Debates of May 1st, 2006

Correctional Officers

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government left correctional officers without a labour contract or collective agreement for four long years. It is to be hoped that the new President of the Treasury Board will not emulate his predecessor and let the situation deteriorate further.

What concrete measures has the President of the Treasury Board taken to address this issue since he was appointed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague from Quebec that since being appointed President of the Treasury Board, I have met twice with the union leaders. I have also spoken with them twice on the phone.

The other Treasury Board officials are working very hard. Under the Liberals, we waited more than four years for an agreement with this union. We know that these employees do very important and very dangerous work. We will continue to work toward a real solution that is good for both the taxpayers and the employees.

Pay Equity

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, female workers in Quebec have been protected since 1996 from sexual discrimination in jobs held mainly by women. However, that is not so for women in Quebec working under the Canada Labour Code.

Since the federal government is already ten years behind Quebec's pay equity legislation, will it take advantage of May Day to announce in this House that it will correct this aberration very shortly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say about this. First, every five years the Employment Equity Act has to be reviewed. We will be reaching the fifth stage shortly and there will be a full review.

Next—and the hon. members of this House might be interested in this—an inter-departmental committee is currently working on establishing a legislative framework that would help settle pay equity disputes. This would avoid having to go to court for every dispute.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, although a peace accord may be signed in Darfur in the next little while, history has shown that the Sudanese government's unwillingness to rein in its state-sponsored Janjaweed from murdering and raping innocent civilians has been utterly appalling.

My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very simple. Would he be willing to direct our ambassador at the United Nations to present to the Security Council a resolution calling for a chapter 7 peacemaking mission to Darfur as soon as possible if the killings continue?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincere question from the member opposite, who has had a long and abiding interest in this file. I can tell him and the House that I spoke with the ambassador to the United Nations for Canada as recently as coming to question period today. He is in Abuja, where, as the member will know, there are ongoing talks. They now have been extended by 48 hours.

The entire international community is of course looking for ways to make a meaningful intervention on this issue. We are going to have a debate in this House tonight in which the hon. member and all members are invited to take part. We are looking for the best possible way to find a solution for the horrible killings and the horrible situation that currently exists in Darfur.

Transport

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last year there were 270 railway crossing accidents in this country in which 97 Canadians were killed or seriously injured. The fact is that many of these accidents could have been prevented with the installation of side reflectors on train cars. Sadly, the previous government did nothing despite repeated calls from the Transportation Safety Board, from safety advocates from coast to coast, and from victims' families.

Will the transport minister today take the long overdue initiative of requiring Canadian railway companies to install reflectors on train cars?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his tireless dedication to rail safety as of 2004, shortly after one of his constituents was killed when the car he was driving struck a train at an uncontrolled crossing. It is largely due to the work of my hon. colleague that, beginning today, all Canadian owned domestic and freight cars will begin to be equipped with reflective material. This will help improve safety across the country.

Softwood Lumber

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Carl Grenier, vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council, described very clearly what happened last Thursday. He said, “Every victory obtained over the past three years under NAFTA has just been erased with the single stroke of a pen”.

This government has just undone everything we gained under NAFTA. It has just paid George Bush a 22% commission for his trade crimes and it just strong-armed our companies and required them, forced them, to accept the unacceptable.

Honestly, why be so irresponsible?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is NDP economics. The NDP prefers a prolonged period of litigation, of uncertainty, of leaving $4 billion U.S. down in the United States where it is not being put into new technology and it is not creating jobs here in Canada.

This lumber deal is a deal for the Canadian lumber industry across this country and it is going to give us a period of seven to nine years of growth and stability. That is good economics. That is not NDP economics.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says this is a good deal for B.C. How would he know? He has not been seen in his riding in three months.

We know what the Conservative strategy on softwood lumber is. It is to wave the white flag of surrender. The Conservatives surrendered $1 billion in illegally taken tariffs that the Americans keep as the proceeds of trade crime, surrendered Canada's dispute settlement rights, and surrendered the interests of every softwood community in Canada.

Now we learn that the Americans filed their appeal anyway and that premiers like B.C.'s Gordon Campbell were not even told about concessions such as the anti-circumvention clause.

How could they sign such a bad deal?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member would know an anti-circumvention clause if it fell on his head, but nevertheless, the reality is that those hon. members should go out to the mills. They should look at the families who have been disrupted, who have lost their jobs and who have been under terrific pressure for eight years under the softwood lumber agreement.

