Debates of May 19th, 2016

Commissioner of Official Languages

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour, pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, covering the period from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I have the honour this morning to table, in both official languages, the 2014-15 annual report of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Declaration of Health Emergency by First Nations Communities in Northern Ontario”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Income Tax Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation).

Mr. Speaker, my bill would end a blatantly unfair situation that puts business people, farmers, and fishing vessel operators at a disadvantage when they want to pass their business on to a child rather than a stranger. The difference is a big one. For a million-dollar business, the difference can be around $200,000 from a taxation perspective. For a $10-million farm, we are talking $2.2 million less if the owner sells it to a stranger rather than a family member. We have to do something about this. This bill is well thought out to avert any possibility of tax avoidance arising from these amendments. I hope that the members of the House will support my bill at second reading. I am pleased to introduce this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (business transfer).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to introduce a bill seconded by my colleague from Manicouagan. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to business transfers. As we all know, the population in Canada and Quebec is aging. As a result, there are certain needs regarding the transfer of businesses that are becoming increasingly urgent and important. Unfortunately, under the existing rules, there is a certain tax unfairness that makes it disadvantageous in some cases for people to transfer a business to their children or other family members. The purpose of this bill is to amend the act, specifically section 84(1), to include the children and grandchildren of shareholders, so that they are not put at a disadvantage when family businesses are transferred.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the Journals and the Debates for Wednesday, May 18, 2016, be revised to add the name of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to the list of nays in division no. 63.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Freedom of Speech

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first is signed by 753 residents in my area and the surrounding area. They point out that Canadians are deeply affected by the fate of Mary Wagner, a prisoner of conscience, detained for the belief that unborn children have the right to be born and live, and merely for speaking and praying for that intention.

They are asking Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the detention before trial for custodial sentencing of anyone accused solely of a non-violent offence, and consisting of the presence of the words of the accused occurring in the course of the free exercise of speech, by the accused, or the free exercise of conscience by the accused.

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is again from a number of residents in my area. They are calling on the Government of Canada to draft legislation that would include adequate safeguards for vulnerable Canadians, especially those with mental health challenges, have clear conscience protection for health care workers and institutions, and protect children and those under 18 from physician-assisted suicide.

Democratic Reform

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present petition e-48. This was one of the electronic petitions following the introduction of this new petitioning format. There are 14,237 Canadians who signed this petition. It was, at the time of its completion, the largest ever electronic petition under our new system, indicating a wave of support for the proposal made.

The proposal is that there should be no change to the electoral system without a referendum. The petitioners point out that in the case of British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions, it has always been the case, and a tradition in our system, to ensure that no change to this fundamental way that we elect members and conduct our democracy happen without the approval of the people in a referendum.

This is a very strong message from Canadians. I urge the Prime Minister to take heed of this message from Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I need to remind members that presenting petitions is not the time to engage in debate but to simply give a synopsis of what the petition is about.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Palliative Care

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House signed by many residents of Vancouver, with thanks to my hon. colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, calling for the House to proceed with a national strategy on palliative care.

It notes that the House of Commons, in the last Parliament, unanimously passed a motion calling on the House to create such a strategy. It also notes that in the recent Carter decision, the issue of physician-assisted dying cannot be separated from the need to create a world-class global palliative care system for all Canadians, and it calls on the House to get to work on that immediately.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I would like to make a few comments about the air Egypt disaster. Our hearts obviously go out to all of the victims. We do understand from the news that there may have been a Canadian onboard. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

I rise today in response to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague, the member for York—Simcoe in relation to the Prime Minister's behaviour last night.

Let me begin by saying that it is troubling that we are having this debate. What happened last night was very unsettling for everyone in this chamber. It is troubling, but it is our duty to have this debate if we take seriously our obligations to uphold the respect for one another required in this House to do our jobs.

The Prime Minister's behaviour in the chamber last night was a violation of that respect. His behaviour was unbecoming of the leader who has the privilege, and let us never forget it is a privilege, bestowed on him by the people of Canada, to sit as Prime Minister in this place, just like every one of us has the privilege to sit in this place.

In the nearly 12 years I have been here, I have never seen such disrespectful behaviour.

We started this Parliament with a promise of sunny ways, but what we have seen, in particular in the last few weeks, is the furthest thing from that.

