Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dianne Whalen, Minister of Government Services and Lands for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. member members the presence in the gallery of well-known hockey personality and commentator and Kingston native, Don Cherry.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

When responding to one of my questions, the Minister of the Environment referred to the candidate I support in the current leadership race.

For her information, I would just like her to know that the candidate I support clearly stated that he would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, and perhaps even more, in 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

In addition, all the other Liberal candidates also have ambitious objectives. That compares very favourably with the Conservative plan, which refers only to 2003, with real reductions of only 31%.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The minister undoubtedly greatly appreciates this clarification.

Standing Committee on International Trade

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster raised a point of order concerning the fact that he believed the international trade committee had exceeded its power in dealing with business before the committee . In your response to his point of order, Mr. Speaker, you pointed out that it dealt with matters that were dealt with by a committee, not by a chair making a unilateral decision to impose a rule. Therefore, you did not agree with his point of order.

However, I want to bring to your, Mr. Speaker, attention two new and additional concerns of which I believe you should be aware, and they concern this committee.

The first has to do with the fact that advertising was put forward. There was a listing for a televised hearing of the international trade committee, which yesterday or this morning was mysteriously and unilaterally cancelled, without notice and without any reason.

The committee did not make the decision to cancel the televised hearing. We do not know if it was the chair who unilaterally made that decision, or whether it was someone higher up at the ministerial level or the PMO. However, we believe this is a serious matter because the public relies upon televised hearings. They are advertised. They come to expect that it would be held for certain committees. Yet in this case, it was unilaterally cancelled.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this committee is now meeting without a break. Indeed, it sat through question period even though there were objections to that. I have never heard of a committee doing that. Usually there is a break during question period or for votes. Even if a majority of the committee members decided they wanted to do that, by doing so, they violated the privilege of one member, or any number of members, by preventing the member from coming to question period.

In fact, what has happened is the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, because he could not forfeit his right to deal with amendments clause by clause in that committee, had to forfeit his right to come to question period today. I find it astounding that this would be allowed to happen.

We would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this. We believe his privilege has been violated. He cannot even be here in the House right now to raise this question with you himself because he is stuck in the committee and cannot get out.

We want to know why televised hearings, which have been listed, can be unilaterally cancelled? This is something that should concern us all. Why was the member's privilege violated and why was he prevented from attending question period?

We would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this and to give us a ruling.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chief Government Whip wishes to present arguments regarding the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order a couple of things come to mind.

First of all, as the Chair is well aware, not all standing committee meetings can be televised, so the cancellation of the televised proceedings of that particular committee could have been done for any number of reasons. We have some 20 to 25 standing committees and only three rooms have televised capability.

Second, as far as the extended sitting for this particular committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their own destiny. They make their own decisions about when they meet, how often they meet, and how long they meet. I would expect that the House would want to uphold the right of the Standing Committee on International Trade to do exactly that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I think I can deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I fail to see the relevance of the argument she presented today to the argument that I received yesterday concerning the proceedings in the committee, and the allocation of time and so on for the deliberations of the committee.

However, the hon. member does raise the issue first regarding the televising of committee proceedings. I can only say that I could suggest that she have her colleague, who is a member of the committee, raise the matter in the committee as a point of order and complain there because the committee, as the hon. member knows, is master of its own proceedings.

If it decided or someone decided on its behalf or some decision was made not to televise the committee, I can only imagine the frightful disappointment in the eyes of the public who may have wanted to watch what was going on. That being the case, it is still a matter for the committee to decide whether or not its televising was cancelled improperly.

The hon. member's colleague, who is on the committee, ought to raise the matter as a point of order in the committee and have the chair of the committee deal with that point of order to find out how it was that something went wrong.

Her second argument dealt with the committee sitting through question period. I am sure she is aware that some members do miss question period from time to time. We do authorize committees to travel and be away from Ottawa all together on days when the House is sitting. Those members are torn because they either go travelling to hear evidence somewhere else or they remain here for question period and all the entertainment and information that that entails.

Trying to be very judicious in my choice of words, I do not think it is a breach of hon. members' privileges to be deprived of their opportunity to be in the Chamber for question period or indeed for some other part of the debate, unless of course they are being restrained from their attendance by an intervention from some third party with the use of restraints. Then of course there would be a breach of privilege and the Speaker would be more than happy to intervene.

However, if a committee makes a decision to sit through question period or indeed, with the permission of the House, to travel somewhere else and have hearings during a day when we are sitting, I am afraid there is no question of privilege that the Chair can deal with to ameliorate the hon. members of the committee who do not want to go and who feel that they are being torn away from a very important aspect of House proceedings, namely question period.

