House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was banks.

Topics

Air Canada
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, when Air Canada workers wanted to exercise their constitutional right to strike, the Conservatives did not hesitate to intervene and pass an unfair law. But when Air Canada disregards its legal obligations to keep the maintenance centre for its aircraft in Montreal and this results in the loss of over 2,000 jobs at Aveos, the Minister of Transport hides behind the pretext that this is a private company and washes his hands of the situation.

Rather than playing the role of a Conservative Pontius Pilate, will the minister enforce the law? If not, then he should resign immediately, for heaven's sake.

Air Canada
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that 2,300 maintenance workers are still working for Air Canada. The business relationship between Aveos and Air Canada is in the private domain; it is between the two companies. We have said it many times, and I will say it again: the law is the law and, under that law, we will ensure that Air Canada respects the Air Canada Public Participation Act, as it did initially, and ensure that its overhaul centres remain in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg. Air Canada can choose which company will do that work or whether it will do the work itself.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, during statements by members today, I made a comment that was very inappropriate for the House and I apologize unreservedly for doing so.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. member for that.

Canadian Human Rights Commission
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2011 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the first part of the 2012 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, France, January 23-27, 2012.

Justice and Human Rights
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

March 28th, 2012 / 3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to its study on the state of organized crime in Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Justice and Human Rights
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report that was just presented on organized crime.

The New Democrats, since 2009, have been working collaboratively with other parties on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the objective of recommending new strategies. There are, in fact, some 699 criminal organizations in Canada, 83% of which are engaged in illegal drugs, such as cocaine, cannabis and synthetic drugs, in that order. We have consistently promoted an effective and balanced approach to combatting organized crime.

In that regard, although we support most of the 35 recommendations in the report, we supported, along with the government, passing Bill C-2, the megatrials bill, in June 2011.

However, we do have some concerns about this report, which is why we have filed a supplementary report suggesting that the government has proven, unfortunately, that, with overreaching bills such as Bill C-10 and Bill C-30, it is putting overreaching ideology ahead of level-headed legislation.

We are opposed to the mandatory minimums proposed in the report and we are concerned about the lawful access provisions that support Bill C-10. We are concerned about the lack of judicial oversight recommended and the unnecessary expansion of powers that are contained in the report.

However, regardless of that, we do support, in general, the report but have filed a dissenting report.

Justice and Human Rights
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. The committee has studied the main estimates and reports the same.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to “A Framework for Success: Practical Recommendations to Further Shorten the Foreign Qualification Recognition Process”.

Public Accounts
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of chapter 2 G8 legacy infrastructure fund of the 2011 spring report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Public Accounts
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition, it behooves me to speak to this particular report and point out a couple of things that the Auditor General said about the G8 legacy fund, the border infrastructure fund. One is that the Auditor General said, “rules were broken” during his investigation of the G8 legacy fund, which was money that was pushed into the border infrastructure fund.

What we heard was Parliament saying one thing about where the money was but the reality of what happened to the money was altogether something else.

Even when some money was moved later on into the estimates, the Auditor General said, “...this is still not clear because it suggests that these projects were somehow related to border infrastructure, which was not the case”. So, even after he had moved it once, he actually moved it again and still could not get it clarified.

More important, perhaps I should quote what the Auditor General said about documentation. One of the things we heard from the minister was that there was no documentation. We found out later on that there was a trail at the municipal level. The Auditor General said, “We did approach the minister's office to request any documentation that was available in the minister's office or in the constituency office to explain how the projects were selected. We received a small amount of documentation which wasn't directly relevant to the question of the project selection and we therefore concluded, as we did in the audit, that it didn't exist”.

We then found out that was not true. There was some sort of trail of documentation and that ended up being what we found out through access to information at the municipal level.

I have been on the public accounts committee since the last Parliament and it is really disappointing that, in this particular case, we did not have the opportunity to interview the Auditor General personally on this particular chapter. Every other chapter we have ever done we have had that opportunity. That was denied the committee in this particular case, which is extremely unfortunate.

One of the recommendations we have, and we have a few, is to go back and revisit that chapter and have the Auditor General present so we can get a fulsome report and fulsome answers to all the questions we still have.

Public Accounts
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Restricted by the majority of the committee to being able to file a report or a dissenting report of just two pages in reply to the majority's report of the G8 legacy fund, it is quite regrettable that the Liberal Party of Canada had to file a dissenting report in the matter concerning the management and practices of the Government of Canada with regard to the G8 legacy fund.

Quite frankly, by restricting the dissenting reports to just two pages, I find that a denial of basic rights of members to speak their minds about issues affecting the governance and accountability of Canada.

What I also find very reprehensible, as my colleague just pointed out, the Auditor General, despite past practices of always being called--

Public Accounts
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I hate to stop the hon. member but I had recognized him on a point of order and I have not yet heard what his point of order may be. He may not realize it but only the official opposition can provide a dissenting report when reports are tabled. If he has a point of order I would like to hear it so I can rule on it and then we can move on.