to ask the Minister of Transport to hold that meeting as soon as possible so those elected representatives can provide information to the people of these three municipalities? Will the Minister of Transport agree to my meeting request so the people can get the straight goods?”

That is what a late show looks like. A question was asked sometime during the day, and then later in the day, it can be unpacked to provide more details and explanations. That is what I just did with respect to the bypass issue.

MPs can highlight aspects of the issues in these debates that they cannot address during question period. We have members' statements, oral questions, adjournment debates and speeches like the one I just gave. Those are the tools opposition MPs can use to let everyone know about the issues that matter in our regions.

The Speech from the Throne did not mention these matters that are of the utmost concern to people in my region. It also had nothing about compensation for supply-managed producers in the wake of the disastrous agreement the government signed with the United States and Mexico. It also had no solutions for the labour shortage that is hitting businesses in Mégantic—L'Érable hard.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing in it about the skyrocketing cost of living due to the runaway inflation rate. This may seem like a national issue, but Canadians in each region of Quebec and Canada are having to spend noticeably more money each week. They simply do not have the extra money to do other things, because that money is gone.

This is how I do my job, the same way I have been doing it for six years. I will rise often, again and again, to hold this Liberal government accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention from my colleague across the way and took note especially when he spoke about asbestos. To his point, although we know that asbestos might be safely extracted, it is used and has been previously used in thousands of different materials that could be extremely toxic to individuals who inadvertently breathed it in, whether through construction practices or whatever it may be.

I can recognize the fact that in his particular part of the country this may have been an extremely lucrative business, but is his position and the Conservative Party's position now that we remove the ban on asbestos so that it can be reintroduced into the marketplace?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to listen carefully. We are not asking that asbestos be reintroduced. We are asking that the government, which benefited from the taxes paid by the miners of Thetford Mines, Asbestos and all the other municipalities that operated asbestos mines for 100 years, give them fair compensation. I invite my colleague to take a tour of Thetford Mines.

Thetford Mines is a town inside a mine. A century of mining has left mountains of tailings. We are just asking for help to process the tailings, but the government refuses to answer.

I would like my colleague to adapt and come take a look around Thetford Mines and Asbestos. I would like him to see what our communities look like after 100 years of asbestos mining and after 100 years of tailings being left behind, because these governments are refusing to assume responsibility.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, I would like him to tell me why there is such meddling in provincial jurisdictions in the throne speech.

Take, for example, housing, the reform of policing, mental health, human resources management and the prevention of violence, among other things.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is simple. This government believes that it must and can do absolutely everything in Canada. It has no respect for provincial jurisdictions and believes it is the best at everything. It believes that its money will solve every single problem across Canada.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I believe that there are experts in Quebec, particularly in the health sector, who are capable of properly managing the money that Ottawa must transfer.

The government should remember that, if it transfers money to Quebec, there should be no conditions imposed so that Quebec can manage its own affairs.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize my great Conservative colleague from Quebec. The Liberal member across the way who has criticized the member does not seem to understand what he is asking, which is why the Speech from the Throne did not recognize our natural resource sector and the people who are employed in that natural resource sector. They are looking for a government to defend them and defend the jobs that come from those natural resources being developed.

I would ask my great Conservative colleague from Quebec to answer that question.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals like to pretend that they are more green than green. For 100 years there were miners in Thetford Mines in my region who worked hard to extract asbestos from underground, but the tailings are still there. They fight us. They banned asbestos, but they left all the tailings and all the residue there. We just ask for help to bring that back where they were and to give back nature and ground and land to the people who live there. It is simple, but it must be done in the fastest and greatest way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say I am visiting the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin Nation from the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples including the Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsqui and Semiahmoo first nations. I would like to thank Her Excellency Mary Simon, our new Governor General, for her statements concerning reconciliation in the Speech from the Throne. I will be splitting my time today with my colleague, the member for St. John's East.

This throne speech echoes so much of what I heard at the doors this past summer, including pushing forward positive, diverse and inclusive politics, getting beyond the pandemic, moving forward faster on the path to reconciliation, addressing biodiversity loss through increased protection of our lands and waters, setting and acting on ambitious climate targets, and addressing inflation and the rising cost of living. This includes the two priority areas of creating $10-a-day child care across Canada and implementing a comprehensive plan on housing.

This last issue of affordability is a top priority in Cloverdale—Langley City. As the second-youngest riding population-wise in British Columbia, action on housing affordability and $10-a-day child care will have huge, positive impacts on our community.