While I can share the hon. member's concern on behalf of her colleague, again, it is a matter he should raise with the chair of the committee, present the argument in the committee, and convince his colleagues that sitting through question period is a waste of the committee's time. I am sure they would adjourn and come in here at the drop of a hat.

I would have to accordingly leave the matter in the hands of the committee.

Presence in the Gallery

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know under which Standing Order of the House of Commons is it acceptable to give a special greeting to an anti-francophone pseudo-commentator on national television who is against French Canadians and who has never had any intention of apologizing?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer is well aware that there is a list of individuals available—if I may use that word—and that the Speaker may point out the presence of an individual in the gallery if such requests are made by the hon. members. We have a distinguished Canadian in the gallery who is well known and there was a request to point out his presence, which I did.

I accept the responsibility for having made the decision to do so. The list is there and the members can look at it.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

You must not be aware of the history of the guest who you greeted and called a distinguished guest. He has distinguished himself by bashing French Canadians.

You should have known that and not pointed out his presence in this Chamber.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that you do not take the heat on this, as you correctly stated in your remarks, you received a formal request to recognize Mr. Cherry. That request came from me. I believe that Mr. Cherry is a distinguished Canadian. He is very well known to the public.

Regardless of whether individuals are controversial or not does not detract from the fact that they are well known to Canadians, are attending the chamber in the gallery, and I think it was very appropriate that the Speaker recognized him during his attendance.

Motion No. 10

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, tabled in Parliament on Thursday, November 2, 2006, be adopted.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity, we have had issues in the House recently and on several occasions the turmoil distracted from the exact proceedings of the House. Would you simply advise once again, because I could not hear you at all, what your disposition was with respect to the ways and means motion?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The vote was deemed demanded pursuant to order made earlier this day and deferred until 5:30 p.m. later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Aeronautics Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the House was last debating the matter now before us, the hon. member for Yukon had the floor and there are six and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

We will hear now from the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will take my hon. member's suggestion and wrap it up. I was actually at the end of my remarks.

I would like to conclude by saying that because this bill involves the safety of Canadians, it is very important that it gets careful consideration at committee, that the appropriate experts are called to committee from airline companies related to maintenance, labour laws and aircraft companies. Anyone who could provide input, such as experts in safety inspection, to ensure the modernization of the new rules will be in the best interests of Canadians and will increase the safety of Canadians, should be invited.

For that reason, the Liberals support this bill going to committee where it will receive a thorough investigation and no stone will be left unturned in ensuring the safety of Canadians.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6. I want to note that my colleague, our critic for transportation, is presently tied up in a very important committee proceeding dealing with softwood lumber. The member would have loved to have been here to begin the debate on this bill from the point of view of the New Democratic Party. I am only too pleased to take his place and to put on record our deep concerns with this bill.

I want members to know right at the outset that we find this bill to be seriously flawed and needing more than simply a referral to committee for verification purposes or for purposes of checking to see whether or not it jeopardizes the safety of Canadians in any way. Rather, we see the importance of basically beginning again or, in fact, making such major amendments at committee that we can deal with these concerns.

Let us put this bill into perspective. It is allegedly an extensive rewriting of the Aeronautics Act. Members of the opposition were given a short briefing on the bill and found a number of concerns.

I want to be clear that we know from the outset that this is basically a Liberal government bill. It is roughly the same bill as that which was put before the House by the Liberals. Back then it was known as Bill S-33. It was slated to go through the Senate before the House. It was introduced last summer in the Senate by the transport minister and was subsequently challenged in the Senate by the Senate Conservatives and ruled out of order as a money bill. The bill then reappeared as Bill C-62 in the fall of 2005 where, of course, it died on the order paper with the election.

Here we are back at it. This time it is Bill C-6 and not much has changed from the days of Bill S-33 and Bill C-62. It is still a flawed bill.

I am surprised that the Conservatives chose not to address some of the serious shortcomings of this bill and actually bring forward a decent piece of legislation that could be supported by all members of the House. Clearly, we want to see some up-to-date, modern legislation in this era of rapid travel around the globe by air, given all the controversy around airlines these days, and the numbers of problems that people have run into such as the efficiency of airlines, costs and, of course, safety and security. It is a timely piece of legislation, but I am afraid that this bill just does not meet the goal.

As it now stands the NDP will have to oppose this bill. We will continue to oppose it until some major flaws are dealt with. In the meantime, we are consulting with stakeholders. We will be seeking input and advice from concerned Canadians and involved organizations all over this country to get the best advice possible.

