Debates of Jan. 31st, 2022

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler on her very first speech in the House of Commons.

One thing she said really stuck out to me, and that was that we need to work together in the House. Under the Liberal government, the cost of housing in her community in the fourth quarter of last year went up 36.2%.

Is the hon. member willing to work with the Conservatives to reverse some of the negative policies put forward by the government, and the inaction in not addressing the housing supply crisis that we find ourselves in, in Canada today? It is impacting those young mothers who want to go to work, but they do not have a safe place to raise their families anymore because it costs over a million bucks to get a home.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about housing affordability. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has discovered what a wonderful place the Waterloo region is to live. However, our government has done a number of things to address this.

In fact, it was our government that first announced the national housing strategy, a 10-year plan to invest over $72 billion to give more Canadians a place to call home. Launched in 2017, it would create up to 160,000 new homes, meet the housing needs of 530,000 families, and repair and renew more than 300,000 units. We also have the rapid housing initiative. The first round exceeded its initial target of creating up to 3,000 new affordable units. It has actually resulted in the construction of more than 4,700 units across Canada since October 2020.

Expanding on this successful initiative, 10,000 new affordable housing units will be created across the country through the rapid housing initiative, exceeding the initial goal of 7,500 new units. Most of these housing units will be constructed within the next 12-18 months. We are also introducing a new rent-to-own program that will help people who cannot accumulate a down payment or meet the requirements for a mortgage to be able to buy their houses over time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for her maiden speech in the House. We heard her speak at length about when Canada is at its best. We have watched a kind of disproportionate response: the coddling of white nationalists on the footsteps of Parliament juxtaposed with the kind of violence that has been unleashed against indigenous people across these lands fighting for their freedoms.

In these upcoming weeks and months, as we debate these critical issues in the House to ensure true reconciliation, and the reckoning of the thousands of bodies of children who have been recovered at residential schools and the ongoing police violence used against indigenous peoples of these lands, what will the hon. member be doing to move toward the place that she talks about when Canada is at its best?

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern. The residential schools, which we should not refer to as schools because that is not what schools do, are a shame on all of us. I am honoured and privileged to have the Anishnabeg Outreach centre in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler. It has done a lot of work on reconciliation and outreach not only in the indigenous communities, but with all members of the community.

As Stephen Jackson likes to mention, in order to reconcile, we have to heal on both sides. We are hurting too, and we feel shame when we see what has happened. We are all united in making sure that it never happens again. This will not happen overnight. The problem was not created overnight. It will take a lot of work with all sides of the House working together through this painful journey and supporting our indigenous brothers and sisters as they come to terms with it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I am rising in the House since being elected, I want to thank the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for once again placing their trust in me to be their voice in Parliament. I give special thanks to my campaign team for running a successful operation in a riding geographically larger than the entire province of Nova Scotia and with over 200 rural communities. I would also like to thank my family, and in particular my wife Leigh for her unwavering support.

I have been asked by many constituents what the purpose of a throne speech is. I tell them that the throne speech is supposed to be a guiding document that will pave the way for the priorities of the government in the upcoming parliamentary session. In other words, it is the plan. It is supposed to be a clear strategy of how the government will improve the lives of Canadians and will improve this nation.

Once Canadians understand what a throne speech is supposed to be, they may ask themselves: Does this plan help me? Does it empower me to make a living and provide for my children? They may ask themselves if the throne speech will enable their parents to live out their golden years as planned or if the plan will unite the country. However, if they had read this throne speech, they would be asking themselves where that plan was.

If the Prime Minister spoke to Canadians across the country today and asked whether life was getting better for them, he would hear the majority say that life was not getting easier. In a recent poll by Angus Reid, 57% of Canadians described feeding their family as “difficult”, and only 8% of Canadians expected to be better off financially at this time next year. It is clear that life is not getting easier under the Liberal government, and life is certainly not getting easier for rural Canadians.

Life may be getting easier for some. For example, life may be getting easier if one is a well-connected Liberal insider or a friend of the Prime Minister. Of course, with this pandemic, we have seen government kickbacks to insiders and billions of dollars more paid to consultants, but the people I represent are not these people. I represent hard-working, everyday Canadians who are slow to anger and do not ask for much. They are Canadians who believe in hard work, Canadians who want to give back to their community and support one another, and Canadians who believe in personal responsibility. I read the throne speech, and I did not see a plan for them.

