House of Commons Hansard #78 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was public.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

April 7th, 2005 / 4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a comment from the NDP member. I have been listening to the government's responses about all the money it has been spending on security, how it has learned its lesson from Air-India, how it has all these measures in place and everybody should rest assured that we will not have those kind of problems any more.

However, the point of the whole matter is the government was elected in 1993. It was not until 2002 that it did anything in terms of passing anti-terrorism legislation, which was basically modelled on the British model that had been in place with the Irish problem. It had been around for ages. It was the September 11 event that forced the government's hand to finally take steps to deal with it. All of the things the government has been talking about in the House, such as the measures it has in place to prevent this, have only occurred post-September 11. From 1993 to 2002, from what I can see, the government did nothing legislatively to deal with the terrorism problem.

It is not exactly correct for the government to say that it has done a lot in response to the Air-India crisis. It really has done very little on it. I would appreciate receiving any comment from the NDP member on that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon us to point out that we have had 20 years to deal with the fact that in 1985 a very serious tragedy happened. We have had 20 years to talk about putting systems and mechanisms in place to ensure this never happens again.

As we talk about terrorism, one point we really need to talk about is what our responsibility is as a country to get at the root of terrorism. We need to talk about poverty in the third world. We need to talk about trade implications that impact on people in the third world that cause them to not have the standards and quality of life.

There is a move afoot right now that talks about .07% of our GDP going for foreign aid. If we really want to talk about dealing with terrorism, we need to talk about those root causes that are forcing people into sometimes very desperate acts.

Our conversation needs to broaden. We need to have this investigation into the Air-India bombing. We need to talk about how we protect the safety and security in our country. We need to talk about getting at the root causes of terrorism.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite to expand on her answer a little more, because all of this has to make sense internationally sometime too.

We have a case that has taken 20 years. There has been some $150 million expended on it. There have been 250 RCMP officers involved. When there are this many deaths on an international flight it defies credibility that we as a nation would have real credibility internationally when we devote one person to being an independent adviser to follow up on this massive amount of work. There must be literally truckloads of files and information to go through. I do not think we can have any credibility come out of that, nor any result internationally.

I agree with the member opposite that it is of absolute urgency and importance to have international credibility in regard to the results of this investigation. I would like the member to expand on that if she could.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, there is some very good information around the area of why we would want to have an independent inquiry and why we would want to establish our credibility in the international framework.

What we really need here is decisive action with adequate resources. We must make sure that the person who would take on this independent inquiry and investigation would have access to all the materials that would be required to establish our credibility. It is absolutely essential that on the world stage we are seen as being able to conduct an inquiry which would actually end up with some results that would make some changes so this kind of tragedy would never happen again in Canada.

I think Canada has a role to play in brokering the kinds of investigations and whatnot that take a look at bringing in the key witnesses and the key people who would be able to inform the process and to make sure that we set up a mechanism to prevent any kind of tragedy like this in the future.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Gurmant Grewal Conservative Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank all the members who have supported this motion so far. They have worked hard to push the government to call a public inquiry. I greatly appreciate their sympathy for the victims as well as for Canadians looking for justice and for measures to find out what went wrong with this massive investigation and how we can crack this whole situation.

I would also like to find out from this member if this incident could have been prevented if the government had done two things differently. It is also quite evident that there have been grave errors made by federal institutions such as CSIS and the RCMP and even by the federal government from time to time.

Does the member agree that such questions must be put to rest, for example, negligence by federal government agencies? Does the member agree that this also affects the reputation of these agencies and the reputation of Canada in the international arena? Does the member think there is any other solution, as the government is not coming forward to call an inquiry so far even though it has been nudged a little on this issue?

If there is no public inquiry, is there anything else that could be done to satisfy the situation and get to the bottom of the situation? We must find out what went wrong and how it can be corrected so that such a tragedy does not happen again.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a very interesting point. There are two things that an investigation or inquiry would help us with. It would bring some degree of comfort to the victims' families and friends in that their pain and the resulting loss of their loved ones would actually be heard and there would be some justice meted out as a result of it. That is the most important piece: that the families and friends of the people killed in that bombing actually have some resolution and feel with some confidence that the situation will never be repeated in terms of the bungling and ineptness that has happened.

There is also a second piece that is really important. An investigation would help the Canadian public and help Canada on the international stage with rebuilding the confidence in our security and in police forces. Examining what went wrong, bringing it to light and airing it in an open, public and transparent way would help us put the mechanisms in place to prevent it. Those mechanisms would allow the public to say, “Yes, we do have faith in our police forces and our security services”.

Getting the inquiry out into a public venue will not only bring justice to the families and loved ones impacted by this terrible tragedy, but it will also help Canadians have more confidence and faith in their system. I think it is absolutely essential that we get on with this investigation quickly and do not waste any more time. Twenty years is long enough for people to have to live with this without any resolution.

It is time for us to move on this. I urge all members of the House to support this very compassionate and compelling motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join colleagues in the government and oppose this motion brought forward by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

As I said earlier, I tried to introduce an amendment, but because of the procedures of the House I had to have the consent of the member for Newton—North Delta and the Conservative Party to introduce it. That was denied, so I am not able to do introduce it.