As a resident of British Columbia, which has been seriously affected this past year by extreme heat, fires and now floods caused by back-to-back-to-back atmospheric rivers, I understand that climate action including adaptation and resilience has never been so urgent. As someone with an extensive background with Parks Canada, I know that the need to address the loss of biodiversity has never been so apparent. The loss of habitat, the heat dome, wildfires and the devastating floods in B.C. demonstrate that we cannot afford to wait.

Cloverdale—Langley City is a diverse riding with many faith groups, cultural and linguistic identities. People there come from across the country and around the globe. In the last election, voters called for their next member of Parliament and government to create an inclusive future that holds diversity as a symbol of strength, and our cabinet is the most reflective of Canada in our history.

I heard loud and clear that our government needs to be more ambitious on climate change, and we demonstrated that ambition at COP26. Voters called for more affordable and accessible child care, and our government is ready to work with B.C. to cut costs in half by 2022 and create 40,000 additional spaces. This will be transformative and so important in the community of Cloverdale—Langley City.

I heard, at door after door, that a legitimate housing plan that addresses the insufficient housing supply and makes buying a house more affordable is needed. We created a housing ministry to act swiftly on our housing plan. We are going to help put home ownership back in reach for Canadians with a more flexible first-time home buyer incentive and a new rent-to-own program, as well as by reducing closing costs for first-time home buyers.

The throne speech reiterated and advanced our commitment to reconciliation. It recognized that:

Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.

This is the commitment we need.

When I was elected to the 42nd parliament, my private member's bill, Bill C-374, passed unanimously in the House. It was to implement Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 79. Unfortunately, my bill died in the Senate, but I am committed to continue pushing along and participating in initiatives to further reconciliation.

The Speech from the Throne also illustrates the urgency in finishing the fight against COVID. We acted quickly with the federal vaccine mandate, and we will act quickly to support those who are still financially impacted by COVID-19, while ensuring businesses continue to drive our country’s economic recovery. We will continue to support provinces in the delivery of vaccines, including for children, to ensure everyone who wants a vaccine is vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Immigration is another focus in the Speech from the Throne that is so important for my riding. Increasing immigration levels to meet labour demands, reducing wait times to make the process easier for approved applications, family reunification to bring families together again and a world-leading refugee resettlement program that helps the most oppressed are all important issues in Cloverdale—Langley City.

Business owners in my riding have come to me about labour shortages they are experiencing, like many throughout Canada. I have had conversations with them about how we can use our immigration system to help ease their shortages. Family reunification continues to be important for my constituents, and is a policy I continue to fully support.

Reducing wait times is particularly important at this time. The beginning of COVID reasonably caused a significant slowdown, but now we must reduce those wait times. This is critical for driving our economy and for reuniting families.

New Canadians deserve to be reunited with their families and loved ones; they bring economic empowerment and strengthen diversity and inclusion. I have witnessed this first-hand in my community. Over the last several years, my community has grown to be one that is culturally diverse. We have benefited from this. As a member of Parliament in the 42nd Parliament, I held interfaith meetings in Cloverdale—Langley City where we learned from each other and grew stronger as a community. I have committed to holding these interfaith meetings yet again in this Parliament.

This throne speech reflects many of the commitments I made to Cloverdale—Langley City in my local platform. Our government’s infrastructure investments will help deliver the SkyTrain to Langley City, a much-needed transit lane that will shorten commuting times, reduce emissions and better connect the Lower Mainland. I will work with provincial and municipal partners to ensure the SkyTrain and other projects that support the current and future needs of Cloverdale—Langley City are prioritized and completed.

This throne speech reaffirms our government’s support for positive politics. I will take immediate action to restore positive, progressive and inclusive politics to Cloverdale—Langley City so everyone can feel safe, respected and included, regardless of race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, ability or income.

I am working to convene a fairness, diversity and inclusion council to create solutions that reduce inequality in our community. The council would provide advice and insights so I can tackle the inequalities that Cloverdale—Langley City residents are facing.

The throne speech highlighted the urgency, backed by investments, to transition to a green economy. With these announcements, I will ensure Cloverdale—Langley City is included and leads in the emerging green economy. I will promote real climate change solutions and work with the B.C. Centre for Innovation and Clean Energy to secure investments in clean, zero-emission technologies and create sustainable jobs in Cloverdale—Langley City. This year, more than ever, has illustrated how both adaptation and mitigation policies are needed in our riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, in our province of B.C., in our country of Canada, and indeed globally.