What is the plan for seniors? Many of the people I represent are seniors. They have worked hard their entire lives to help build the country that we know today, but seniors in this country feel left behind, and I understand why. As a matter of fact, the word “seniors” was only mentioned once in the entire throne speech. Our aging population is only growing and many seniors depend on fixed incomes to get by, but when the costs of everyday essentials such as home heating, groceries and gas are rising at record rates, fixed incomes are stretched to their limits. A senior wrote to me the other day. He stated, “Food prices are out of my pay grade”. How can we as a country allow food to reach prices that are unaffordable? Who are we, as a nation, if we neglect the hard-working individuals who contributed so much to make the nation what it is today?

Despite promising not to, this Liberal government will make life even more unaffordable for our seniors by raising the carbon tax again. In a few months, the Liberals will increase the carbon tax for the third time during this pandemic. The prices of propane and natural gas will continue to rise and, as a result, energy poverty will continue to make heating one's home even more unaffordable. If the fixed incomes that our seniors depend on do not grow quickly enough to keep up with inflation, the value of their paycheques becomes worth less and less. It was just last year when our members of the House supported our seniors by voting to increase the old age security benefit. Guess what? The Liberals voted against it.

I ask the House what the government's plan is for our seniors, because I do not see one. The narrative given in the throne speech was far different from the reality of what is happening across the nation. We hear language from the government all the time, whether it is “sunny ways” or “we have your back”. However, rarely do we ever see those words turn into action. Words do not solve the problems of Canadians: action does.

I found it interesting that in the throne speech the following statement was made:

As we move forward on the economy of the future, no worker or region will be left behind.

That is right, that is laughable. I will read that statement again because many Canadians will find it very surprising: “no worker or region will be left behind.” I encourage the Prime Minister to ask western Canada if it has been left behind, and to ask the Prairies if they feel they were left behind. I would encourage him to ask all rural Canadians if they have been left behind. I can assure him that they do feel left behind, and they have felt this way for far too long.

How can the government say that no worker will be left behind when so many workers have felt neglected since the government took office? For the last six years, there has not been a plan for the Canadian energy worker, there has not been a plan for the Canadian farmer, there has not been a plan for the Canadian fisherman and there has not been a plan for the small business owner. If there has not been a plan for the last six years for the regions and workers who I believe are the engine of our country, why should they believe that a plan exists now?

Canadians were also looking for a plan to get our country back on track. They were looking for details on when life would return to normal. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has normalized lockdowns as the solution to our problems. The Ottawa-knows-best approach can no longer be the path forward. We need to re-evaluate what is working and what is not.

Just last week, two of my constituents travelled to the U.S. They are both triple vaccinated and both received negative PCR tests before returning to Canada. However, they were still required to take an at-home test and mail it to the city to get another set of results. As many rural Canadians know, not all courier services operate in rural areas of this country, so as instructed the couple drove to the closest shipping location to their farm to send away their tests. Hours later, to their surprise, an individual from the testing company Ottawa is funding to administer the program showed up to pick up their tests. The designated driver drove over five hours from Winnipeg to pick up tests that were supposed to be sent by mail, and drove back another five hours without the tests. This couple is waiting longer than ever to confirm that they can go back to living their lives normally, despite following all the rules and instructions. Canadians are frustrated, and rightfully so.

In conclusion, I think it has become clear that there is no plan. This throne speech does not address the inflation that has fuelled the affordability crisis sweeping across our nation. It does not have a plan to support our seniors who are struggling to make a living on their fixed incomes. This throne speech also has no evidence that the government is going to take rural Canada seriously, and it certainly does not put forth any details of how it is going to make life better for everyday Canadians.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from friendly Manitoba and I have a very common interest on the issue of water, which we talked about extensively on the plane last night. However, I want to challenge the member. He talks about his support for seniors and families, but what the hon. member said did not really square with reality. The member's party voted against reducing the age of eligibility for the CPP, it voted against the Canada child benefit, it voted against an increase for the guaranteed income supplement and also against a middle-class tax cut.

I am wondering this: How does the hon. member square the rhetoric that we have heard today with the actual record of the Conservative Party?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, as far as squaring it off, I do not know how the government justifies charging a carbon tax to seniors on fixed incomes to heat their homes. How can it go up by 100%? The term “energy poverty” was used in the speech. I think he should take that pretty seriously, in my opinion.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I found several parts of his speech very interesting, particularly those relating to rural life, the cost of living and especially seniors.

