Debates of May 16th, 2017

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that a management rights clause should be in the bill. The government is proposing to adapt a more targeted management rights clause than that adopted by the Senate to focus on the authorities the commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations.

The adoption of a management rights clause for the RCMP is consistent with the labour relations regime that applies to the rest of the federal public service and with that of other police forces across the country. If there is a dispute between RCMP management and the eventual bargaining agent about what exactly falls within the management rights clause, the dispute would be resolved by the Public Service Labour Relations Board. It is important to emphasize that the management rights clause does not give RCMP management carte blanche to exclude things from collective bargaining.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support to the government's motion regarding Bill C-7, a bill that provides a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

Since its beginning in 1873, when Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald introduced in this very House the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development.

As my talented and tireless legislative assistant, Adrian Zita-Bennett, advises me, we need only read our history books. When it came to bringing law and order to the Northwest Territories, the RCMP was ready and willing with its march west in 1894.

During the Klondike Gold Rush, the RCMP rose to the challenge of policing the stampede of people looking to get rich, and when it came to being the first ship to completely circumnavigate North America, the RCMP schooner St. Roch claimed that honour.

In World War I and World War II, the RCMP played vital roles, but despite their long and storied contribution to Canada, these members did not have full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. However, that has changed. The Supreme Court has removed the barriers that RCMP members face in exercising this right.

Bill C-7 provides the appropriate framework of labour laws that would govern the RCMP and ensures that RCMP members and reservists can be represented and bargain collectively, like other police services in Canada.

Bill C-7 has several key elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by RCMP members during the consultations that occurred in the summer of 2015. Specifically, members indicated that they wanted a labour relations framework that provided for a single national bargaining unit, a union that is primarily focused on representing RCMP members, and the recourse to binding arbitration if a collective agreement could not be negotiated.

Bill C-7 creates this framework. It would do this by amending both the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and for reservists.

I rise today to offer my support to the government's response to the amendments of the Senate.

To begin, the government's motion accepts the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. This includes matters such as harassment, transfers and appointments, and appraisals of RCMP members.

Harassment in the workplace is an issue that the Government of Canada takes very seriously. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, bullying, and harassment are flatly unacceptable. I believe quite strongly that this one concession, in and of itself, addresses the chief criticism of the bill.

The government's motion also accepts the management rights clause adopted by the Senate and proposes targeting it to focus on protecting the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. This also goes a long way to meeting the concerns raised by the Senate.

The government's motion proposes retaining the restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service, such as restrictions preventing pensions from being bargained. It does not agree with the requirement for a mandatory secret ballot vote as the only option for the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. Our government believes that there should be choice between secret ballots and a card check system. The issue of secret ballots was not an issue specifically related to addressing the Supreme Court's decision. Moreover, an organization wanting to represent RCMP members should not be subjected to certification processes different from those of other organizations under federal labour relations legislation.

Bill C-4 reflects the principles of fairness and balance, and also gives proper recognition to the role of bargaining agents.

Finally, the government proposes not proceeding with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters, including many that are outside of a collective agreement. This would be inconsistent with the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act to the rest of the federal public service, and it would create overlap with the appeal and grievance processes established under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I believe that we now have the best possible legislation, given all the competing interests that must be accommodated. It is therefore important that we act now to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for members, reservists, and RCMP management.

There is currently an overlap between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, which would make it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. Also, there would be more uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights.

Bill C-7 would effectively provide RCMP members and reservists with a process that ensures independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters. The bill would also recognize the specific requirements of a national police service and the unique attributes of the RCMP as set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It would balance these with the need for consistency with the broader public service labour relations regime of which it is a part.

The government has taken important steps to ensure that workers can organize freely and that unions and employers can bargain collectively and in good faith. Bill C-7 is one part of that, and it honours the right of the RCMP members and reservists to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining.

The time for talk is over. Now is the time to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due. I for one am proud to vote for this motion, which does just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his approach.

Of course, I found his speech to be a bit ingenuous. I can understand that perhaps the member lacks experience, but the government is putting on a white hat, as if it were flawless and above reproach. It is acting as if it were royalty, as if it were omniscient and had a divine gift. The truth is that this government has been sitting on this bill for a year now.