It would be instructive to recap some of the events that brought us to this point. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since you cast the breaking tie, the government came very close to losing a vote on a piece of its own legislation earlier this week. Now on a Monday at 12:30 p.m., most Canadians are at work and so were the rest of us, but many Liberals were not. That may have been embarrassing for the government, but the government's arrogance and dismissiveness toward the work of this House nearly caught up to them at that moment.

Instead of learning a lesson from that, the government and the Prime Minister have actually now doubled down. Out of spite, and spite is pretty much the only explanation that I can find, the Liberals put a motion forward in this House that would, as my colleagues in the NDP aptly stated, put a “straitjacket” on Parliament, or as my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, is an attempt to “unilaterally [disarm] the opposition”.

We had already witnessed the government's move to cut off debate on other occasions in this Parliament, but this motion goes much further. It is as if the Liberals sat at the table with one another and asked themselves, what are all the tools that the opposition has to slow down our agenda, and how can we get rid of them?

It is as if the Prime Minister and his Liberals did not want a government and an opposition; they just wanted a government and an audience.

That lead us to last night's events. Let us not forget why we were in this chamber to vote last night. We were here to vote on how much longer we, as members of Parliament, would be allowed to speak on the government's assisted suicide bill. On a fundamental matter of conscience for millions of Canadians, including all of us in this chamber, the government had moved, once again, to shut down debate.

That, in itself, was unprecedented. On the opposition side, we were here to vote, and we knew would certainly lose the right to speak up any further for our constituents on this bill.

However, the vote was just not moving along fast enough for the Prime Minister. Why should he be expected to wait patiently in his seat like the rest of us for a vote to begin? I watched him. He had just entered the chamber a few seconds after I did. He was not here for very long when he strode across the aisle.

I watched him as he grabbed the official opposition whip, my good friend, by the arm. I also watched him as he yelled something so out of line that I will not repeat it in the House.

I watched him as he bumped into the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who was clearly shocked by his behaviour and left the House, unable to vote on behalf of her constituents.

He was out of line. He had no business on this side of the House. He had no business anywhere but in his own seat.

Everything he did from the moment he rose from his seat was unnecessary and it was unsettling. It flies in the face of any of the promises that the Prime Minister made about decorum in the House. It was nothing less than an affront to every member of the House.

Let us just imagine for a second that other Canadians experienced something like their own workplace, that they were about to sit down for a meeting, but it was running a little late. So the boss stormed into the room, swore at people, and then grabbed another colleague and pull them over to the table by the arm forcefully. What would happen? I think we all know what would happen.

From the beginning, from the very first day, in fact, we have all had the sneaking suspicion that the Prime Minister thinks that the opposition is a bit of an inconvenience, or perhaps an annoyance and in the way of his plans. I would like him to re-evaluate that view because I and we, just like him, were elected to be here.

The House belongs to the people, not us, not me, and not him.

The behaviour that we have seen displayed over the last few months, whether it is the eye rolls, or the mocking of some of our members, or the sticking out of the tongue or what happened last night, it is unbecoming. It is unbecoming of all members, but obviously unbecoming of a Prime Minister. His actions last night and behaviour are worthy of the strongest condemnation of the House.

However, beyond that, only six months into its existence, the entire government's approach to this place and its members need a serious re-evaluation.

I implore the Prime Minister to now take a step back and work with all members of the House to ensure that our privileges are respected, that our voices are heard, and that our votes are counted.

Nothing can change what he did last night, the offence he caused all members, and indeed all Canadians. How he chooses to conduct himself from this point forward will determine the result of this Parliament.

What happened last night is not for us to fix, it is for him to fix, and he can do that. I have no doubt that we will see another apology, but those words have to be backed by action, action that demonstrates there has been a lesson learned.

It would be a good time to let members speak on the very few pieces of legislation that the government has, without the threat of closure over their heads.

It would be a good time for the Liberals to withdraw their extreme and aggressive motion to strip the opposition of any tools to hold the government to account.

More important, it would be a good time to show some respect for the democratic voice of Canadians when it comes to changing the way we vote in our country.

I know the government has repeatedly dismissed the idea of a referendum, using the absurd reason that a referendum somehow does not include every Canadian.