I would like to know what he thinks we should do. He mentioned the carbon tax, but I do not think that is the way to go. Would it not be simpler to immediately increase old age pensions starting at the age of 65, without discriminating and without creating two classes of seniors?

We have been demanding this for months, but the government is not budging. I am reaching out to my Conservative friends so that we can lead the fight for this. Does my colleague agree?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, affordability is what this all comes down to for anybody with a fixed income or a moderate income. As soon as inflation hits people who are trying to make ends meet, life becomes more unaffordable. That hurts everybody. People had plans, decades ago, about how they were going to make a living while they were seniors. It has all gone to shambles because of the Liberals' poor policies on addressing their needs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud to be here representing the tremendous people of North Island—Powell River.

I am curious if the member could talk to the House about the fact that so many working seniors who lost their jobs because of the pandemic and applied for the only support that was available, just as every other working Canadian did, lost their guaranteed income supplement as a result. We have seniors who are losing their homes. We have seniors who cannot afford to pay for medication or food.

I wonder this: Will the member join my call to have this payment given to seniors across the country today?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have also heard heart-wrenching stories of people having government payments removed. Actually, they are phoning them, saying they owe some money.

I look forward to working together with the member in having seniors and their needs addressed.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and to speak on behalf of the people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I thank my wife Cassandra, our two beautiful daughters who are watching today, and my family for its love and support.

One person who was unable to see me elected was my grandmother. She was instrumental in inspiring me in not only my service as an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force, but also my service as a city councillor, as a mayor of the City of Moose Jaw and now as a member of Parliament.

I am the son of Scottish immigrants who came to Canada to make a better life for themselves and their family. My parents experienced challenges and turmoil with the loss of an infant. It affected their emotional and mental health. As a result, I grew up in a single-parent home where my mother struggled to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table, and suffered from bouts of depression.

Growing up below the poverty line for the greater part of my early childhood and early teenage years, I know what it is like to receive a handout. I know what it is like to see nothing under the Christmas tree. Despite what was or was not under the tree, I was always loved. I spoke of my grandmother helping to shape my future by telling me stories of the past. As a young child I would spend my Saturdays with her hearing about my Scottish heritage, my family overseas and the difficulties of enduring the Second World War. She was the greatest storyteller I have ever known. One story had a profound impact on me. It is a constant reminder to me to honour the past and of the responsibility we have to the next generation.

My grandmother had to evacuate from the city of Glasgow. She had all of her belongings in one suitcase and the most precious thing in her other hand: my mother. As she waded through the waves of airmen, seamen and soldiers in the train station in Glasgow, an Australian officer came along and escorted her onto the train. As he placed her on the train, he looked at two British soldiers and said to them that if the air raid siren went off, he wanted them to help this woman and her child to the air raid shelter. Not 30 seconds went by and that terrifying sound went off, and those two British soldiers bolted. As my grandmother struggled and my mother started crying, that Australian officer came back and escorted my grandmother to the air raid shelter. They waited out the bombing, and afterward the train was cancelled, so that Australian officer escorted my grandmother and my mother to my great-aunt and great-uncle's tiny flat in Glasgow. They invited him in for tea and shared rations. As he looked around at the size of that flat, he looked at my grandmother and asked if this was what her man was fighting for. I can tell members that it was not what my grandfather was fighting for, it was who and it was for a way of life.

This son of Scottish immigrants believes in a better future and opportunity for all Canadians. We are here today debating the throne speech. I want to focus on issues not included in the speech. They are issues important to my riding, such as energy, agriculture, infrastructure spending and honouring our elders.

Energy is an important industry in Saskatchewan and it is uniquely positioned to help Canadians recover from the pandemic, yet all the government can talk about is killing ethical energy produced in Canada along with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians. Another livelihood under attack is agriculture. Agriculture is among the largest industries in Saskatchewan. In my riding it is the largest single employer. It is also a sector largely ignored by the Liberals and left out of the throne speech.

A study conducted by the University of Regina says Saskatchewan has experienced a history of drought, including the years 1910, 1914, 1917 to 1921, 1924, 1929, 1931 to 1939, 1958 to 1963, 1967 to 1969, 1974, 1977, 1979 to 1981, 1983 to 1986, 1988 to 1992, 2001 to 2003, 2009 and now 2021.

Policy should be there to help us, not punish us. A carbon tax has not solved, and will not solve, the problems farmers are facing today. The solution to their challenge is obvious to them, but not to the Liberal government: It is irrigation.