Those hon. members should explain their economics, which would be saying to those workers, “Let us have another eight years of instability and uncertainty”.

Transport

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999 the port of Digby was turned over to the Maritime Harbours Society, a not for profit organization. Serious questions and allegations were raised by members of the Conservative Party as to the use of those funds. Five years of legal wrangling and studies ensued. The arbitrator has released his report to the Minister of Transport. He finds no blame on either part.

It is now time to stop pointing fingers, stop blaming past participants and come to a resolution to the benefit of the people of Digby. When will the minister take over that facility and put it into the hands of the people of the community of Digby?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

As we say in French, Mr. Speaker, la vérité a ses droits. There are some facts here that have been left undisclosed. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member had an opportunity to do something for the people in his area, and for 13 years he did nothing. We will handle the file. We are looking at the file and we will make a decision on this.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency plays a very important role in the economic development of Atlantic Canada. As an example, there are many success stories throughout my own riding of Avalon.

During the recent election campaign, the then Liberal government, through its campaign of fear, tried to convince voters in Atlantic Canada that by electing a Conservative government they would see the end of ACOA. During the past weekend, the Prime Minister announced additional funding for business initiatives in Atlantic Canada.

I would like to ask the Minister of ACOA to tell the House about the positive impact these initiatives and others will have on Atlantic Canada and what we hope to see from ACOA in the days and months ahead.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the excellent question of the hon. member for Avalon shows that he is working very hard on behalf of his constituents. I can assure the House that ACOA will be around in our Conservative government for a long time.

The hon. member referenced the announcement by the Prime Minister, which is in fact a five year, $10 million federal-provincial agreement signed by this government and delivered by this government, and which again ensures that Canadians and Atlantic Canadians will come to know that cash in hand and cheques in the bank from a Conservative government are a lot better than years of promises from a Liberal government.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. René Préval, President-elect of Haiti.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Certificates of Nomination

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table today two certificates of nomination, one for a position to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada and the other for the position of Canada Council for the Arts.

Norad

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today, pursuant to section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, to lay upon the table, in both official languages, the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on the North American Aerospace Defence Command, known as Norad.

Air-India

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that on June 23, 1985, Air-India Flight 182 on its way from Montreal to London, England, exploded in mid-air near the coast of Ireland.

A total of 329 passengers and crew, including over 80 children, perished in this tragic accident.

In January the following year, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board concluded that the plane's destruction was the result of a bomb.

Clearly this was an act of terrorism, one that claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Canadians and indeed citizens of all countries around the world demanded that those who perpetrated this act be brought to justice. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, this has not yet been possible and we must sadly admit may never come to pass.

Over 20 years have passed since this tragedy occurred. While Canadians have not forgotten it, they tend unfortunately to think the circumstances were connected to the political situation in India.

But we must never forget that the vast majority of those who perished on Flight 182 were citizens of our country. They were Canadians. They and their families came here, just as our ancestors did, to seek a better life for themselves in a country with unlimited opportunity. The stories and the dreams of those 329 men, women and children, along with those of their families, were shattered by that terrible tragedy on that day in 1985.

It is our duty as Canadians to do everything in our power to prevent a similar tragedy from ever happening again.

The bombing of Air India flight 182 has been the focus of many investigations, but for reasons known only to them, previous governments have not launched an official public inquiry, the only action that would have helped the families of the victims turn the page, provided answers to the main questions left unanswered and perhaps prevented other acts of terrorism against Canadian citizens.

A full public inquiry is required. That is what we promised the families. This is what we are announcing today.

The inquiry will be launched immediately and will be led by an outstanding Canadian, retired Supreme Court Justice John Major. Justice Major has met with the families in Ottawa, Vancouver and Toronto and has developed detailed terms of reference with their full support and cooperation. I have every confidence that Justice Major will conduct a thorough and compassionate investigation into the events surrounding this incident.

I want to make it clear that this agreement has nothing to do with reprisals. Neither is it to be a reprise of the criminal trials in this matter held in Vancouver between 2003 and 2005. That would serve no purpose.

What this inquiry is about, however, is finding answers to several key questions that have emerged over the past 20 years about the worst mass murder in Canadian history. It is a reflection of our compassion as a nation to those who lost mothers, fathers, siblings, relatives and friends to this terrible act of terrorism. It is our sincere hope that this action may bring a measure of closure to those who still grieve for their loved ones.

