Dan Albas

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a petition like I have not seen before, petition e-7372. This is a petition put forward by a woman whose husband, unfortunately, has succumbed to Alzheimer's. Despite his desire to receive medical assistance in dying in those kinds of cases, the current laws do not accommodate him. His family and friends have seen his situation deteriorate and have thus decided to petition their government to seek changes to the law. The family would like to see clear safeguards and advanced MAID requests that offer people dignity, compassion and choice. I know there are people on both sides of the coin on this who struggle with these issues, but I think here in our Parliament of Canada, we can always discuss what matters most: our family and their future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Essex for not only his speech but also his constant steadiness at the transport committee. His community is well served by him. I would like to ask him about something that is causing a lot of ruckus in Ontario: the Alto project. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to authorize early works. We saw in the Liberals' last omnibus bill that they basically gave expropriation powers, incredible bulldozing ability, to the Alto project to expropriate lands. Now they are going to have it where a minister can direct early works so they can get a project started, despite opposition in the communities, particularly in the rural areas of both Quebec and Ontario. Could the member comment on whether he feels those people are being respected and whether the government could be more transparent about what it wants these powers for?

Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that the member cares deeply about, and so should we all, because we are talking about workers' rights. Last I checked, workers' rights fall under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 2(d). Another section that is particularly relevant to this conversation tonight is section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, which says that the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. Liberals like to say they are the party of the charter. So many Liberal members have said they are all about workers' rights, yet the House and the special legislative committee that is going to be set up to examine Bill C-39 have not yet seen this. Does the member believe that the government has the obligation to give the people that charter statement before we start deliberating this at committee, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the member. He is a farmer and is a very hard-working MP, and I give a lot of credibility to what he says. He talked about the certainty and predictability that farmers need from the interswitching provisions, but the government is only suggesting to bring them back for 48 months. Rather than putting in place a regime that has been proven to be successful under both the Harper and the Trudeau governments, the government is simply giving a bit of durable competition for a very short period of time. Does he support making the provisions permanent? Would that bring some certainty and predictability to farmers like him?

Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to say that they are against two-tier anything, but Bill C-39 would create a statutory authority for the regulator, or in this case the responsible authority, that would give the one year, one review. There would be exemptions. Obviously, there is proposed section 19(4), which would force a completeness sign-off that could be like Groundhog Day for someone. In addition to the loopholes in the bill, there would be no statutory deadline for transportation projects. I would like to ask the member why transportation projects would have no statutory one year, one review equivalent like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Impact Assessment Agency or the Canadian Energy Regulator have. Why would there be a two-tier approach to big projects?