It is insulting. When the Prime Minister shows arrogance or dismissiveness or the disrespect that he showed us last night, there should be no surprise when the government follows.

This is an opportunity for the government to reverse course.

It is time to put an end to this dismissive, arrogant, and disrespectful attitude toward members, right here and right now.

The Prime Minister has two options. He can continue on his current path of an unprecedented, unilateral takeover of the House, to which I can assure him we will not be intimidated into submission or silence, or he can work with us. He can work with the House to ensure that we take the appropriate time to study and debate what comes before us by respecting the important role that the opposition plays in our parliamentary democracy rather than brushing us off as an inconvenience to his agenda.

It is our sincere hope that he chooses the second option and restores the dignity and humility to the office that he holds.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There will now be a 10-minute period of questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what I saw yesterday was a Prime Minister who acted like a bully and elbowed his way around. I was shocked.

What I am hearing the Leader of the Opposition say, and I tend to agree, is that there is a parallel between the physical altercation that occurred here in front of me last night and what we are witnessing these days in the House: a government that acts like a bully and elbows its way around. It moves motions in the House that violate the rights of all opposition members and give all the rights to the government members. What is more, it imposes closure at every turn.

Does the Prime Minister's attitude reflect that of the Liberal Party these days? I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I would like her to confirm that.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's words, but I what I want to say, most clearly, is this is not a problem for us to fix. It is a problem for the Prime Minister to fix. His behaviour was unbecoming of the office of Prime Minister. It was unsettling for all of us.

At the end of the day, he is a member of Parliament, like every one of us in the House. We all came here elected by our constituents to do our job. Some of us returned as opposition and some of us returned as government. I have been on that side and I have been on this side. I take my job equally as seriously, and so does everyone on this side. We ask the Prime Minister to respect the office we hold, just like we respect the office he holds.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know in what world people think, even when they are angry or when they are emotional, that they can go and physically touch somebody. That is something we all recognize is just an absolute no. A school teacher cannot do it. Nobody in a workplace can do it. It is just an absolute no. We might able to walk over to someone and speak to the person directly, but to physically touch the individual is so unbelievable to have seen it, and to have seen the Prime Minister do it.

I wonder if my colleague would talk about that. She talked about it being very unsettling. As we all think about it, it is concerning because if that is the reaction of the Prime Minister when he gets angry, and when he gets angry in this public place where cameras are on and where he is held to the highest account, what kind of signal does that send to not only to everyone in here, but to Canadians who are watching?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it sends not a positive signal, obviously. Interestingly, speaking with some people outside of the House as I was on my way in this morning, some of them said, “Oh, things got raucous. Things got heated. All of these things happen.” Actually, they do not happen. They have never happened before. They do not happen here, and they should not happen here. They should not happen in any workplace.

That is why we all take this seriously, and that is why I know you are taking this seriously, Mr. Speaker, and we expect the Prime Minister to take this seriously and do what he needs to do fix this.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as theLeader of the Opposition has stated, this was really a violation of respect for not only this place but also for other Canadians. Bullying is just simply unacceptable, in any circumstance, toward any woman or man in our country. I know our Leader of the Opposition is working respectfully and diligently to ensure Canadians are united by having a forward and positive vision.

Could she please outline for all of us here what she thinks that professional decorum should be in the House of Commons, one that was not shown yesterday evening but one I know she absolutely respects?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that it should not be too tough to come to work and respect one another. That is how I have always comported myself. I appreciate the member for raising that. At one point, I was named as the most civil parliamentarian by an independent McMaster University study.

Yes, there is conflict in the House. Yes, we have to be tough and ask good questions. However, we can be fair and respectful. There is a role for the opposition and a role for the government. This is the seed of our democracy. This is the place that Canadians, and all of us, should hold to such high esteem. Unfortunately, it was not a good face for this place last night.

The Prime Minister holds the highest office. Therefore, we look to him to fix this. Canadians, and every one of us, expect it. We were all elected. We all ran. We all had our name on one of those signs, just like he did. Just because we sit on this side of the House does not make us any less. I feel we have shown respect to his office. I have always believed that we should show respect to the Prime Minister's Office, no matter who holds it. We should also show respect to every member in the House.

Again, in these kinds of situations, whether in our home, or our offices, whether professional or personnel, it is not my problem to fix; it is his.