Now, all of a sudden, Parliament has to hurry up. We are under a lot of pressure because the government imposed time allocation before sending this bill to the Senate. Our right to speak to this bill has once again been restricted. The government sat back and did nothing for a year and now it is forcing us to quickly debate this bill.

I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his commitment to this issue.

Today is a good day. Today is a reflection of the Canadian legislative process at work. We have heard from Canadians. We have heard from RCMP members, reservists, and management. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has held hearings. We have also heard sober second thoughts from the Senate of Canada, which in this complex case are very much appreciated.

It is not so much a question of how much time we should spend on it, whether it should be rushed, or whether it should be taken slowly. The most important question is whether the legislation of a quality that Canadians seek. It is my view, in support of the government, that the legislation as it is currently drafted represents the best possible constellation of the various competing factors. It is the best piece of legislation that we can put forward at this time, and therefore, for that reason alone, it is time to act.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore, for his comments, for his thoughtful response to the previous question, and for his comment about it being a good day and legislation of good quality. It needs to proceed further.

Another aspect of this being a good day, and the member alluded to this in his speech, is the fact that under this hopefully final version of the bill, RCMP members can bargain harassment through their representatives. Given the context of the situation with the RCMP, the concerns about atmosphere and workplace issues, and the historic challenges with harassment, I would like to hear his comments on this aspect of the bill.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good day, for the second and more specific reason that RCMP members and reservists are now able to bargain the issue of harassment.

As we all know, this is a tremendous challenge for the organization. There is a culture change that needs to take place, and it has to involve the women and men who serve us through the uniform of the RCMP. The ability to bargain this issue is therefore fundamental.

I will very briefly use this opportunity to highlight my own private member's bill, which is on gender equality week, a bill that I will have the chance to speak to tonight at third reading.

I very much look forward to the RCMP being engaged in this process of looking at gender equality and identifying issues across the country that need to be addressed. Harassment in the RCMP definitely is part of that. I am excited and thrilled that harassment is something that can now be bargained.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have tremendous respect for the RCMP and appreciate and admire its work. We do not question the wisdom of the Supreme Court when it ruled that the current labour regime for the RCMP needs reform to comply with RCMP members' section 2 charter rights, which is why we supported the bill at second reading when it was first introduced.

What we disagree with is the disregard for democratic governance Bill C-7 contained when passed at third reading. We also disagree with the government's choice to reject important amendments to Bill C-7 wisely passed by the Senate.

This bill would enable RCMP members to unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining if they see fit to do so. This bill is not about whether the RCMP should or should not unionize, and I take no position on that question. Most of this bill is agreeable, but it does contain one pitfall.

As the official opposition's deputy critic for Treasury Board, my opposition to the bill, as passed at third reading, and my support for the amended version, which the Senate has returned to the House of Commons, arises from concern about the working environment it would create for members of the RCMP if passed without amendment.

Bill C-7 would not require a secret ballot to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members in labour negotiations. My fellow Conservatives and I cannot support the bill unless the issue is corrected.

I supported the bill at second reading, as did my Conservative colleagues, for one purpose. We wanted to send it to committee, hoping that the majority of members would accept sensible amendments to protect the RCMP members' right to privacy as well as their freedom of association. Conservative members argued that any decision to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members must include a secret ballot to protect members from undue pressure or reprisal. I will return to that point in a moment.

The Liberals rejected this amendment at committee and returned the bill for third reading, and now the Senate has sent it back to the House with amendments. Two of these amendments would require a secret ballot vote for certification.

The motion before us today states that the government:

respectfully disagrees with amendments 2 and 4(a) because the government has introduced legislation to repeal secret ballot provisions for other public servants...;

The motion also disagrees with other amendments the Senate made in recognition of the RCMP's unique structure and circumstances, which would require modifications to existing labour laws.

I am going to focus my remarks on the amendments on secret ballots and let other members speak to the merits of the other amendments.

Canadians should never feel unduly pressured when exercising their democratic rights as citizens of a free country. None of us should worry that third parties will keep track of our voting choice or seek to reward or punish as a result. As members of Parliament, we should know this well. We were all elected by secret ballot. Voters took their ballots behind a privacy screen, filled them in, alone with their conscience, folded them so no one could see their selection, and put the ballot in the box.

It is not too difficult to imagine how different Canada would be if political organizers, neighbours, ethnic or religious community leaders, employers, union leaders, friends, or even family members hovered over a voter's shoulder when voting in an election.