Needless to say, it needs some more time or it needs to be scrapped. Members can pick, but I would almost prefer to scrap it and start again. If the government is intent upon bringing forward a regurgitated bill from the Liberals, then let us ensure that it is done properly.

We will be looking for serious consideration of our amendments which we will propose at committee to address the serious flaws in the bill. Those areas include new safety management systems, immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions, and heightened secrecy and more accurate information on the safety performance of airlines. Those will be the broad areas that we will look at in pursuing amendments at the committee stage.

Needless to say, there have been numerous concerns about the way in which government, the way in which both the Liberals and the Conservatives are dealing with this area of aeronautics policy and safety management systems.

One of the biggest concerns that we and other Canadians have is on accountability, accountability to Parliament, accountability to the people of Canada, open and transparent decision making, all of the things that the Conservatives said were intrinsic to their mandate, inherent in their philosophy and would be fundamental to the work they would do in this House. Yet here we are again, as we have been faced with on so many occasions over the last little while, with another example of the Conservatives deciding to let all that talk about accountability float off into thin air and be set aside in the interests of expediency and, I would guess, extreme ideology.

Speaking of extreme ideology, it is interesting that today we received the news that the government has appointed an extreme right-wing thinker, Dr. Brian Lee Crowley, to the very important position of special adviser or visiting economist in the Department of Finance.

On a personal basis I have nothing against Brian Crowley. In fact, 30 years ago this year we were both parliamentary interns in this place. At that time Brian Crowley was a rather progressive individual. I thought if anything he was leaning toward the New Democratic Party, but clearly he has had a metamorphosis along life's journey and has emerged at the other end of his life as a radically extreme right-wing individual who has the audacity to oppose such fundamental policies as pay equity for women. He feels that is not a real public policy issue and has no basis in fact in terms of it being an economic question and a fundamental human rights issue. He opposes employment insurance on most accounts. He has recommended basically a continental integration scheme between Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic northeastern states. He has certainly spoken out against notions that are important for this country such as equalization and sharing of resources and talent across this land.

I found it very interesting that the Minister of Finance named him as his special adviser, filling a very important position in the Department of Finance. I thought that with some of the minister's recent statements and some of his concerns about corporations paying their fair share of taxes he had seen the light and was coming around to more New Democratic thinking. I thought he was beginning to realize the importance of a more balanced approach on economic and fiscal matters, and then he turned around and did something like this today. I do not know.

Needless to say, that is an indication of where the government really is going. It is probably a good thing that this happens every so often, that the government will make one of its patronage appointments just like it did in terms of climate change. It appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council someone whose thinking is alien to the very notion of climate change . And here we are with someone from a right-wing think tank in Atlantic Canada in the Department of Finance.

Maybe it is a good thing, because then we really get to understand and see that despite all their attempts at trying to portray themselves as warm and fuzzy Conservatives, they are really hard-nosed extreme right-wing reactionaries. These kinds of appointments actually remind us what kind of battle we are in, what we are up against and how we always have to be vigilant. We should never let our guard down. We must always question authority, as we tell our children, question government and continue to push and press and fight for change.

Today we are dealing with the Aeronautics Act. On a fundamental issue of accountability, safety and security of people in this country, the government once again is going the route of expediency rather than the route of what is in the best interests of Canadians.

Let me go through a few of our concerns. Let us start with safety management systems. For members who are interested, this issue is found in clause 12 of Bill C-6. That clause seeks to give authority to the governor in council to establish and implement management systems, better known as safety management systems, or SMS. It is important to note that this is at the very heart of the changes to the Aeronautics Act that will affect the safety of the travelling public and crew members.

This process of SMS is well under way and it is being quarterbacked by the director general of civil aviation, Mr. Merlin Preuss. It is important to note there are real concerns about this whole approach in the bill. There must be strong accountability measures built into the bill and there must be a clear attempt to protect the public interest. Our question is how is the public interest protected under SMS?

It would seem that if anything, there will be increased reliance on time consuming and costly lawsuits to deal with inevitable systems failures. Many of these problems and complaints will be initiated by the victims or the surviving families of these breakdowns. Let us face it; we have to think about the future, and if we have not put in place an ironclad safety system that is not so overwhelmed by process and leads to possible lawsuits, we are only asking for doom and gloom or disastrous consequences.

It should be noted that Transport Canada officials have candidly admitted that some U.S. Federal Aviation Administration officials have said that Canadians are giving away the store with SMS. That whole area is of deep concern to us. I could go on at length about some of the problems under SMS, for example, that it will be the airlines that decide safety levels for the travelling public. Robert Milton will now be safeguarding the public interest. Henceforth Air Canada's bottom line will be the factor in setting safety levels for that airline.

