Debates of April 20th, 2016

Second reading

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has 35 seconds.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 35 seconds is only long enough to speak out against what is happening.

My colleague is quite right to describe that scenario. It is absolutely pathetic, and it is important to remember how bad everyone felt for the Aveos workers. Those people and those faces were there when it was convenient for the Liberals to look at them, to say how scary it was. We saw the Prime Minister demonstrating with a sign that read “So-so-so-solidarity”.

What are the Liberals doing now? They are abandoning those workers, so they can move on to the next thing. That is just great, thanks. What a fine commitment to the people of my region.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor West. I want to remind the hon. member that we will be breaking after about seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate that is taking place in the House is an important one for all Canadians. This industry is shaped and moulded across this country and it has been contributed to by a lot of incentives from taxpayers. It is also one that is part of the value-added chain of manufacturing which many of the things we do in this chamber, in committees, and so forth try to esteem to. We try to work toward value-added jobs.

I remember being on a committee where the Conservatives refused to allow a motion to go forward because of the term “value-added”. Now they have been replaced by a government that not only does not like the term “value-added”, but is working against that proactively. That is the truth of the matter. This is not just about Winnipeg, Toronto, and the region just outside of Montreal, Quebec, in particular.

There are many colleges and universities right now that have worked at transitioning. Look at the auto industry. Diversification has included the mould-making and tool-and-dye organizations in recovery, apart from our aerospace industry. They are value-added jobs where people can go to school, get an education, and at least have a hope of paying for their education. That is a simple Canadian dream that is slipping through our fingers every single day, and the Liberals are complicit in the effort to ensure that the working class diminishes in this country.

Why is it so vivid and so offensive with regard to this? This legislation that we are dealing with just had closure put on it. I remember when the Liberals sat on this side and they complained and grumbled about closure, but then they got over there to that side and it did not take long. It was really swift. This is about an issue that is so important for workers and their families and for young people who want to live the Canadian dream. That dream is to be able to go to school, get an education, and find a place of employment so they can—

[Adam Vaughan]

Bet on sports.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker. I just got a critical comment from across the way from the Liberals about betting on sports.

Let us talk about betting on sports, as we did last night, a bill which the Liberals are against. They put up a member who supported that bill, but spoke against it. By the way, the previous Liberal comment from the member for indignation, I think, complained to this House about the provinces not being listened to, and that we have a role. By the way, my bill that would actually take away money from organized crime and put it into health care, education, infrastructure, and training is supported by the provinces. Surprise, surprise.

With no heckling and no catcalls, I would like to have that debate at any point in time. I am willing to do it in this chamber or outside this chamber. I am happy to do that because the jobs that I was talking about before I was interrupted actually count for something that is so important. Again, people can pay off their debt. They can have a family. I was one of those Canadians who felt insecure about their income. I worked for a not-for-profit agency for persons with disabilities. My wife and I held off having children until we paid off our student debt. We delayed having a family for that. These jobs also have pensions. I would like somebody to google the debates of the House of Commons to see how many times pensions have come up. These are private pensions that other taxpayers in Canada do not have to pay for because that is the value-added agreement that those workers achieved with their unions in the collective bargaining process. That gives them pensions in the future so they can continue to contribute to the Canadian economy and open more doors for Canadians.

We also have the mere fact, as I touched on briefly before, that this is actually retroactive legislation. That is so offensive. This would go back in time to cover conditions that were allowed in the previous guarantees of the bargaining agreement.

I guess the next will be if a Liberal gets a speeding ticket, a law will be passed that states that as of last week, it is no longer a speeding ticket. That is the type of thing the Liberals are doing right now. They are undermining a collective bargaining process. That also sends a message to the world. It tells investors about instability. Investors coming into Canada want that stability. It is not about a corporate tax cut. It is about knowing the rules and investing capital in our country. They expect those rules and they follow through with them. Now their competitors will notice a retroactive sweetheart deal because the Liberals happen to be buddying up to their old friends, pals and fundraisers to make something happen that should not happen.

It would be great if we all could make decisions retroactively, for example, if I found out my car was being sold for $2,000 cheaper somewhere else, I could tear up that contract and buy the other car, or if I signed a mortgage deal and at a later date I found a lower rate so I tore up my original mortgage to get the lower rate. We are talking about allowing people to go back and get the lower rate. It does not work that way for hard-working men and women.

We used to have a donkey, a carrot and a stick approach. We have decided to feed the stick to the donkey and keep the carrot. Then when it goes through its system, it leaves something behind that is not good for anybody.

“That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“(e) is being rushed through Parliament under time allocation after little debate and insufficient scrutiny.””

This has been seconded by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby who has also worked on this file and others related to aerospace, which are very clear and true to our part.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The subamendment is in order.

It being 5:55 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of motion, amendment, and amendment to the amendment to House]

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #42

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #43

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?