As my friend, the member for Carleton, mentioned on March 22, 2016, the rate of success for unionization drives appears demonstrably higher with a card check system alone than with a secret ballot, as workers who would prefer not to unionize appear to give in to pressure to sign petitions that would not be present under a secret ballot.

When members of Parliament selected Speakers of this House, they did so by secret ballot, in part to shield the Speaker from any appearance of partiality and to remove any doubt Canadians might have when the Speaker rules on any issue regarding a particular member.

Protecting individuals from undue pressure, recrimination, and reprisal should apply to Canada's national police force even more so than to parliamentarians, and certainly more so than at other workplaces.

Decisions to certify or decertify unions or associations significantly affect workplaces. How one votes or how one chooses can determine the course of many relationships if the choice is known.

In a hierarchical organization like the RCMP, which is modelled as a paramilitary force, with a clear chain of command, trust and confidence between ranks is even more important than in other workplaces. Superiors must know that their subordinates will dutifully follow orders. Subordinates must know that their superiors will exercise good judgment and not put them in harm's way without cause. Trust and undivided loyalty to the force is essential to police morale and the safety of its workers.

A card check system for union certification, in which everyone knows who signed the petition, creates rifts within the hierarchy. Such divisions have serious repercussions, especially for police morale. Secret ballots avoid these risks by protecting all members' privacy. Unless members discuss their positions with others or disclose how they voted, no one can be certain what a given member has chosen.

Secret ballots also better fulfill the spirit of the Supreme Court's case that gave rise to Bill C-7. Among other points, the court emphasized the need for meaningful representation, choice, and independence from management. A secret ballot enables meaningful representation by allowing workers to select the union they believe will best protect their interests. It shields them from undue pressure to vote for whoever pushes the hardest.

As my colleague from Carleton discussed when Bill C-7 came up at second reading, the bill gets it right in requiring any union representing the RCMP to do so as its primary mandate. Such a union could not be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association with a different primary purpose, and it could not be certified to represent any other group of employees.

Since the association would be composed of RCMP members representing their colleagues, secrecy at the ballot box would be essential to avoid resentment in the ranks if the association failed and needed to be decertified and reconstituted.

Secret ballots facilitate individual choice as the basis for consent to corporate decisions. They also facilitate representation independent from management by ensuring that members can freely reject a proposed representative if they consider the person to be too close to management.

I understand the reasons behind the government's rejection of amendments 2 and 4(a). I simply disagree. The rule of law demands that laws be consistent and treat similar things in a similar fashion. Since the Liberals are stripping other workers of secret ballot protection via Bill C-4, they say that it is therefore consistent for Bill C-7 to reject the secret ballot requirement for the RCMP.

The Liberals' decision today may be consistent, but it is wrong. They are wrong on Bill C-4, and the reasons they are wrong on Bill C-4 are amplified in Bill C-7 because of the very nature of the RCMP.

Instead of seeking to be consistent by refusing to extend secret ballot protection to the RCMP while repealing secret ballot provisions for everyone else, the government should do exactly the opposite. It should restore secret ballot protection for all federal workers and agree to amendments 2 and 4(a) to extend it to the RCMP.

If the Liberals value consistency, they should not argue that secret ballots for workers are somehow undemocratic. Each of them was democratically elected by secret ballot. Instead, they should acknowledge that secret ballots to certify unions are both democratic and consistent with secret ballots to select union leaders. They should join British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, which all require secret ballots for certification decisions. They should lead the way in having a consistent standard for workers across provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I conclude by encouraging all my colleagues in this House to protect the democratic rights of RCMP members by voting against today's motion and insisting that the government adopt the amendments from the Senate.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering about the Conservatives' push for a secret ballot and if they believe there is ever a circumstance where that is not appropriate.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that certifying a union should be done by secret ballot for the reasons I gave in my speech. That is consistent with the way we elect members of Parliament, and it is consistent with the way we elect you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we support a vote by secret ballot. It is the only way to protect the conscience of the voter.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the current government refused to provide in its initial legislation the opportunity in collective bargaining to deal with a number of things that are usually taken for granted in a regime of this sort: staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline. Today the Auditor General pointed out that the government is failing to meet RCMP mental health needs and is failing to implement the mental health strategy.

