Debates of Oct. 20th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Paul Martin has all the money. That's the problem.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That's where the money has gone. It's the finance minister who is spending it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

He should be ashamed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I appeal to you. When question period breaks down we cannot hear the questions or the answers. When a question is asked, surely courtesy would demand that we listen to the answer. As well, when a question is being asked courtesy would also demand, surely, that we listen to what the question is. I appeal to you, my colleagues, to please contain yourselves.

Aircraft Safety

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

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

Since the horrible crash of Swissair Flight 111 off Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia there have been several cases of emergency landings in Canada due to smoke in the cockpit, including another one just last night in St. John's, Newfoundland.

Many aviation experts have identified kapton wiring as a possible cause for frequent wiring failure in aircraft. Considering that the minister often says that safety is the number one priority in his department, what is the minister doing, if anything, to assure that kapton wiring is not a hazard in these aircraft?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are quite concerned with these forced landings of various aircraft. I think it is very important that we have the full evidence from the transportation safety board, whether it is on the Swissair crash, the landing last night by British Airways or even the incident last week involving an Air Canada jet landing at Thunder Bay, before we jump to any conclusions.

There has been a lot of speculation about insulation and kapton wiring as being the cause of smoke in the cockpit, but until we have the evidence we cannot bring in any regulatory measure to deal with it until we know what we are talking about.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is ample evidence now that there could be a hazard with kapton wiring. In fact the minister of defence has ordered that the kapton wiring be removed from some of his aircraft. In 1987 the American airforce removed it from some of its aircraft and since 1995 no manufacturers have used it.

I believe there is ample evidence to move ahead on the national transportation safety board inquiries and act now.

Will the minister appoint a task force to determine whether this aircraft wiring is unsafe or not?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to appoint any task force because Transport Canada, as the regulatory agency, is looking into all of these problems on an ongoing basis and dealing with questions of insulation and wiring.

On the question of kapton, we are looking at the situation. We have not come to any determination that it constitutes a safety hazard as long as the planes are properly maintained. Transport Canada maintains a rigorous inspection of all commercial aircraft in the country.

Again, we have to look at the TSB reports before we actually act to find the true cause of these accidents and take preventative measures.

Justice

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been proclaimed by Canada's YWCA as a week without violence. The Minister of Justice knows of the high degree of concern among Canadian women about crimes of violence generally and in the home.

Will the justice minister tell the House during this week without violence what her ministry is doing to bring about a reduction in criminal violence in our homes and in our communities?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. On behalf of the government I want to congratulate the YWCA for declaring this a week without violence.

We on this side of the House not only condemn violence, we work to prevent violence. Let me say in particular as it relates to violence against youth and violence against women that we have put in place a crime prevention strategy that targets violence against both young people and women in the home. Rather than sitting here—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Health

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1997 Motion No. 222 passed in this House. It dealt with constructive solutions to fix the organ donor crisis in this country which has claimed 140 lives this year so far. Since that time nothing has been done.

Will the Minister of Health stop pondering and start acting to implement Motion No. 222 before another 140 Canadians die, and will he do it before the end of this year?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite wrong in saying that nothing has been done. I do acknowledge his interest in the subject and thank him for having met with me about it and providing me with information, which I considered carefully.

I want the hon. member to know, indeed the House to know, that the department of health is working with provincial ministries of health, medical associations and other interested persons to find a way forward on encouraging availability of organs for donation. We are doing that through consultation and by encouraging people to fill out organ donation forms in the provinces. We are also looking at other strategies that we believe will be effective.

The member should know that we are working with all those involved to find a better way.

The Environment

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has admitted that it was responsible for the contamination of the water table in the Sept-Îles beach area. In order to correct the situation, the government has decided to distribute bottled water to the families affected, until the year 2007 if necessary.

The people in my riding want to be supplied again with drinking water. What does the Minister of Transport intend to do to solve the problem caused by his department?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct, this is a very serious problem. It was brought to the attention of the residents by Transport Canada ourselves. We have taken remedial measures.

The solution of bottled water in the short term is not the long term solution and we are working with the town officials and other residents to make sure this issue is addressed.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery, first of all, of Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein Party of Northern Ireland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I also wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of members and performers of Cirque du Soleil.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

As you know, a reception will be held for them in room 216 after Oral Question Period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this particular issue.

