Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister talking about international comparisons. One of my disappointments with the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying was that we did not do a sufficient study, at all, of what has happened in other jurisdictions where we have seen these laws brought in.

Physician-Assisted Dying  Madam Speaker, people choose a medical career because they want to care for the sick, but without conscience protection, doctors in Ontario will now be forced to facilitate killing. Dr. Nancy Naylor of Strathroy, Ontario, will not be renewing her licence. Dr. Naylor has practised family and palliative medicine for 40 years.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks and the good work he did on the committee, and to some extent, the brave face he is putting on. Of course, members worked hard on that committee, but were aware of the problems in the process as well. The fact is, we heard from three separate panels from the lobby group Dying With Dignity Canada, and we did not hear from any anti-euthanasia advocacy group.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, the member is quite correct that the law was clear, the law was broken, that workers were suing Air Canada in court and had won at a number of levels, and that now the law is being changed. Of course, as Conservatives, we have some significant philosophical disagreements with the NDP, but as people who believe in the importance of the market mechanism, of the value of free market to generate wealth, growth, and opportunity, we understand that has to be underlined by a basic system of fairness.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, at the beginning the member asked who benefits from this legislation, and I suppose an important connected question is, given who benefits, who the government is listening to, discussions with whom are informing its policy choices. It is very clear who benefits from this legislation.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, really it is unfortunate bordering on shameful that the member would present this legislation in this way, because frankly the legislation provides no assurance whatsoever that a serious number of jobs would remain in Canada. It uses effective weasel language that gives Air Canada all the flexibility it needs to do exactly what it wants to do.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, the member made many points, some of which I agree with, some of which I do not. He is quite correct to point out that, in this and many other areas, we see the government not following through with commitments it made to various groups. We have spoken about the increase in the budget deficit and the increase in taxes for small business.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to now give a speech on this debate, having participated throughout the day in questions and comments. I want to share that the reason I have been involved in the debate, the reason I am giving this speech, is that this was actually an issue that a constituent brought to me in my office a number of months ago.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona earlier referred to Liberal tautologies, such as “a deal is a deal” and “the law is the law”. I thought maybe he should have added “a proof is a proof is a proof”, because we clearly have proof here that there were clear rules in place and that those rules were not followed, and now the government is trying to change the law to allow for not following the law and not respecting taxpayers in this context.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Mr. Speaker, I want to note that there are many other things the government could be doing that would improve the competitiveness of Air Canada that do not negatively impact workers. For instance, they could raise the foreign ownership threshold. They could work to streamline processes in terms of customs.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I worry that I am agreeing with New Democrats a little too much today. He is absolutely right to highlight the strangeness of the government's arguments. We have these repeated kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge references to Bombardier, yet there is no reference to Bombardier in the legislation.

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Mr. Speaker, I am a bit incredulous about the arguments the government is making, especially as it respects the C Series. Many of the speeches and comments made by the government allude to those jobs associated with the C Series, but Bombardier is a separate company. The government will not be clear about the connection between the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the investments being made by Bombardier.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-2  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, particularly for his comments about tax-free savings accounts, which is something very important to many families and individuals in my constituency. I want to underline a fact that seems to have been missed by the other parties in the House, which is that more than half of those who max out their tax-free savings account make less than $60,000.

Foreign Affairs  Mr. Speaker, here is what Katrina Lantos Swett with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom had to say about the Liberal decision to kill the office of religious freedom, “The world is kind of on fire, as it relates to religious freedom. So the timing...couldn't be much worse.”

Air Canada Public Participation Act  Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. She said a number of things that might seem curious insofar as the bill does not mention Bombardier at all. I wonder if the member could just clarify. Was the decision to introduce this bill influenced by Air Canada's decision to purchase the C Series?