Completing the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project would create jobs, save livelihoods and generate a financial return. There is a difference between investing in infrastructure projects important to communities that are part of our economic engine and wasting money on projects that are dictated by the Liberal government without consultation. After a year of drought and plummeting income, agriculture does not even warrant a mention from the Liberal government. No one should be surprised by this omission.

Let us take a moment to talk about useful and necessary infrastructure projects for local communities. As mayor, I witnessed first-hand how useless the federal government's infrastructure plans for communities have been. Moose Jaw is in the middle of a 20-year project to replace cast iron water mains, which will cost local taxpayers over $120 million. Water is essential to the livelihood of a community. Instead of listening to what the city needed, the Liberals tried to give the city, with a population of 35,000, $15 million for a green transit system. The transit system is already underused and does not meet the community's needs. Moose Jaw needed its 100-year-old cast iron water mains replaced. The current government forgets that water is essential, whether it is drinking water for cities or first nations or irrigation to combat droughts.

The international coalition to combat climate change is actually an international coalition for justifying inflation, creating global instability and not actually lowering emissions. The Liberal government is selling us out to other nations that do not have our best interests at heart. What is needed is alignment and collaboration with municipalities and provinces that know where their infrastructure dollars need to be spent. Local solutions are needed for local problems.

During my five-year tenure as mayor, we brought in over one billion dollars' worth of investment, creating jobs and prosperity for the community, and we tackled essential infrastructure. That is what is really needed.

The Liberal government has lost its way. It has stopped listening to the people who matter and started putting itself first. People feel it is giving up on the next generation, leaving it with more debt and more problems to solve.

My parents came here to make better lives for themselves and the next generation. However, seniors today are having that dream taken away from them. They are being asked to sacrifice more and leave less behind. Because of inflation, the equity people have built up in their homes or farms is under attack. Their legacy is being taken away from them.

Every generation must be responsible for the time it has been given. This generation is faced with making life better for the next generation. Voters have entrusted me with a gift. My commitment is that I will be an advocate for my constituents who are being left behind by the current government and this throne speech.

Ethical energy workers need to be rewarded for complying with surpassing new federal standards. Agriculture producers deserve recognition for what they contribute. Communities deserve a say in how infrastructure dollars are spent. Veterans and seniors deserve more. The stories of our past play an important role in shaping our future. We owe it to the generations that have gone before us to do better for the generations that follow us. We can do much better.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks in the House today, certainly regarding his Scottish lineage and a lot of his family background.

He mentioned agriculture. As a member who sits on the agriculture committee, I want to inform him of some of the investments the government has made. Perhaps he can take those back to his constituents and provide a clearer picture of what the government has done.

With respect to business risk management, it was the Harper Conservatives who cut this program under the leadership of the then Minister of Agriculture. We have actually installed and increased those programs.

Let us talk about supports during the drought that happened in western Canada. We worked with prairie governments to establish programs to help support farmers across the prairie provinces. As it relates to irrigation, we have been there helping to support projects.

Although the member may not agree and concord with the government on every aspect, he needs to be fair and honest with his constituents that the government has been there to support projects not only in my area or my riding but indeed across the country, including in his home province of Saskatchewan.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I really do like the member's tie. It does sit well with the Scottish heritage that I have. I appreciate that.

The province of Saskatchewan relies on agriculture. It is our main source of income. We have felt left out and unheard when we have tried to speak with the government in power. If there is a bridge that could be built, then I look forward to doing that. My first and foremost job here is to advocate for the people who elected me.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his first speech in the House. I could go on about the Scottish heritage. I just hope the member likes my tie as well.

I come from a riding that depends on agriculture. I grew up on a small orchard in the South Okanagan Valley. It depends on irrigation above all, so I hear concerns about that. I hear his concerns about municipalities and the difficulty that Canadian municipalities have in funding some of these projects that are necessary.

While I would probably completely disagree with the member on the mitigation of climate change and how essential that work is, I would hope to find agreement with the funding of adaptation. Irrigation is probably an important part of that in our ridings. I have had some trouble getting irrigation money from the federal government.

I am wondering. Would the member support a new funding program, especially for climate-related disasters, that would let smaller communities off the hook when it comes to the 20% funding requirement for those projects?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will give the member third-best tie. I have to put myself in second.

