House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fisheries.

Topics

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Liberal Party has no intention of fulfilling the obligations it made to Canadians in the last election. It promised to get tough on crime and to support us on that but it has done absolutely nothing.

With respect to the Prime Minister, his job is to protect and defend Canadians and that is exactly what he is doing with this legislation.

Fisheries Act
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to hear that opposition parties are threatening to play political games to undermine the new fisheries bill, even though they have agreed that we need to modernize this 139 year old act or risk jeopardizing 21st century fisheries.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House that he remains committed to accountability, transparency and protecting Canadian fisheries and fish habitats?

Fisheries Act
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

St. John's South—Mount Pearl
Newfoundland & Labrador

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I have never been more committed to dealing with this act, which would replace the one that is 139 years old. The provinces want it, the industry wants it, the fishermen want it and their unions want it.

I hope, with the help of my colleagues, we will refine the act to make it the kind of act that everybody wants. We can do it in second reading and in committee. I am willing to work with them. If they do not want to do that, they can answer to their constituents.

Airline Security
Oral Questions

February 21st, 2007 / 2:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aviation inspectors understand air safety better than anyone and they are telling the minister that his so-called SMS, self-serve safety, is a literal disaster waiting to happen.

These inspectors know what they are talking about. We need only look at what happened to railway safety and marine safety when oversight was handed over to the industries' CEOs. Accident rates rose and safety plummetted.

Will the minister listen to those who know best and stop his attempt to turn Canadian airline passengers into cannon fodder? Will he stop playing games with the safety of Canadians?

Airline Security
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Pontiac
Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the facts are the following. We are putting in place a security management system that basically calls upon everybody who is involved in the industry to add on an additional layer in terms of security and safety to those who take our airlines.

In that sense, we are continuing to be the safest airways, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I call upon my colleague to support these actions. They are good actions for Canadians.

Airline Security
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the minister is promoting the reckless endangerment of Canadians.

Eighty per cent of Canada's inspectors say that the minister's self-serve safety will prevent them from correcting safety problems before they happen. Three-quarters of Canada's inspectors believe that a major accident will occur soon and that the public would lose confidence in aviation safety if they knew what reckless, feckless plans the minister has.

The minister is putting Canadian lives at risk. Why will he not listen to those who know aviation safety best?

Airline Security
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Pontiac
Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, surely it is not my hon. colleague who knows aviation safety the best.

We have been working extensively on this file. We are putting in new layers of protection. We are ensuring that our inspectors are doing the job.

Incidentally, we have just appointed a review panel to look at railway safety in the country. We are acting and that party is not doing anything.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made two allegations in this House. The first one was against the character and integrity of a member and his family. The second one was the political insinuation that this side of the House would make its decisions on a matter of public policy in order to protect that member.

I would ask him to withdraw both of those allegations.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, what is very disappointing is the Liberal position with respect to the Anti-terrorism Act. This was put in by a Liberal government five years ago. The police supported it, members of the Liberal party supported it and the Conservative Party and its antecedents supported it.

To make a change at this time, when police are counting on these weapons to fight terrorism in this country, I do not buy the Liberals' story that somehow the problem has gone away. We need it more today than we ever needed it and they should get behind it and support it.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, a clear question was asked in this House about unsubstantiated allegations. The House deserves the respect of a clear answer to a question that relates to the integrity of a member.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please. The government House leader has risen to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and we will hear the answer.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, we are getting into the realm of points of order here. I think the member may wish to raise those at the appropriate time.

I was in the House and I did not hear any allegation made. I know there was an effort to read an article. I often hear that being done by members on the other side.

However, the real question is why the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, with all the things he has said about the dangers of terrorism in this world and all the positions he has taken, which are far more aggressive than the Anti-terrorism Act, has now joined his leader in flip-flopping on this issue and wanting to oppose the Anti-terrorism Act protections that Canadians need to rely on.

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable difficulty, given the decorum in the House today, but I believe it would be obvious to you and to all members what caused it.

I would add my voice to those who would ask our Prime Minister to speak with the voice of Canada, to speak with the decency of politics, to speak with the consideration that members of this House have always shown for one another and apologize and withdraw what clearly was going to be a drive-by smear against a young, hon. member of this House who is seeking to represent his constituents and his country.

Will he do the decent thing and speak up?

The Prime Minister
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I respect what the hon. member said about decorum. It would be nice to have a little in the House so we could deal with these issues.

However, it is a very odd situation. We are being asked to apologize for something that was about to happen. I think the Liberals should apologize for what they are about to do in terms of the Anti-terrorism Act.

The problem that is facing Canadians is a very serious one and it is not a question of games in the House of Commons. It is not a question of who is calling each other names or that kind of thing. It is a question of the security of Canadians. It is a very serious and profound question. The Liberals may be trying to dodge and divert, but the fundamental issue remains.