We have had a grand total of, I believe, four or five days to deal with this bill, yet the government took 11 months to respond. Does the member think that arithmetic makes sense? Should we have longer to deal with such a complicated, important bill, or should we just get on with it?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria made an important point in his question. The government has been sitting on these amendments from the Senate for almost a year and is now suddenly insisting that this be rushed through with minimal debate. It is doing some tricky math around days and hours of debate and things like giving us an hour and a half on a Friday and calling that a day of debate. It is shameful, it is disingenuous, it is disappointing, and it is unsurprising.

With respect to some of the other issues the member for Victoria mentioned, such as the report on the mental health responsibilities to members, certainly these are things the government will be accountable for, and it will be our job to hold it accountable.

I confined my remarks strictly to the issue of the secret ballot, but there are many other issues here. Time has been lost. I am not sure what the Liberals were doing with the rest of that time over the last year, because they did not pass many other bills. It is very disappointing.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually disappointing that the member opposite strictly narrowed his remarks to the secret ballot issue. Is there nothing else important to the RCMP? Wait, in fact, that is not something that was asked for by the members themselves. In fact, the discussion on the secret ballot is well served in the debate on Bill C-4. That bill would put the discretion as to the certification methodology into the hands of the labour board.

How will the member explain to RCMP members in his riding that all the benefits of collective bargaining they would be acquiring through Bill C-7 are being rejected by his no vote because of a matter that is actually being handled under Bill C-4, different legislation?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member for Vancouver Quadra was disappointed with my speech. She may have noted from the outset that I did broadly agree and support the aims of the bill, but the important issue at stake, the issue of the secret ballot, is such that it renders the rest of the bill, unfortunately, unworthy of support. Bill C-4, as well, is unworthy of support. It is not too late for the government to fix both bills at once.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, which is about labour relations within the RCMP.

For those watching at home, if they just joined this mini melodrama involving the bill, we are debating the Liberal government's response to amendments that were made in what we call the other place, in other words, the Canadian Senate.

To begin, I would like to say that Conservatives do accept the Supreme Court decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada case. It is clear that members of the RCMP, despite the force's paramilitary heritage, have the right to collectively bargain. The key, however, is making sure it is done right. That is where I believe that the Liberal government has failed the test. It is completely unacceptable that we are considering denying RCMP members a secret ballot vote on the decision of whether and how to unionize.

Why could this be problematic? Let us look at the report that was released yesterday from Ian McPhail, the chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. May I say that I have known Mr. McPhail in various capacities for over 40 years? I know that is hard to believe, but it is true, and he has done a great deal of service to the Canadian public, I should say at the outset. Mr. McPhail and his team reviewed numerous complaints of workplace harassment, intimidation, and bullying within the RCMP. He even found that “the RCMP lacks both the will and the capacity to make the changes necessary to address the problems that afflict its workplaces”.

Of course, this report is of great concern. We believe that the government must take action now to restore the confidence of front-line officers in the RCMP in their management, and to restore the confidence of Canadians in the RCMP as a federal organization. That means a number of things. It means making sure that RCMP pay is in line with the pay of other police forces. It also means working to ensure the appropriate recruitment and retention programs.

There are many ways in which we can work toward this goal. Many ideas have been put forward in this regard. For instance, we could explore separating the RCMP into two forces, one that deals with contract policing on the ground and one that deals with federal policing. We could explore new recruitment methods that allow experts in various fields to move laterally into similar positions in the RCMP without having to start at the bottom. We could explore new ways of allocating caseload so that the level of burnout is not nearly as high as it is currently.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does none of these things. What these amendments will do is to strip the approximately 28,000 members of the RCMP from the right to vote in secret on unionization. As I said before, it is completely unacceptable that rights that serve as the cornerstone of our democracy are being taken away from those who get up every day and go to work to keep us safe.

Why is the secret ballot so important? It is because that is the only guaranteed way to ensure there is no coercion, no intimidation, applied from any side of the argument. It would be to ensure that, no matter the rank and file or the seniority, all members of the RCMP are treated equally and fairly and, most of all, without any fear of repercussions on how they proceeded on collective bargaining.

A report was just tabled on the bullying culture that goes on in the RCMP, and yet the government is moving full steam ahead to deny the secret ballot, which of course guarantees further bullying in the future.