I was absent from the House for the first three weeks of this session as I was at home in Winnipeg assisting my wife with our new baby. I cannot take as much credit for it as she can, but I think it was a wonderful experience anyway.

However, I had an opportunity to be a spectator or an observer of what has gone on here in the last little while, so when the opportunity arose to speak on it I was only too eager to do so.

I am in my 11th year of elected office. I served two terms in the provincial legislature in Manitoba, in opposition, and I am now in my second term as a federal member. One of the things I learned very quickly when I was first elected was that it is very easy to inflame passions on all sorts of issues. In a sense, when people are in opposition, as I was, they are rewarded for it. When I used to not want to be quoted on something I would step out into the scrum and say something quiet, reasonable and considerate and I would be guaranteed never to appear in print.

However, if I went out and pounded my fists, screamed, yelled and talked about how outrageous and terrible it was, I would be guaranteed a clip. I would even get a camera. Unfortunately this is the environment that we live in. I say unfortunately because when I meet in committee outside of this place with members from all sides of this House that is not the discussion or debate that I take part in. I take part in a discussion about how we do things to improve things for Canadians.

Something every now and again goes wrong around here, but I am not sure what it is. I have only seen once before in my rather short experience that an issue kind of captures the attention of the media and we get sort of a self-reinforcing dance that goes back and forth between members of the opposition who glean all this wonderful attention and the media who have something to write about.

It surprises me when an issue accelerates the way this one has. It is a very serious issue. We have a charge from a group of Canadians that the RCMP have infringed their rights by acting in a way that is above and beyond the way in which they have to act. We have those complaints regularly. We have them in my own province and city. We have something called LERA, the Law Enforcement Review Agency. If somebody feels that a police officer has been abusive to them they have the ability to go before a citizen panel, lay a complaint and have that complaint acted upon. The system acts on their behalf. They do not have to incur any charges. They do not have to incur any costs. They go forward and say “A policeman assaulted me. A policeman abused me”. The system will then act to protect the rights of that citizen. That is the kind of country that we have.

We have a serious charge. I am not going to prejudge it. I do not know, as I was not there. I did not witness it. I have been on both sides of demonstrations. I grew up in an RCMP household. I have also worked on the streets with kids that were badly abused by the police. I am not going to prejudge this situation.

We have a process that has been in place for nearly 12 years that receives a thousand complaints a year and that adjudicates 300 a year. It has had 3,000 cases in its history. We have never felt it acted irresponsibly, under political direction or unethically. In this country we have always felt that the commission defended our rights.

I sit at home and watch the House talk daily about the dishonesty of people, members hearing things in the corners and running out to tell the media, or somebody hearing something in a gym. A member in the House stood up to apologize to somebody privately, saying “If I caused you any hurt, I am sorry”. The member ran into the hallway to tell the press. What are we creating? How are we going to do the work that we all really want to do if that is the kind of atmosphere that we create?

The solicitor general is not just my colleague, he is a friend. I have worked with him for a long time. Members opposite who have an interest in the issues have worked with us together. I know that those members know that the solicitor general would never interfere with the operation of that commission. It is not in his manner, demeanour or ethics. It is not the way he has conducted himself his entire life. That is the reality. This is the man I know and work with and this is the man members on the other side have known and worked with. Yet daily people stand in the House and impugn his motives and call him all sorts of outrageous things. I am shocked by it.

Ed Greenspon wrote an article in the Globe yesterday. I know Greenspon and I know his work. I like him. I think he is a good reporter. He said that the solicitor general's problem was that he spoke too long, he was too open and too honest. Is that a problem? Should we decide it is better to be duplicitous, to duck, weave and hide, not tell the truth and criticize a person in our national paper for being too open? There is something wrong in this debate.

The commission has to investigate. The students are not being charged with anything. The commission is there to act on their behalf. The commission has an additional $650,000. If it feels it needs to access more expertise and resources, it has the budget. It has the power to make those decisions and it always has acted independently. There is a point when we have to get off the merry-go-round and start to deal with the business of Canada in the House.

I heard today a question about fire safety on an airplane. People have died. There is a possibility that planes are unsafe. This is the first time in five weeks that somebody even spoke about it in the House. They are too busy trying to figure out new and cute ways to slander somebody. At some point we have to stop and consider what we are doing and let the process work. If the RCMP have acted improperly, they should be dealt with. If they have not, they deserve our support.