House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Etobicoke Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Constituents of Etobicoke Centre are extremely concerned about escalating gun violence. In meetings with youth in at risk neighbourhoods, I have learned that many young men on the edge scoff at the existing penalties. Their neighbours fear cooperating with authorities because, even if caught, these young men with guns are back in their midst in no time.

The minister met with his provincial counterparts. Could he tell us what he is doing to increase penalties for gun crimes, including mandatory minimum sentences?

Justice
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Mount Royal
Québec

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I met with my provincial and territorial counterparts and we agreed upon a three pronged package: first, a set of legislative measures that would include new offences, as well as enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for existing offences; second, more effective law enforcement through coordinated prosecutorial and investigative approaches with provincial and territorial attorneys general; and, third, a set of preventative and community initiatives to address the root causes of crime, as well as crime itself.

Parliament of Canada
Oral Questions

November 14th, 2005 / 2:40 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.

I want to ask the Prime Minister why, contrary to what he said outside the House just before question period began, he is deliberately endangering everything that this Parliament could do between now and the Christmas break by insisting that the only choices available are either a non-confidence motion or his own timetable, that is to say, the timetable of the Liberal Party?

Why is he not prepared to accept a compromise that would enable this Parliament to do what it needs to do?

Parliament of Canada
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek
Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear and consistent since he made his commitment to Canadians last spring. He committed to an election call within 30 days of Mr. Justice Gomery's second report. Canadians deserve all the facts and they deserve to have their say on the basis of those facts.

What the opposition is suggesting is not a compromise. What they are suggesting is that they should be able to vote non-confidence in the government today and only have the consequences of that vote in January. All hon. members know we are operating in a parliamentary democracy that operates on a principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament.

Parliament of Canada
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of the other principles of Parliament is that the government should respect the will of Parliament, especially in a minority situation.

If the Prime Minister has the right to say when the election should be, Parliament has the right to say when the election should be and we all have the right to say when the election should be by mutual consent.

There is somebody who says that he is against the democratic deficit. Have him stand and say why he would reject the will of Parliament and put the interest of his own party first.

Parliament of Canada
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek
Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is the opposition parties that are operating according to their own partisan interest. They are not operating in the public interest.

Two-thirds of Canadians have said that they want to wait for Justice Gomery's second report. If the opposition parties decide to put a confidence motion on the floor of this House of Commons and that confidence motion passes, we would have an election call and it would be the opposition parties that would shoulder 100% of that responsibility.

Fuel Rebates
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that energy payments for low income Canadians have not been a priority for this government. In fact, the government has postponed debate on the bill that would authorize these payments, Bill C-66, three times over the past month. This is a bill that has had majority support of the House since it was introduced.

Will the Prime Minister admit today that he did not give a second thought to low income Canadians in their struggle to pay their bills until he was threatened with an election?

Fuel Rebates
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood
Ontario

Liberal

John McKay Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 has been on the order paper for a number of weeks now and has been debated in the normal course. The only thing that has changed in the payments to the guaranteed income supplement, the national child benefit and money for public transit is that in the break week the opposition parties decided to get together and postpone the orderly passage of legislation.

Fuel Rebates
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that not one cabinet minister has made a speech in this House on the issue of energy payments to low income Canadians. In addition, the three opposition parties are willing to pass the bill. The bill being put forward by the government has been pulled again today to put forward legislation dealing with animals, an issue we have debated thousands of times already.

The fact is that a majority of MPs have supported the legislation from the beginning and it has been pulled by the government not by the opposition. Why is the Prime Minister using that as a false excuse to not have an election?

Fuel Rebates
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood
Ontario

Liberal

John McKay Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, this bill is debated in an ordinary course in the time that has been allotted to it and available to us.

It is my recollection that when I left the House just before the break week, the House was being filibustered by that party over there. When I turned on the television this morning it was still being filibustered. We cannot proceed with government business, including Bill C-66 and the payments that would flow from Bill C-66, as long as the opposition parties decide to filibuster this Parliament.

Airport Security
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for 12 years and any excuses for inaction are absolutely hollow.

A few days ago, an investigation revealed a number of security breaches at Pearson airport, particularly with cargo loaded on board without ever being checked. A security expert said the situation is worse now than it was before September 11.

With all the money it spends, how could the government neglect airport security in such an appalling and careless way?

Airport Security
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Jean Lapierre Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I would not want hon. members to make air travellers worry. The Canadian system is very safe. In some cases, such as Pearson, for example, access to various doors is the responsibility of the airport and not at all of our Canadian airport safety agency. However, I took the television documentary very seriously and have asked Transport Canada to investigate. As soon as we know all the facts, I will be pleased to get back to him on this.

Airport Security
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, what makes travellers nervous is the fact that in the four years since 9/11, virtually nothing has changed in terms of airport security or the government's oversight of the changes that it has said it has put in place. This year the government will tax Pearson Airport $144 million in airport rents and charge Pearson Airport travellers roughly $80 million in air security taxes. That is roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in taxes from Pearson Airport and yet its security system, according to reports, is leaking like a sieve.

Why is Canada's largest, most important airport getting third rate security from the government?

Airport Security
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Jean Lapierre Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did not watch the same program because the main problem was the doors which are the responsibility of the airport authority. He knows that CATSA has nothing to do with the doors and access at the airport.

We will be having a review of the CATSA process because it is part and parcel of the law. I will be announcing in the next few days the people who will be part of the review panel. We will do our best to provide the best security in the world. We already have one of the most secure systems in the world and the member should not make passengers nervous about security.

Agriculture
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, farm producers are increasingly concerned about the government's real desire to protect supply management and are rightly fearful of becoming a bargaining chip in the upcoming negotiations planned for December in Hong Kong.

Can the government reassure the farmers by giving its negotiating team a clear mandate to maintain the current system of supply management?