Many members in the House represent constituents who have been or who are currently serving members of the RCMP. In fact, there are currently RCMP members posted to Parliament Hill. They are part of our daily lives while the House is in session.

It seems passing strange to me that we would take action that would limit the rights of these people. There is no particular reason that the government would want to take away this democratic right of these members of the RCMP. It almost causes me to wonder whether there is some sort of ulterior motive, whether the government is using RCMP unionization as a bargaining chip with other public sector unions, which of course would be unfortunate.

Studies have shown that, when Canadians are given the right and the opportunity to choose by secret ballot whether to unionize, more often than not they choose to represent themselves. It seems that this old Liberal philosophy that, because workers may not make the same choice the government-knows-best Liberals in Ottawa want them to, they should not be entitled to make that choice at all.

We have seen this on many different files. From my perspective and the perspective of my colleagues, this is an intrinsic right that should be found in our legislation to make sure that the RCMP members have access to the secret ballot. This is not new law. This is not something that has come out of the mind of the caucus on the Conservative side that has no precedent. This is the precedent to allow the secret ballot on issues of importance that affect people's daily lives as employees, and certainly as people who wake up every morning to protect their community.

In closing, while there are some meritorious aspects of this bill—and let me explain again that we accept the Supreme Court decision with respect to the allowing of collective bargaining with the RCMP; we respect that decision; we accept that decision—this is a fatal flaw in the legislation that has been put forward to us, a fatal flaw in the legislation put forward by the Liberal government that denies a simple and well-accepted standard right, that of the secret ballot. This should not be allowed to happen.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against this piece of legislation. I encourage those on the other side to have a last-minute change of heart.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind everyone that debate is taking place. It is nice to see everyone getting along and speaking, but it makes it very difficult to hear the questions and the answers.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, one can get very easily disappointed with the Conservative Party when it comes to issues dealing with labour.

Conservatives come to the table with a bias, which is really very much against unions. Whether it is this bill or Bill C-4, once again the Conservatives are the isolated party in the House. The government of the day, the NDP, and the Green Party recognize the value of the legislation, and yet the Conservative Party chooses to try to divide labour and management.

We all recognize the valuable role that our RCMP plays in our society. We applaud each and every woman and man who performs their duty for us day in and day out. Could the member tell us why the Conservative Party continues to play up divisive labour issues as wedge issues? Why does the Conservative Party not recognize that the Canadian economy will work better if we have more harmony within labour, management, and business?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sense that was a trick question. The hon. member has cut me to the quick: he has exposed a bias that I have. My bias is for a secret ballot. My bias is for true democracy within the rank and file of the RCMP. That is my bias, and I stand by that predilection that I have, however bizarre it may seem to those in the Liberal ranks. That people could vote in secret whether or not they are members of a union is a fundamental right and privilege.

Forgive me, but I have to reiterate that the RCMP is in crisis right now. Reports issued just this week indicate intimidation, harassment, and dysfunctionality up and down the line. This is not the time for hon. members to expose the rank and file of the RCMP to further harassment and intimidation because of the lack of a secret ballot. The government is at cross purposes with the needs of a fully reformed and modernized RCMP by presenting this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka will have two minutes and 30 seconds after question period when the bill comes back.

Granby Volunteer Centre

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to congratulate the Centre d'action bénévole de Granby on its 50th anniversary.

Volunteerism is vital to our community because it supports the well-being and vitality of our people. For 50 years now, Granby volunteers have patiently and generously dedicated themselves to helping their fellow citizens. Our volunteers deserve our heartfelt appreciation for countless acts of compassion and gratitude toward others. I am so deeply thankful to them.

I would like to congratulate the team at the Centre d'action bénévole de Granby along with chair Mireille Giguère and executive director Nathalie Roberge, not to mention the many people who have been a part of it all over the years.

I wish them a happy 50th anniversary celebration and much success as they continue to make volunteerism an important part of our community.

AGT Food and Ingredients Inc.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a compassioned entrepreneur, who views success as a responsibility, describes Murad Al-Katib, president and CEO of AGT Food and Ingredients Inc., a Saskatchewan business that supplies pulse crops to more than 120 countries and has facilities on five continents.

Murad is a business owner responsible for more than 2,200 employees, including many in my home province of Saskatchewan.