Our government is committed to reconciliation with indigenous communities. I have the same commitment for indigenous peoples in the constituency I have been elected to represent. I will be pursuing, with appropriate consultations, an indigenous-led urban cultural space and service delivery centre in Cloverdale—Langley City for indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous persons living in our urban and suburban neighbourhoods. I will work with indigenous leaders and local partners to create a place for delivery of indigenous services and celebration of indigenous culture in Cloverdale—Langley City. I will also advocate for federal support for local indigenous history, education programs and cultural celebrations.

We have committed to helping communities to thrive as our economy roars back from COVID-19. Part of the strategy, in my community, will be supporting the development of the performing arts in our region. I will secure federal support for accessible, sustainable spaces where the residents of the lower Fraser Valley can celebrate and experience our vibrant performing arts community. This will become a cultural and arts centre for the greater region, and will fill a much-needed void in our rapidly growing community.

Fighting for the needs of the agricultural sector and farmers will continue in this Parliament. In Cloverdale—Langley City, I have been working to start consulting with an agricultural advisory council of farmers and other agricultural industry partners to share insights and advice to ensure that there will be support for strong and sustainable agriculture in Cloverdale—Langley City.

Our government’s support for mental health and drug addiction was reiterated in the Speech from the Throne. Both, especially finding solutions to drug addiction, are critical for my province and many in my community. We must work quickly and fiercely to end the opioid crisis that has taken too many lives.

This throne speech represents our ambitious plan to make life more affordable, reduce our emissions while building an economy for the future and act on reconciliation. As we resume this work in Parliament, I will be listening to and advocating for my constituents. For every step of progress we make in this House, I will fight to have that progress delivered to Cloverdale—Langley City.

Most important to me is that this is the moment to stand up for diversity and inclusion. When I heard the former Conservative member of Parliament for Cloverdale—Langley City use scripture to attack the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community and lesbian activity with derision in this very chamber, I knew that my work was not done. I have received a proud level of support as I fight for inclusion.

To wrap up, this is why I am proud to be back. These are all of the reasons I believe the Speech from the Throne will help the residents of Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member briefly talked about housing. The throne speech actually only mentioned one housing program, the first-time homebuyer incentive. I called it an election gimmick when it was introduced just before the 2019 election. I hope the member would recognize that the program has massively failed.

We are about to undertake the third change to the program's criteria. Last year, in 2020, 550,000 properties changed hands among Canadians, homes that were sold to other people who wanted to purchase the properties. Over 9,000 Canadians have used the FTHBI program. That is 1.6% of the total number of homes that changed hands in 2020. This program has been an election gimmick since the very beginning. It was designed to help 100,000 Canadians. The government has even failed to meet that metric and it has one year left to try to reach the 100,000.

Will the member admit that the program is a failure? Will the Liberals abandon it and actually adopt the Conservative proposals from this past election?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, housing is a huge issue not only in my riding, but in many ridings across the country. I was very proud to be running again with this government on a platform that included many facets of a national housing strategy to help us deal with the issues of affordability. While I think all of us would like to move further and faster, we have a plan in place. We are the first government at the federal level since the 1970s that has worked on housing. With the creation of the housing minister, we are going to deliver on those commitments to Canadians.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment. I would also like to congratulate the member opposite on his re‑election.

When I heard him talk about the labour shortage, I thought he was a Conservative member of Parliament who was sarcastically saying that there sure were nice measures in the Speech from the Throne concerning the labour shortage. I was wrong. He is a Liberal member of the government. I am really intrigued now. What are the good measures to address the labour shortage?

One important development since the election has been the elimination of the Canada recovery benefit, or CRB. I have had companies tell me that since the end of the CRB, they have received five résumés, the first time they have had job applicants in months. Another received 15. This is having an impact on the labour shortage.

What are the concrete measures? I want answers for foreign workers, for seniors, for young retirees who want to return to the labour market without being penalized, and for young people too.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government has a very strong plan. I was not here for the last Parliament when we saw a number of COVID reliefs come in to help Canadians, including businesses, get through a very difficult period. We are now working through the Speech from the Throne and legislation coming out of it, such as Bill C-2 that was introduced earlier this week, to help Canadians continue to thrive and survive, to deal with issues such as labour shortages and get people into the workforce. That is why I am so proud to be part of this government moving forward through COVID relief and doing the work that needs to be done in Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, lacking in the throne speech is any mention of the opioid crisis. Too many in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, family, friends and neighbours, have tragically lost their lives in this opioid crisis. Despite this, we have seen inaction on the part of the government to address this crisis and to save lives. The pandemic has further exacerbated this crisis. Mental health concerns have increased, there is isolation and there is lack of affordable housing, to name a few.