I do not know if the Conservative Party is concerned that the amendment would pass in the House and its main motion would be defeated, or whether it is not really interested in substantive solutions to this very difficult situation. I do not know, but it is unfortunate. I think it was a good amendment. I think there would have been a good debate and a good vote. People would have had a choice. Nonetheless, there we are.

We appreciate the feelings of the families and their desire for answers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gurmant Grewal Conservative Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the member during his speech, but I want to put the record straight. I did not give my consent for the amendment because it completely watered down the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

I am sorry, but that is more a point of debate than a point of order. We will resume debate with the hon. parliamentary secretary.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has noted, she has made a commitment to meet with families of the victims very soon. As part of her meeting with families she has also said that she is willing to discuss with the families what questions need to be answered and how best to answer them.

For the present time, due process must run its course. This has been one of the longest and most complex trials in Canadian legal history. It lasted for almost two years, cost tens of millions of dollars and heard over 100 witnesses. The decision about an appeal of the court's verdict rests still with the province of British Columbia. This government awaits that decision.

With that behind us, we will be better able to see if there is merit in an inquiry 20 years later and what, if anything, it would reveal given the lengthy police investigations, two criminal trials and the various reviews that have already been held, notably on air transport safety and the role of security and intelligence in Canada. As well, I should note that there remains an ongoing RCMP investigation into this matter.

However, in continuing this debate, I wish to re-emphasize the exhaustive efforts that have been taken to attain justice in what was the worst ever aviation disaster over sea and the worst act of terrorism that has taken place against Canadians. As well, I want to take some time to outline some of the measures we have implemented since Air-India and since September 11 to ensure the safety of travel in our skies and the security of our citizens.

A number of other activities have been undertaken since the crash of Air-India flight 182. These include various Canadian-led studies and analyses, trials, coroners' inquests, a commission undertaken by the Indian government, and a legal settlement for the victims. As well, there have been significant improvements to the Canadian public safety and security sector and legislative framework.

In September 1985 the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence, headed by the intelligence and security coordinator of the Privy Council Office, Blair Seaborn, conducted a review of airline and airport security.

The Seaborn report, as members have already heard it called today, and I consider it worth repeating, resulted in a number of actions taken by Transport Canada to enhance the security of Canada's aviation system. These included the establishment of a restricted area access clearance program for area airport workers, rigorous background checks for airport workers, and the introduction of passenger baggage reconciliation on international flights.

As the Deputy Prime Minister has noted, the actions of the Canadian government have made Canada a leader among international efforts to combat terrorist threats in our skies and have provided a model adopted by other countries around the world.

In January 1986 the Canadian Aviation Safety Board made public a comprehensive report of its findings on the Air-India disaster. The report identified potential safety deficiencies, whether causal or not, and recommended appropriate corrective measures for implementation by regulatory and enforcement authorities. The bulk of its findings built on the Seaborn report and pertained to safety measures in Vancouver, Toronto and Mirabel, as well as a forensic analysis of recovered wreckage and expert discussion of potential causes for the tragedy.

Also in 1986, Indian Supreme Court Judge Kirpal presented an inquiry report. The findings and recommendations of the inquiry dealt with airline safety procedures such as aircraft design, baggage handling protocols and safety equipment. It made extensive recommendations pertaining to international aviation, security regulations and safety measures.

As well, in the post 9/11 world, this government has made considerable investments to strengthen aviation security. The 2001 budget invested $7.7 billion over five years to fight terrorism and reinforce public security. This included over $2 billion over five years for new aviation security initiatives such as the installation of explosives detection systems at Canadian airports, which would cover virtually all passengers travelling through our country.

We also placed armed RCMP officers on board selected domestic and international flights and provided $35 million to help airlines improve their own security. Recently the government made further efforts to improve aviation security improvements by allocating an additional $16 million over five years to develop systems to screen airline passenger information.

As members can see, the Government of Canada continues to work to keep our skies safe for airline passengers and crews, but our efforts also have gone beyond the field of aviation. In recent years, CSIS and the RCMP have improved their exchange of information and have moved forward with this and other investigations.

As well, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has shifted its focus from cold war concerns to the threat of global terrorism.

The Deputy Prime Minister noted that this action has been strengthened through a memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and CSIS to establish this relationship and coordinate their respective roles in the country's national security agenda.

Budget 2001 recognized this vital relationship and committed $1.6 billion to increase policing and intelligence efforts in fighting terrorism. Through this investment CSIS has expanded its investigative capacity by hiring more people as well as upgrading equipment and technology. The RCMP has also worked with its partners across the security community in the form of integrated national security enforcement teams in major Canadian cities.

As the government has noted, we have worked through the late 1980s and into the 1990s to implement new measures to enhance our national security. We introduced the Anti-terrorism Act and Public Safety Act to improve our ability to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to identified threats, while always remembering the need to guard the values assured to Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, April 6, 2005, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p..m.?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration from November 25 of the motion that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to amend the bill as follows:

That Bill C-263, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 3 the following:

(2.9) The prohibitions set out in subsection 2.1 do not apply to

(a) a person employed as a manager, superintendent or foreman or as a representative of the employer in employer-employee relations; or

(b) a person serving as a director or officer of a corporation, unless the person has been designated to serve in that capacity for the person's employer by the employees or by a certified association.