It is very interesting. It is something I have been advocating for in my area. The city of Moose Jaw is 20 kilometres away from its water source. Farmers rely on water, obviously, for growing crops. This is a challenge in my region. I am not surprised that it would be a challenge in other regions across this country. I am open to suggestions and would be willing to have a conversation with the member later on, sharing the stories of how I have been advocating in our region for a water source within the community, not only for potable drinking water but also for agriculture.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, who talked about all the things on which the Speech from the Throne is silent. There are silences in several sections of the throne speech. There are some repetitions, but there are also silences. I am concerned about the latter, particularly as regards agriculture.

Speaking for my riding, I would say that the throne speech is silent on the French language. It talks about bilingualism, but it does not mention the French language. I suggest to my colleague that we combine our silences so that we can speak out more strongly in response to the throne speech.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I spent a number of years in la belle province when I served in the military. Yes, there is a lot of silence. Our job is to speak up and address those silences that have come with the throne speech.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The member opposite who was just providing remarks certainly talked about the importance of irrigation in agriculture. I have before me a Government of Canada document that relates to the investment of $1.5 billion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. That is a part of debate. If the member wants to move a motion, that would be different. I could maybe entertain that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

It is a pleasure for me to address the House in relation to the throne speech. However, I will confess that it was not a pleasure to read it, because it contained almost nothing.

My introduction will be fairly brief because I have a lot to say. I have plenty of content, and the Bloc has plenty of proposals. The throne speech may be vague, rambling and meagre, despite the fact that it took over 60 days to write it, which really boggles the mind, but the Bloc Québécois has things to propose. We are humbly putting those proposals on the table.

The throne speech encroaches on many areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, including housing. Some of the measures in the throne speech may be worthwhile, but the government needs to be careful when it comes to jurisdiction. It talks about fighting inflation and creating a child care program. I congratulate the government for transferring funds unconditionally to Quebec. That is commendable.

However, there is still work to be done elsewhere. If the government really wants to fight inflation to help those most in need and those bearing the brunt, I have one little word to say. I said it earlier when asking a question: “seniors”.

People over the age of 65 who no longer work, who are receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, need a decent increase to their income, not an insult to their intelligence and integrity. If the government is going to give an increase of $1.25 a month, it might as well not give one at all.

I am having a hard time with this. Other members spoke about this issue earlier and kept remarkably calm. I tip my hat to them, because the more time goes on, the more I struggle to keep calm when I am talking about seniors. This situation is revolting and needs to be fixed as soon as possible. The majority of members in the House would support this increase. I will therefore ask the government to make a formal commitment to this.

Other intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction include police reform, mental health, natural resource management, and the prevention of violence against women. We all agree on these general principles. I do not want anyone to think that we disagree with the actions. When it comes to Quebec's jurisdiction, however, the role of the federal government, which collects half the income tax but does not assume half the responsibilities, is to sign a cheque and send it to the person responsible for managing it. It is essential not to add any more layers. That is fundamental.

Rather than meddling in areas where it does not belong, I suggest that the federal government provide adequate transfer payments, in particular in health care. I will come back to that later. I also suggest that it look after its own affairs. I believe my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia will also talk about this.

With respect to gun control, for example, we are not just talking about domestic regulation, but about increasing and improving border controls. What is happening in our cities in Quebec is awful. It is a national emergency that must be addressed immediately. Managing international borders actually is the federal government's jurisdiction, so let us co-operate on this issue.

There are a lot of things missing from the throne speech. It is a vague document that does not say much. It says nothing about health transfers. I mentioned this earlier. All of the provinces and Quebec are unanimous. This is not a matter of separatists wanting to pick a fight. I do not want to hear anyone say that to me later. Please, let us elevate the debate. All of the provinces and Quebec are asking for an increase in health transfers and for the government to pay its fair share of the costs. Let it do this unconditionally, please.

We are talking about the energy transition and green financing. Let us take concrete action.

Let us also talk about the need for employment insurance reform, which was missing from the throne speech. Right now, there is someone who has to wait 12 weeks because a public official thinks that there may be fraud involved. The person waiting is a father or mother who is not getting any cheques, who cannot pay rent, who has trouble getting groceries and who has to wait 12 weeks because an official thinks that someone may have committed fraud.

We need to pay these people. It is okay if the investigation takes three years, public officials can eventually get the money back, but in the meantime people need support. Employment insurance is not something people should have to beg for; it is not a privilege, it is an insurance plan that workers contribute to.

I am getting angry because these are frustrating situations. I am thinking about people with a severe illness. It is terrible. Why not increase the period of benefits to 50 weeks?

