House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was immigrants.

Topics

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they are always respecting and supporting police officers, but it is a funny kind of support. They say they back police officers and then spend every day complaining about police officers on the judicial advisory committee.

I hope that is not the kind of support they are giving the Leader of the Opposition, telling him at the convention that they support him and then spending every day complaining about him. Nobody needs that kind of support.

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative government is simply trying to deflect attention from its manipulation of judicial appointments. It is shocking that the petty, meanspirited Prime Minister and his colleagues will do or say anything. They make outrageous claims and slander reputations. They gerrymander the way judges are selected to suit their ideology.

When will the minister admit that the government's change in policy for judicial advisory councils is threatening the independence of Canada's judiciary?

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 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, the Liberals like to talk about their version of the much flaunted independence of the judiciary, as if there was no partisanship involved when they were in government.

In 2004 the Ottawa Citizen reported that since 2000 more than 60% of the 93 lawyers who received federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta donated exclusively to the Liberal Party in the three to five years prior to receiving appointments. I do not know how independent that was. I think they were all very good people, but it is a remarkable coincidence.

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Chief--

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please. We are moving on to the next question. The minister has completed his answer. The hon. member for Don Valley East has the floor to ask her next question and the minister wants to be able to hear it.

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of Canada, the Judicial Council and the Canadian Bar Association are all warning that the government is putting the independence of the judiciary in jeopardy, but the minister is ignoring their advice and is stacking the deck in his favour, not to fight crime but to clone his ideology.

Will the minister reverse this dangerous position and guarantee he will preserve the independence of the judiciary?

Judicial Appointments
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the ironic part about the Liberal Party is that in the last election, it actually promised to get tough on crime.

The Liberals were supposed to help the government in our crime fighting agenda, yet every opportunity that has come before this House, whether it is house arrest or mandatory minimum sentences for people committing crimes with firearms, they consistently oppose the measures of the government.

Their whole crime package has become this attack on police officers. I cannot wait until the next election. They can say that all they did was criticize police officers. We have a crime fighting package that I think Canadians will buy into.

Air-India Inquiry
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, two former Liberal deputy prime ministers, other prominent Liberals, and groups such as the Air India Victims Families Association have been calling on the Liberal leader to change his mind and vote in favour of extending two important provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. So far their cries have fallen on deaf ears.

If these two security measures are not extended, could the Minister of Public Safety inform the House what impact this will have on the Air-India inquiry and on our ability to fight terrorism?

Air-India Inquiry
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla
B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, it will impede the work of the inquiry. If the Liberal leader will not listen to the parliamentary committee that wants these provisions extended, if he will not listen to the former Liberal ministers who wrote the law, if he will not listen to the Supreme Court, and if he will not listen to the Senate, will he listen to the families here today, people who have signed this letter asking that these provisions be continued, people such as Maureen Basnicki, a Canadian 9/11 widow, and Dave Hayer, a B.C. MLA, whose father, a Sikh news editor, was murdered in a terrorist attack?

Will he apologize to the families for dismissing them as being emotional? Will he be the one to apologize?

Forest Industry
Oral Questions

February 22nd, 2007 / 2:45 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, 280 jobs went down this week in Thunder Bay as the hemorrhaging of our forest communities continues. Pulp mills, kraft mills and sawmills are going down. Red Rock, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, White River and Timmins have become a highway of shame and what has been the response of the government? Nothing, nada, an absolute indifference to the communities and the workers.

The government gives $1 billion a year in subsidies to its pals in big oil and gas. How about some fairness to the northern communities which are being sold down the river?

Forest Industry
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Saanich—Gulf Islands
B.C.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we want to acknowledge and recognize the difficult times the forest industry is in, large part to measures beyond its control. We know there is a major downturn in the housing industry in the U.S.

Our government and the Minister of International Trade not only resolved the softwood lumber dispute but we have been working with the industry and all of the executives. We announced a few weeks ago $127 million which is flowing now to promote innovation and investment to address the skills and adjustment issues and expand market opportunities. These are the exact issues requested by the industry. It has control of this money. It is directing the priorities and our government is very proud to support it.

Forest Industry
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that part of the secret booby prize of the softwood lumber sellout is that the government gave up Canada's right to protect and help our own communities.

The government, along with the Bloc and the Liberals, fast-tracked the bill and kept it from public scrutiny during public hearings. The public did not know what was in that bill. So now it is learning that the U.S. trade interests are threatening Canada if our provinces step up to the plate.

Why did the government, along with its quisling allies in the Bloc and the northern Ontario Liberals, sell out our economic sovereignty, roll over for America, and refuse to stand up for Canada?

Forest Industry
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Vancouver Kingsway
B.C.

Conservative

David Emerson Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very quickly forgetting that because of the softwood lumber agreement, we have put back over $5 billion into the pockets of Canadian lumber producers.

Justice
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Dryden York Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, what was yesterday really about? It was about a Prime Minister whose only compass is a political compass, who has no other reference points to tell him: no, too far, too much and not right. It was about a Prime Minister who does not want anyone around him to be that check, that balance, not in his caucus or cabinet, not in the media, not in ordinary citizens, not anybody, and not in the judiciary.

Yesterday was really about power, who can be trusted with it and who cannot. The International Institute of Management Development's World Competitiveness Yearbook ranks our justice system as the fairest in the world. Why is the Prime Minister putting that at risk?