Debates of June 1st, 2016

National Local Food Day Act

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, An Act to establish a National Local Food Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to introduce my first private member's bill, Bill C-281, which would establish a national local food day. This legislation would designate the Friday before Thanksgiving of each year as national local food day.

I want to thank my colleague from Victoria for seconding the bill. I also want to recognize the work of former MP Malcolm Allen, who introduced the bill in the previous Parliament, and my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for her dedication and hard work on behalf of Canada's agricultural producers.

Strengthening the connection between consumers and producers of Canadian food contributes to our nation's social, environmental, and economic well-being. Ensuring that Canadians have access to healthy, affordable food and a sustainable food system must be national priorities. Supporting our local agricultural markets is essential to achieving these goals.

I call on all members of the House to honour the hard work of local food producers from coast to coast to coast and to make national local food day a reality.

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

The Environment

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the people of Wellington—Halton Hills.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to include agriculture as a part of its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canadian National Railway

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from my constituents in Milton with respect to the proposed CN intermodal terminal to be built in my constituency of Milton.

RAIL, which stands for Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines, says no. The petitioners have expressed their opinion that they would like to have more information and a more rigorous review. They are opposed to the CN intermodal rail.

I gladly lay this petition on the table on their behalf.

Justice

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on two subjects.

The first is a petition to recognize preborn children as separate victims when harmed or killed during attacks against their mother.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass legislation that would recognize preborn children as separate victims.

Iraqi Christians

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that call on the government to give serious consideration to Iraqi Christians who have lost their hope of getting back home, to initiate a special program to immediately target and evacuate a reasonable number of these people from neighbouring countries and to find a safe haven for them with international protection.

Impaired Driving

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition on behalf of the people from Revelstoke and Golden in my riding concerning impaired driving.

The petitioners encourage that the laws be strengthened. They also ask that the Criminal Code of Canada be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Palliative Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg.

The petitioners ask the government to specifically identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act so provincial and territorial governments would be entitled to the funds under the Canada health transfer system to be used to provide accessible and available hospice palliative care for all residents of Canada in their respective provinces and territories.

Physician-Assisted Death

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.

The first petition highlights that coercion, intimidation, or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health care institutions to become parties to assisted suicide and euthanasia is a violation of fundamental freedom of conscience. The petition highlights that the Canadian Medical Association confirms that conscience protection would not affect access for Canadians, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of conscience.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code protection of conscience for physicians against coercion and intimidation to refer persons to suicide.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Families For Justice, as a group of Canadians, who have lost loved ones to an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient, and they want the crime to be called vehicular homicide.

The petitioner call on Parliament to support Bill C-226, driving impaired act; and Bill C-247, Kassandra's law.

Iran

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a petition that calls on the government to hold the Iranian government accountable for its support of terrorism, its nuclear program, its systematic violation of basic human liberties, and for the terror it sponsors and provokes across the Middle East.

Justice

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions from residents of Cariboo—Prince George and indeed right across Canada. The petition is to recognize preborn children as separate victims when harmed or killed during attacks against their mothers.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have criminal laws that protect animals from being abused, and animals are not humans. We have laws against indecency toward a dead body, which is in that case no longer a living human being.

I have a number of petitions that call on the government to put forward a law to protect pregnant women for their choice to carry their children to birth in their womb. Even though they are not human beings yet, they should have protection under our criminal law.

Democratic Reform

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also have three petitions that call on our Parliament to hold a referendum on any proposed changes to the Canadian electoral system.

Justice

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition signed by the good residents of Cariboo—Prince George, as well as across Canada. The petitioners ask to have preborn children recognized as separate victims when harmed or killed during attacks against their mothers.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 17, 2016, consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak, perhaps for the last time, to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures. There are very few other measures, as this is a small bill.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am sure that her speech will be very good and that she will have a lot to say about Bill C-10.

We have had many opportunities to speak to Bill C-10 over the past few weeks. We had the opportunity to hear the government say all sorts of things about the importance of Bill C-10 and the need to act swiftly. However, when we asked for the real reasons behind the urgency, which led the government to adopt a time allocation motion for Bill C-10, we got no response. The government says one thing and does another or, in many cases, does nothing.

From the beginning our only question has remained unanswered. We really wanted a justification for the time allocation motion. Why the need to pass Bill C-10 now, when at the beginning of this Parliament there was no urgency?

We asked the question in the House during question period and also in committee. We never received a single sensible answer explaining why Bill C-10 had to be passed so quickly.

I searched books, history, and everywhere in order to understand how the government could justify adopting a time allocation motion for a bill like C-10. I finally found the answer. It is in the Liberal Party of Canada's DNA that I found the reason for the urgent need to take action on Bill C-10.

The government says that it is open and transparent. That can be found in the Speech from the Throne, which states:

...the Government is committed to open and transparent government. ...[the Government] will promote more open debate...it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.

