House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bank.

Topics

Hamilton AIDS Network
Statements by Members

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, until today I have stayed away from using the rare opportunities we have to make statements in this House to single out the work of just one community organization when so many are doing incredible work in Hamilton without getting the kind of support or recognition they deserve from our government.

However, last Saturday I went to an amazing celebration for the AIDS Network in commemoration of its 20 years of service to our region. “Escape to Oz” was an incredible event that really put the fun back into fundraising.

I wish some of my federal and provincial colleagues from the other parties would have been there to show their support, to share in the successes to date and, more importantly, to remind ourselves of just how much more there is yet to be done.

While the Prime Minister's photo op with Bill Gates last week included a welcome announcement of funding for the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, it does not erase the memory of his snub of the international AIDS conference in Toronto last summer.

What organizations like the Hamilton AIDS Network want to know is that their government supports not just international aid but that it will act to assist people living with HIV-AIDS right here in Canada too.

To date, that assistance has not been forthcoming. Canadian governments have failed the world and they are failing our own citizens. The time to deliver is now.

Passports
Statements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have travelled to Washington to persuade American authorities to relax their new rules requiring Canadians to present a passport in order to enter the United States by land or water.

Premier Shawn Graham has met with governors to discuss how the new rules will affect employment and the economy. The Canadian premiers are suggesting that an improved driver's licence could be used instead of a Canadian passport.

I therefore ask the Conservative government to support these measures and to take action to reduce the negative impact that the new passport rules will have.

The requirement to present a passport in order to enter the United States by air has already caused problems for hundreds of Canadians, as well as the passport offices. Things will only get worse when passports become mandatory for people entering the United States by land. These new rules will undoubtedly have a negative impact on Canada's economy.

It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that efforts to improve border security do not affect our country's prosperity.

Heart Disease
Statements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, heart disease has traditionally been more prevalent in men than in women. Recent data from the Heart and Stroke Foundation's 2007 Report on Canadians' Health indicate that, contrary to popular belief, if you are a woman, you are more susceptible than men to heart disease or a stroke.

There is now a considerable gap between men and women, to the extent that, for the first time in 30 years, it is now women who more often suffer from heart disease. The Heart and Stroke Foundation is sounding the alarm and urging all women and their doctors to be more vigilant.

According to Dr. George Honos, a cardiologist and spokesperson for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, it is worrisome to note that the cardiovascular health of women has not followed the same trend as that of men. It is essential that we understand the reasons for this disparity and rectify the situation. Let us hope that his warning is heard.

Iran
Statements by Members

February 27th, 2007 / 2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, given the emerging circumstances in Iran, I invite all members of this House to join me in the following statements.

First, I invite them to join me in condemning Iranian President Ahmadinejad's genocidal comments regarding the state of Israel and the Jewish people.

Second, I invite members to join me in insisting that Iran cease its arming of terrorist organizations.

Third, I invite them to join me in demanding that Iran honour its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Fourth, I invite them to join me in urging the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency to demand access to its investigators to certify that the program has ceased.

Fifth, in the event of non-cooperation with any of the above imperatives, I invite members to join me in calling on the UN Security Council to impose wide-ranging sanctions on international travel, freezing foreign bank accounts and halting all trade with Iran beyond humanitarian aid.

Anti-terrorism Act
Statements by Members

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal flip-flop on two important provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act continues to puzzle me and the majority of Canadians. Investigative hearings and preventive arrests are crucial in our battle against the threat of terrorism in Canada.

As chair of the committee that reviewed the act for this House, I want to thank the Liberal members on that committee, the members from Scarborough Southwest and Etobicoke North. They worked diligently and supported the extension of these provisions. They know that we are not immune to the threat of terrorism.

Families of the victims of the 9/11 and Air-India terrorist attacks want us to place the safety and security of Canadians ahead of partisan politics and support these provisions. Will the opposition leader stop playing partisan politics and join Canada in its fight against terrorism?

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, for months, the Prime Minister has had the opportunity to improve Canada's anti-terrorism laws but he has not acted. As my father used to say, this is no way to run a railroad. These clauses will sunset today.

Will the Prime Minister commit to proposing changes to our anti-terrorism laws that take into consideration the issues raised by committees of Parliament?

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supported these laws, not just for months but for years and abruptly the leader of the Liberal Party flip-flopped on his support just days before the vote. We have seen this before.

The hon. member for the Liberal Party knows full well that the powers that are there are necessary for national security. He also knows that the courts have found they are consistent with civil liberties. Instead, his leader chooses to ignore all that. He refuses to meet or listen to anybody who is on the other side.

I note that the families of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy are here today and the leader said, “We want to protect other Canadians”--

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that no proposals have been made from his side to reform these laws. He also knows that the Senate and the House have made substantial proposals for change. These anti-terrorism laws cannot be improved unless the government comes back with comprehensive legislation.

Almost five months ago, a committee of this House tabled a report on ten proposed reforms to Canada's Anti-terrorism Act. The Prime Minister rejected all of them.

Why did the Prime Minister ignore the advice of this committee, including that of his own members?

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously happy with the provisions that exist. The government offered, since the Liberal Party has flip-flopped its position, to extend the provisions if the Liberal Party does in fact want to make some changes. However, there is a lot at stake here. This is about our national security.

Let me do what I was unable to do before, which is to quote Maureen Basnicki of the Canadian 9/11 victims who said today, "We want to protect other Canadians from the devastation we experienced, so please keep the ATA intact and don't allow the sun to set on Canadian security."

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Ignatieff Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, instead of proposing a reform of the anti-terrorism legislation, the Prime Minister has taken the low road by smearing the reputation of a member of this House, misleading the Canadian public about the Air-India inquiry and politicizing this when we need concrete solutions. This conduct erodes the trust necessary for all sides of the House to work constructively to improve Canada's anti-terrorism laws.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to propose new legislation to re-balance anti-terrorism laws to respect both security and human rights?

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows that these provisions do both.

What erodes trust is when the leader of the Liberal Party flip-flops his position on the eve of the vote, when the leader of the Liberal Party refuses to meet the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy, when the leader of the Liberal Party refuses to meet the families of the Canadian victims of 9/11, when he ignores and denigrates the police in this country and when he ignores meeting members of his own party in both Houses and outside of these chambers who demand that he stand up for national security.

It is time the leader of the Liberal Party acted like Canadians should trust his judgment on national security issues.

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, reconciling security and the protection of rights is a complex issue and partisan insults do not help. The Prime Minister has not reassured Canadians. He has known, since last October, that the anti-terrorism legislation had to be reworked and brought back into balance, but he did nothing. There was no analysis, no plan, nothing.

Why did the Prime Minister not carry out a rigorous analysis of the act these past five months? Why did he not exempt the issue of national security from partisanship?

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, it is the leader of the Liberal Party who changed his position at the last minute. The reality is that these laws respect national security and the courts have ruled on the constitutionality of these measures. The time has come for the leader of the Liberal Party to protect the interests of Canadians and not to play the Liberal caucus game.

Anti-terrorism Act
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to hear security today, rights tomorrow. They know that they cannot trust the Prime Minister with the protection of rights.

The Prime Minister eliminated the court challenges program, he abolished the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he has attacked the impartiality of judges, he even stooped so low as to make personal attacks, insults and insinuations.

In light of all this, how can the Prime Minister believe that Canadians trust him to defend their rights?