I could talk about the fact that there will be a consequent shift in relationship between airlines and Transport Canada. As Marc Grégoire, the ADM of safety and security has said:

There must also be a willingness on the part of the regulator to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.

We would like to see this whole area dealt with in a serious way, if not by throwing out this bill and starting again, then certainly by the Conservatives accepting some very major amendments to the bill. That is one concern.

Let me go to another one that has to do with the delegation of rule setting to private bodies, obviously a deep concern. Whenever we give away authority from Parliament or an authorized body, then we are causing problems for ourselves down the road. I am referring to clause 12, the new parts of section 5 of the act.

Through SMS we are supposed to enhance aviation safety because it supposedly builds on a robust set of minimum standards set by Transport Canada in the public interest. In the various public and private statements, there have been very evasive comments on the level of basic regulation that will be maintained in the future.

We are concerned, given the way the legislation is worded and given the rather vague description around all of this in the bill, that actions will speak louder than words. Transport Canada has already transferred the actual operation of the regulatory regime for certain classes of air operators entirely to the private sector. It has done so even though the new section 5.31 in clause 12 of the bill has yet to be passed authorizing such designation to organizations. That is shocking. Here again the Conservatives are doing exactly the opposite of what their words intended, which was to allow for due process and to ensure open and transparent actions and to put in place strong measures of accountability.

This transfer which was not authorized in any way actually occurred for business aircraft in March 2005. Who is next? What else will happen? Transport Canada is now openly speaking about doing the same for commercial operators, most recently at the Canadian aviation safety seminar last April in Halifax.

I guess the fox is in charge of the hen house. If not now, certainly soon the foxes will be running their own hen houses. It fits with the general philosophy of the Conservatives who have often said that the least government is the best government. Their idea of government is very narrowly focused. When they think of government they think of very narrow specific roles for government.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised any Conservative would yell hear, hear at this point. We are talking about people's safety. We are talking about travelling in a mode of transportation that has huge risks, and we know those risks. We do not have to go very far to hear about them. When we turn on the TV we can hear about different air crashes and serious loss of life as a result of problems with our air transportation system. I do not want to exaggerate the point, but goodness gracious, when we are talking about human safety, surely we would want to make sure this area has very strong accountability measures built in and that it is in the hands of government and that members of the Conservative government would want to have some control over the whole process and do the right thing.

Since I only have a minute left, let me conclude by referring to an article written by Sue Lott, who is counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. She made a very important statement:

Transport Canada should win the prize for the most secretive government department.

Conflicted by its dual mandate to both safeguard travellers and ensure Canadian airlines remain economically viable, it's no wonder Transport Canada has many things to hide.

Consider, for example, the airline industry's cost saving proposal to fly with up to 25% fewer flight attendants. Transport Canada supports these cuts, even though it denied a similar rule change in 2001 because of safety concerns.

Why is it safe now when it wasn't safe in 2001?

Canadians may never know. The current Access to Information law has loopholes that allow Transport Canada to withhold this vital safety information from the public and hide evidence that is damaging to their planned regulatory change.

Near the end of her article, she said:

Passengers on the ill-fated Air France jet that crashed last summer in Toronto can attest to the value of having enough safety professionals on board. All passengers and crew survived in spite of the plane bursting into flames within seconds of coming to a halt, thanks to the full complement of flight attendants on board.

Transport Canada is one of many government departments with a highly developed culture of secrecy that must be broken and broken soon. The safety of the travelling public could well depend on it.

For that reason and others I have enunciated in my remarks today, we believe that the bill needs to be thoroughly overhauled and major amendments accepted by the government before its passage.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised that at the beginning of the member's speech she became rather shockingly vitriolic and demagogic about the appointment of a very distinguished Canadian as the Clifford Clark visiting economist to the Department of Finance. I think the hon. member and Canadians should know that Mr. Crowley is the founding member of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a policy think tank. He has published many books and papers on a wide range of public policy from a wide range of perspectives.

He has taken a leadership role in work on equalization, health care, Canada-U.S. relations, public school performance, accountability, employment insurance reform, natural resources, public finances and regional development policy. In addition, I can advise Canadians that Mr. Crowley holds degrees from McGill, an honours B.A., the London School of Economics, a master of science and economics, and a Ph.D. in political economy. He is also a former member of the editorial board of the Globe and Mail.

I am puzzled and rather shocked that anyone in the House would suggest that such a distinguished individual, a Canadian with an incredibly wide perspective and experience, would not be an ideal appointment to this post of visiting economist.

I ask my friend, what does she have against Atlantic Canada?