Debates of Oct. 24th, 2006

Canada Labour Code

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the members of this House that in 1999 there was a new bill and this question was reviewed by this House. It was decided that it was important to preserve a balance in labour relations. The Canada Labour Code permits the use of replacement workers, but they must not be used to undermine unions’ representational capacity. If that is the case, the unions may complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and have the right to start proceedings for that purpose. Only two provinces have an anti-strikebreaker law. The other eight do not want one.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very possible that a majority of the members of this House will vote for an anti-strikebreaker law tomorrow.

Will the minister, who voted for this law in 1991, use his status as Minister of Labour this time to overturn the will of the House and deny workers who are covered by the Canada Labour Code the protection of an anti-strikebreaker law?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, since the anti-strikebreaker law came into force in 1999, there have been 18 unfair labour practices complaints in Canada. Of those, 13 complaints to the Canada Industrial Relations Board were withdrawn, three were heard and dismissed by the board, and only two complaints are still pending.

Studies even show that in the provinces that have anti-strikebreaker legislation, disputes last longer.

The Environment

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, while the Minister of Transport was battling the Quebec government about the Kyoto protocol, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, obtained a perfect score, if her aim was to be criticized by absolutely everyone.

Today's edition of the French newspaper Le Monde criticizes the government for caving in to George Bush. This is becoming embarrassing. The comments on her plan range from “bad” to “very bad” and even “rotten”.

Which of these descriptions does the minister like best for her plan?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, cities and Canadians across the country want and need clean air. We know that smog days are rising while the opposition is playing politics with the clean air act.

If the opposition will not listen to Canadians, maybe it will listen to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which said that recent announcements signal that the present federal government is prepared to take a leadership role and develop an environmental plan that is capable of delivering tangible results for Canadians. Mr. Speaker, it did not stop there. It said that municipalities can and want to be partners in--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's edition of the French newspaper Le Monde refers to “Canada's surrender”. It mentions that “—Canada, a former leader in environmental issues, now cuts a sorry figure”.

The minister is being attacked on all fronts. The Quebec government is furious and feels betrayed. Environmental groups and top scientists are losing hope in the face of so much irresponsibility. And now, the international press is coming down on Canada.

I am sad to say the minister must be feeling very lonely. Apart from George Bush, does she have any friends left?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will take friends like the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Medical Association who are saying that millions of Canadians suffer from lung cancer, and while the opposition refuses to help them, we are actually proposing Canada's clean air act which, for the first time in Canadian history, will actually regulate indoor air, which is the leading cause of lung cancer in Canada among non-smokers.

If the member actually cared about clean air and cared about the health of Canadians, he would support the act.

Decorum

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada's chief diplomat and our face to the world on issues like human rights, has compromised himself because of his highly publicized slight against women, a slight that is now being reported by international news services. It is condemned by the Canadian Federation of University Women, the National Council of Women, the National Association of Women and the Law, the YWCA, Equal Voice, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, and many others.

Would it not be better to simply acknowledge the minister's mistake, apologize and distance the government from the implications of this ill-considered remark?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

You have already ruled on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but certainly we can all do our part to raise the decorum in the House. The member suggests where we should start. Let me suggest something to him. Why does he not start supporting the clean air act which is the first real bill to clean up the environment that has been introduced in the country in almost 20 years. He could be doing that, rather than spending the House's time on this business.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the horrible slur against women uttered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government's tactic is obviously to stonewall and deny, deny, deny. Instead of being accountable, they seek to trivialize the matter and pretend it never happened. But it did happen, Mr. Speaker. It was witnessed personally by several members of the House. It was recorded on tape. It was verified in the news media.

I ask the government, does it specifically deny that the Minister of Foreign Affairs last Thursday during question period said, “You already have her”. Did he say that or not?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on this matter, on what you heard and what is on the record on this. I was not here in the House on that particular day. In fact, I was very pleased to be welcoming the Prime Minister of Canada to my riding of Niagara Falls. I was not here that particular day, but I can tell the hon. member that we all want to raise the level of decorum in the House.

I would suggest to him that if he really wants to help the public interest, to get busy, to get behind the federal accountability act and some of the other pieces of legislation that have been stalled over in the other place. It would be much better for the hon. member to spend his time doing that.

Justice

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians elected this new government, they elected a government to get tough on crime. They elected a government to stop the revolving door of the justice system.