Murad has been the recipient of many distinguished awards, and today Saskatchewan's “Lentil King” is in Norway to receive yet another prestigious award. He is the first Canadian to receive the Oslo Business for Peace Award, nominated by the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce.

I congratulate Murad. He is a wonderful role model for entrepreneurs everywhere, someone of whom we are very proud.

Law Enforcement Officers

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and as a former coordinator with the Codiac RCMP, please allow me to sincerely thank all our law enforcement officers across the country for the outstanding work they do in keeping our communities safe.

In Canada, we are surrounded by dedicated public servants who put their lives in harm's way every day to help defend our security and uphold our freedoms.

These individuals work very hard so that we may live in a society where we can enjoy our freedoms and fundamental values. It is very important that we remember to thank our police officers, volunteers, and support staff for the enormous contributions they make to law enforcement and crime prevention and for the work they do to keep us safe.

We can all learn from the dedication and professionalism they exhibit every day in the line of duty.

Rural Youth Gala

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 11, 2017, some 200 people attended the rural youth gala in Ormstown.

Since 2010, this gala has been a forum for recognizing young people, youth groups, and youth-led initiatives. The jury wants to see their energy, their will, and their ability to follow through on their objectives. I want to congratulate the 13 winners and the five honourable mentions, all of whom made significant contributions in areas ranging from volunteer work to student retention, cultural action, environmental action, and healthy living.

I also want to congratulate Daphné Godin-Lemieux, who won the highest award of the evening, as well as Céline Ouimet, managing director of Saint-Chrysostome, who received an award for being the youth mentor of the year.

I am proud that there are so many young people between 6 and 24 years of age who are showing leadership, engagement, and generosity in their communities. This gala does credit to the upper St. Lawrence region, and I thank the organizing committee that put so much time and energy into this very popular event.

Students of Markham—Thornhill

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the outstanding work done by the students in my riding of Markham—Thornhill.

Thornlea Secondary School has partnered with Nubian Book Club and the HarryCares Foundation to support an ethical book drive. This book drive was organized to send much needed school and pleasure reading books to Nigeria. Thousands of books were donated. The students sorted the books to ensure they did not perpetuate stereotypes but instead work to affirm or broaden cultural and social identities and undertakings.

Last Friday, I also had the pleasure of visiting the Middlefield Collegiate Institute's Sikh Student Association's Turban Up Day to promote diversity, inclusion, and co-operation among the diverse communities within its high school.

I am very proud of the outstanding work done by the students in Markham—Thornhill. I congratulate them for their work. It makes me incredibly happy to represent them in Markham—Thornhill.

Retirement Congratulations

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Trudy Edgar has served as my executive assistant for the past 11 years. I hired her, having witnessed her dedication to our community in the 12 years she had served as assistant to my predecessor. She agreed to stay on but warned she would not stay long.

Every few years she would bring up retirement and I would agree that someday we should talk, and never bring it up again.

She has been the heart of our office. She is the first to show up and the last to leave, the person who has taught, challenged, and cared for the stream of staff that have flowed through our offices. Through good and bad, she has been the source of wisdom and encouragement for me and my family. She has served my constituents with great care and compassion.

I am thankful for the sacrifices that she, her family, and her husband, Lance, have made so she could serve.

A couple of months ago, Trudy brought up retirement again, and this time she would not let me avoid it. Trudy will be missed. She has been a caring public servant, a teacher, and a friend.

On behalf of my constituents, staff, and family, we wish her good health and many blessings in the years to come.

Mayor of Westmount

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, inventor, businessman, performer, man of integrity, genius are all words to describe Peter Trent, who announced last month he was stepping down as mayor of Westmount. Peter wrote “a political career is like a love affair. Any fool can start one, but to end it requires considerable skill.”

Peter showed that considerable skill throughout his 26 years on council. He leaves Westmount with no net debt, a world-class recreation centre, and excellent infrastructure. More important, he leaves the Montreal Island with 15 cities instead of one. It was Peter who led the fight against the PQ's forced mergers, and Peter who made the next Liberal government promise a demerger process. The cities in my riding, Côte Saint-Luc, Hampstead, and TMR, owe their existence to Peter's leadership.

As a demerger disciple of Peter's and someone who served with him for many years as mayor, I am proud to call him a mentor and friend.

Peter and his wife Catherine are with us today. Please join me in thanking him for his exemplary public service.