A time allocation motion is a device. We have had the opportunity to look at the budget bill, which is also an omnibus bill. The government says one thing and does another, or does nothing at all. That is what I discovered when I analyzed the process for Bill C-10, , which has brought us here today.

The government has adopted a number of time allocation motions. I am thinking of Bill C-10, Bill C-14, Motion No. 6, and the electoral reform that the government wants to unilaterally impose using its majority. So much for openness and transparency.

With regard to Bill C-10, in just a few months, we have seen the government, for no real reason at all, decide to lose some of its credibility with the provinces. How? The government announced on a number of occasions that it wanted to usher in a new era of improved relations with the provinces.

In the throne speech, the government also said the following three times regarding three files:

To give Canadians a more secure retirement, the Government will work with the provinces and territories.... To create more opportunities for young Canadians...the Government will work with the provinces and territories.... And to support the health and well-being of all Canadians, the Government will begin work with the provinces and territories...

Those three excerpts from the throne speech show the government's willingness to work with the provinces and territories and its interest in doing so. However, the government says one thing and does another, or does nothing at all. We are seeing it again. We saw it yesterday. The government has said a number of times that it is listening to the provinces and wants to work with them.

Yesterday, the Quebec minister of health and social services spoke about another bill, Bill C-14. What did Mr. Barrette have to say about Bill C-14? He said that it was unenforceable and that, given the current context, he would be very careful about going forward with Bill C-14. He added that, personally, for professional and governmental reasons, he does not think it is a good idea to go forward with Bill C-14. Mr. Barrette is a minister in a province with which the government wants to build good relations. However, the government moved a time allocation motion on Bill C-14. The government is not letting members of Parliament speak about it.

I have other examples, but I do not have the time to share them all in four minutes. When Bill C-10 was first debated in committee, Minister Garneau talked about good relationships with the provinces in his speech:

In light of this development [Air Canada's commitment to creating centres of excellence], the Government of Quebec and Air Canada announced an agreement to discontinue the litigation...

Given all these positive developments, we believe this is the perfect time to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act...

Minister Garneau said that this was what the provinces wanted, but that is not true. I do not want to say that it is not true, but it is misleading. This may appear to be the case, but that is my interpretation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I remind the member that he must not use members' names.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tried to fix my error, but it was not indeed an error. Thank you for letting me try again.

What the minister told us was not true. The deputy premier of Manitoba said:

There are significant implications to moving forward with Bill C-10. It is not appropriate to rush through without substantial dialogue and consideration.

The deputy premier of Manitoba came here to tell us not to rush through Bill C-10.

That is not all. The Government of Quebec sent a brief to the committee. It said:

Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.

Yes, it says, “pending the conclusion of final agreements”. It goes on to say:

...in order to provide for all the aspects of the agreements reached, the Government of Quebec is asking that, once Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the legislation come into force after the final agreements described above have been concluded.

What happened to those good old days of federal-provincial relations? I just read three requests from governments for the federal government not to intervene hastily for no reason with a bill. Nevertheless, the government is pressing on, and we are now at third reading of Bill C-10. This bill is completely unjustified because there is no need to act so hastily.

The government says that this is what the provinces asked it to do, but that is not true at all. In committee, the two provinces that are directly involved in this matter clearly told the government not to act too hastily. This is unbelievable.

We get it, though, because this is in the Liberal Party's DNA. I remember what the Prime Minister said right here on Parliament Hill when there was a decision to appeal and they marched with the Aveos workers here. The Prime Minister gave a mighty fine speech.

He said that our greatest resource is not somewhere in the ground, that it is our people, skilled workers like them who build our country every day with their hands, their arms, their brains, and their creativity. The Prime Minister gave that mighty fine speech about how he supported the workers, but today, he is abandoning them. That is why 3,000 jobs are in danger.

It is incredible to watch the Liberals say one thing and then turn around and do the opposite, as they have done from the beginning. I implore the government to agree to the requests made by Quebec and Manitoba and delay the passing of Bill C-10.

This is important, because they still need to conclude some agreements. Their case is currently before the Supreme Court as a means of applying pressure to ensure that the jobs that are supposed to be preserved will in fact be preserved. Why is the government interfering and jeopardizing the provinces' agreements with Air Canada?

That is what people need to remember. There was absolutely no reason to rush Bill C-10 through. No one, apart from the Minister of Transport, wanted this bill to go through quickly. I certainly hope that this message will finally be heard and that Bill C-10 will not pass.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has lost some focus on the importance of the aerospace industry in Canada, in all regions. I found it interesting when he referenced the province of Manitoba. He needs to recognize, or at least put an asterisk on it, that there was a change in government in the province of Manitoba. I am very proud of the fact that my daughter was part of it. She was elected.

Having said that, we need to recognize that the former government worked with the current Government of Canada. It was part of the negotiations that took place and it was felt that it was in Manitoba's and Winnipeg's best interest to move ahead with Bill C-10. The current government has taken a slightly different position on it, but there is still an obligation, would he not acknowledge, that there was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba prior to that provincial election and is that not something we should be looking at and respecting?