One of the ways this government has started restoring Canada's confidence in the justice system is with Bill C-9, which implements our platform commitments to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Could the justice minister try to explain why the opposition has watered down this important bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our party promised to eliminate house arrest for people who commit serious crime.

Last night in the justice committee, opposition members, led by the Liberals, unanimously passed amendments that would virtually gut Bill C-9. The Liberals want house arrest to still apply to arson, to robbery, to auto theft, and to break and enter into homes. Victims of these crimes will tell us that house arrest is not a suitable punishment; it is a joke.

Why will the Liberals not help us restore Canadians' confidence in the justice system?

Homelessness

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on August 17 theMinister of Human Resources and Social Development stated in reference to SCPI, which is a very crucial program for homeless Canadians, “There have been no reductions and will be no reductions to this funding”.

I would like to ask the minister what funding plans the government has for SCPI for fiscal year 2007-08 and fiscal year 2008-09.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, this government cares about the homeless. That is why one of our earliest actions was to extend the national homelessness initiative, because we wanted to ensure that the needs were being met.

We also promised Canadians that we would review all programs to make sure that they were delivering value for money.

We are taking advantage of delivering these programs to meet the needs while we evaluate them and look for opportunities to even better serve the needs of the homeless.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's review is a sham.

On the Treasury Board's own website, the government admits that it will cut 99% from SCPI funding, from $133 million to $2 million a year. The government cannot deny it. It is on its own website.

Can the minister explain how cutting 99% of the SCPI budget will help homeless Canadians, and can she explain why $131 million has been cut from a program she said she would never cut?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear to the member for London—Fanshawe that this government has no intention of cutting SCPI.

Health

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, two Canadians are fighting for their lives in a Toronto hospital after contracting botulism from contaminated carrot juice.

Now we learn that the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency saw the warnings and advisories from the U.S. a full two weeks before they passed this information on to public health officials.

Canadians need to know when food products are not safe. They depend on the government to protect them. Will the Minister of Health please explain why he failed to protect the health and safety of Canadians?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious case which concerns me and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

There was an isolated case. When it became two cases, we were notified. Working with our FDA partners in the United States, immediately, within 24 hours, a recall notice was put out and there was a health advisory alert. We took immediate action to bring that to the attention of Canadian consumers.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government did nothing while Canadians were being poisoned. Had it done its job properly, the attending physicians could have taken the proper steps to treat the patients appropriately. Instead, they were left scrambling to save the lives of their patients.

Health professionals depend on the government to help them act quickly in the event of a public health threat.

Would the minister explain why he has not been accountable to the Canadian medical community and why he sat on the information necessary to prevent Canadians from getting sick and to save those who were clinging to life?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member and the House that the Public Health Agency of Canada has been in constant contact with officials from around the world, including the United States, on these issues.

The initial cases, once it was clear what was going on, were isolated. As soon as we knew that there was a direct causation, that information was shared. The public health officials were doing their job.

If the hon. member was so concerned about it, perhaps when she was in government she would not have cut the budget of the health department, and we could have done more at that time too.

Softwood Lumber

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, who are the real architects of the softwood lumber sellout? Last March we learned the Prime Minister's senior muzzlers, Ian Brodie and Derek Burney, went to Washington for secret high level talks to sell Canada down the river.

We now know that they hid their expense records for this trip and failed to file the required proactive expense disclosures.

Who paid for this trip? Why did they not follow the rules? Why exactly is the Prime Minister trying to hide this?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange to take lectures from the Liberal Party opposite, the party that brought us Gagliano, the party that brought us Dingwall, the party that brought us the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

This government has a higher ethical standard. We have a stringent proactive disclosure system. We want to even expand the rules by bringing in the federal accountability act, the toughest piece of anti-corruption legislation ever in Canadian history. We hope the member opposite will use his influence with the Liberal Senate to get that law passed immediately.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to accountability, that government refuses to be accountable.

Here the members go again, dodging direct questions about how they broke the rules and broke their own promises. They can continue to play as if they are in opposition, but it does not cut it.

There are no proactive disclosure records for this stealth trip to the White House by Brodie and Burney. Did the government pay for this trip or did somebody else pay for it? If so, who? Why are there no records of this trip?

Moreover, why is the government trying to hide these secret meetings? Who is the real force behind this sellout? Why are the PMO's fingerprints all over it?