I have already talked about seniors. Obviously, when I rise, my colleagues think that I am going to talk about agriculture and agri-food. What is there in the throne speech about that? Absolutely nothing. I would like my Liberal colleague to enlighten me about that, because I do not understand it. Is it because they do not have any ideas? Is it because they have no vision?

I certainly have a vision. I am not being pretentious, because my vision was developed through teamwork. It is not the vision of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, but rather the Bloc Québécois’s policy: We have a vision of the future and concrete proposals to make.

What I would like to hear in a throne speech is the government’s vision. After that, we could work with the Conservatives’ and the NDP’s visions for the future of farming, and we could sit down together, as we manage to do in the standing committee on agriculture and agri-food. We could work together to find something feasible. Instead, after a 60-day wait, we have been given a document with nothing in it. I tossed my paper but that is okay, because there was really nothing of substance written on it. That was my summary of the throne speech. It boggles the mind.

As usual, my time is swiftly running out. I will therefore address three topics. Food sovereignty is a priority. Everyone is talking about it, everyone is making speeches with tears in their eyes, and so on. However, we need to act; we need to promote buying local.

Earlier when I rose, I removed my mask, which was made by the Prémont company in Louiseville. It is a Humask brand mask, made locally in Quebec. Before the holidays, my party was forced to move a motion in the House calling for the masks that are provided at the door in Parliament not to be made in China. I will refrain from saying the word that springs to mind as I think back on that ludicrous episode.

Let us talk about food sovereignty. We have to protect our people and keep our promises. I talked about the empty throne speech, but fortunately, there were a few lines on this subject in the mandate letters of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. That reassures me, and we will work on that with my Liberal friends.

Our goal is to support people under supply management who were sacrificed in CUSMA and pay them the compensation they were promised. These people expect this to happen immediately. Supply management must not be compromised any further. We know the solution to this problem. We know what to do. We will reintroduce a bill on this and ask once again for the government's support, which I greatly appreciated in the last Parliament. These are things we can do.

The second point I want to make about agriculture and agri-food is the environmental partnership. A Conservative member brought up this topic earlier. We must support the people who work the land and who are actively working to protect the environment. We must provide financial support, for what it is worth, in the form of a sort of “agri-investment”. We should give these people the money they need to invest in their own businesses.

The third point I want to make has to do with the reciprocity of standards. International trade is here to stay, but the government could show some basic respect to producers and subject imported goods to the same standards as goods produced here. The government will have to allocate resources at the border and conduct inspections. Let us respect Canadian producers and take real action. We are here and willing to work together. The door is wide open.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue in terms of both the environment and the masks.

When I think of the environment, whether it is our farmers or consumers, Canadians as a whole have an interest and want to do something, and all contribute in some way or another to a healthier environment. We need to do what we can to encourage that. Quite often, it is the other way around, where we are encouraged, all parliamentarians at different levels of government, to do more for the environment, so I applaud those Canadians for reaching out.

In regard to the masks, and this is what my question is based on, it is important to recognize that prepandemic, the number of masks that were being manufactured in Canada was negligible. Today, there is a healthy PPE industry that will survive, not only in the weeks ahead but in the months and years ahead, because of many initiatives that this government has brought forward. I wonder if the member can provide some comment on how important it is that we keep some of those industries.

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

Madam Speaker, of course it is important to keep these industries. The fact that we were manufacturing fewer masks locally before the pandemic is one of the lessons to be learned.

That is why I am talking about food sovereignty. I am not talking about stopping international trade, but we must have a minimum of local production.

As for the masks that were handed out to us at the doors of Parliament at the start of the session last November and December, I am very sorry for my colleague, but there is no excuse for the fact that they were not locally made. I am still not over it. We had to get a motion passed about it.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for the good questions he asked this morning about the crisis taking place in my riding, in British Columbia.

I agree with him today that there was not much in the throne speech about the housing crisis across Canada.

Can the hon. member give us some ideas for improving the situation of young Canadians with regard to the housing crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. I am happy to hear that he appreciated my comments this morning. This shows that we can work constructively.

I commend him on his excellent French. He made a tremendous effort to ask his question in French.

From what I understand, my colleague wants us to talk about housing, which is, indeed, an important issue. I think that the idea of taxing foreigners has potential. However, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government needs to be careful with such taxes because there is a potential overlap with Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. I am not saying that we should do nothing, but the government must work with the level of government responsible for the issue even if that means transferring the funds.