When will the government take this crisis seriously, declare it for what it is, a public health emergency, and prioritize the supports that people need? People's lives depend on it.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, as another British Columbian, I am painfully aware of the devastating effects that the opioid crisis continues to have in British Columbia. We have lost too many individuals as a result of this, which is why I am committed to work with our government, with my colleagues in British Columbia and across the floor to end this opioid crisis. My heart goes out to anyone who has lost a member of their family. I do not think that there are many in B.C. who are untouched by this tragedy.

It is so important that we work together, and our government is committed to deal with the issues of the opioid crisis and try to end it as quickly as possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that they have to stand to be recognized, otherwise I go to whoever is up. In order to be able to speak in the House, members have to stand up, because I do not know who is interested in speaking.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. John's East.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is with a deep sense of pride that I stand for the first time in the House as the newly elected member for St. John's East. I would like to begin by congratulating you on your election, and I will take this opportunity to congratulate all my colleagues. We have a critical job in front of us to serve the people of our diverse ridings all across this incredible country, and I am humbled to work among such committed representatives.

I owe the people of St. John's East a debt of gratitude for placing their trust in me. I am humbled by their support and am committed to delivering results by representing their voices, priorities and concerns.

I thank my campaign team and the many volunteers who worked tirelessly to secure my win. To my family, in particular my husband Pat, my three children Paddy, Conor and Mara, and their loved ones, with all my love I give my thanks.

St. John's East, perched on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, represents a diverse cross-section of what makes Newfoundland and Labrador so unique. It is a thriving urban business hub just 10 minutes from vibrant rural communities, with colourful row houses in the shadows of business towers and a growing tech industry alongside our vast natural resources.

However, I must also note that alongside those who live with socio-economic ease, there are individuals who struggle for the most basic necessities of life. I am an entrepreneur and registered nurse who worked on the front lines of the pandemic, leading a team in the delivery of health, social and housing supports at a street level community health centre. I say with urgency and conviction to my colleagues that never in my lifetime has so much depended on Parliament to deliver results for all Canadians.

The Speech from the Throne for the opening session of this 44th Parliament reflects the pillars that were clearly outlined in our platform. It is with great pride and humility that I provide a response to the Speech from the Throne. I worked on the front lines during the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, and alongside my team, I witnessed the courage, compassion and care that was demonstrated through a shared commitment to a greater good. We ensured support to persons who could not shelter in place or afford food, clothing and other essentials.

To build a healthier today and tomorrow, we must first finish the fight against COVID-19. With omicron as a World Health Organization variant of concern, we must all continue to follow public health guidelines. In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, over 84% of adults are double vaccinated, and on November 25, the first doses were administered to our province's children. Simply put, it was a day that brought a deep sense of relief for many parents. This, alongside a standardized vaccine passport, has assisted in keeping outbreaks contained and positive cases comparatively low.

We know that no one is safe until all are safe, and to this end, Canada will continue to work with all provinces and global partners to ensure fair and equitable access to vaccines. As we finish the fight against COVID-19, grow a more resilient economy and tackle the rising cost of living, we have a plan that includes $10-a-day child care, transitioning to net zero and a robust housing strategy. These are all issues that I heard as key priorities when I was on the doorsteps and on the phone with people in St. John's East.

No family should have to struggle with paying for high-quality child care space versus the cost of food or housing, an issue we know continues to disproportionately impact women. As a mother of three, when we started our family business I felt first-hand the real challenge of child care costs and the impact they have on a family and the availability for work-life expectations.

We can no longer deny the effects of climate change, and as a government we have moved beyond conversations surrounding climate change to real, bold action. One of my sons lives in British Columbia, and like many parents across the country, I watch with sorrow over the devastation, loss and pain of so families.

In my home province, just this past week we witnessed a catastrophic storm on the island's west and southwest coasts. Extreme weather events have become far too common. This underscores the urgency of the transition to net zero. We can and must do this while also supporting workers.

The Liberal Government of Canada's robust housing strategy supports housing needs across a continuum. From homelessness as an entry level through transition and supportive housing, to housing availability and support for first-time homebuyers, we are ensuring there is a real opportunity for more Canadians, especially young Canadians, to become homeowners.

This past Friday, alongside my colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Minister Seamus O'Regan, I proudly attended the opening of the Memorial University of Newfoundland's—