This inquiry is about analyzing the evidence that has come to light since 1985 and applying it to the world we live in today. Now more than ever the Government of Canada must be prepared to take action to protect our citizens from the threats of terrorism. Under Justice Major's guidance, we hope a focused and efficient inquiry will provide information that will help ensure that Canada's police agencies and procedures, its airport security systems and its anti-terrorism laws are among the most effective in the world.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge and to honour the efforts of the families of the victims of Air-India flight 182 and their perseverance in pursuing the launch of a full public inquiry. Some of the spouses or parents of those who lost their lives in this tragedy have themselves died over the past two decades. Their cause has, in many cases, been taken up by their children or by other relatives. Despite a long and agonizing wait, their faith and their commitment to seek the truth, no matter how painful it may be, has never wavered. They serve as an example to all of us.

We cannot undo the past, but we can provide some measure of closure to the families who lost loved ones on that Flight 182. By seeking answers and confronting shortcomings in our current system, we can ensure that we save lives in the future.

I invite all members to support the efforts of our government in this regard.

Maybe a bit later, Mr. Speaker, we could revert to tabling of documents and I will table the terms of reference for this inquiry in the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

To save time, is it agreed the Prime Minister can table the document at this moment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party shares the sentiments of the Prime Minister. The bombing of Air India flight 182 was the worst terrorist incident in our history and a Canadian tragedy. For the friends and families of those who perished, the loss of their loved ones was catastrophic.

The 329 passengers and crew members, including the 80 children, who perished are not just a tragic statistic. Each person had a name, each had an identity, each had a family, each person was a universe, and so, 329 universes perished that day, the enormity of which, as I mentioned, is difficult to comprehend, let alone feel.

Accordingly, besides creating permanent memorials to honour the Air-India victims, the Liberal government also designated June 23 as a national day of remembrance for victims of terrorism. We did this not only to recognize the victims of the Air-India bombing, but also to ensure that June 23, 1985, would be forever etched in our Canadian history as a day that thrust Canada into the terrible reality of international terrorism.

It is for this reason also that the Liberal government appointed Mr. Bob Rae to provide independent advice and whose report “Lessons to be Learned”, and recommendation for an inquiry was welcomed by the families and commentators at the time.

We are pleased to see the government is honouring the decision the Liberal government made last November to set up a public inquiry.

The government has, however, preferred to establish it as a judicial commission of inquiry, under former Supreme Court Justice John Major, and the families have also welcomed this initiative.

Clearly the families, given their ongoing pain, are seeking answers and deserve closure. Canadians want to ensure, as the Prime Minister has stated, that such a tragedy never happens again, that the lessons that need to be learned are in fact learned and that the appropriate action is taken to protect Canadians from acts of terror.

While the Prime Minister has underlined, rightly so, the raison d'être for such an inquiry, he has not identified the subject matter of the inquiry, nor the questions that need to be addressed and the lessons to be learned.

Accordingly, I would hope that Mr. Justice Major's inquiry, and I have the highest respect and regard for Mr. Justice Major, will in fact examine the four key areas that concern the families.

These were identified by the former government.

Mr. Rae's report, “Lessons to be Learned”, addressed the concerns. These included: first, whether the government's assessment of the threats of terrorism in the mid-1980s was adequate; second, how communications breakdowns and schisms between the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service might have caused mistakes and omissions; third, how does one approach the requisite use of intelligence evidence at a criminal trial and what one might learn from this about what we might do in terms of the prevention and prosecution of acts of terrorism; and finally, what shortcomings existed in airline security at the time, have those been rectified and what can we learn from those unresolved questions?

In conclusion, may I express our understanding for the ongoing ordeal that the families continue to endure, our commitment to ensure that such a terrorist tragedy will never again happen and our hope that under Justice Major's inquiry the appropriate lessons will be learned so the necessary action can be taken.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the 329 families affected, light, indeed full light, must be shed on this tragedy. At the end of one of the longest, most costly and most complex criminal cases ever heard in Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the evidence was not sufficient to sentence the two accused of the attack against the Air India plane in June 1985. At the end of all the legal procedures, many of those involved blamed CSIS and the RCMP for having fumbled the management of this investigation, notably by destroying the tapes of transcriptions of conversations that would have had a considerable impact on the whole case.

In a report dated April 5, 2005, or barely a little more than a year ago, the Auditor General maintained that Canada was still vulnerable to terrorist acts. This means therefore that the Canadian security agencies are still not able to prevent the occurrence of terrorist acts on Canadian territory.

It therefore seems obvious to us that it is time to establish an inquiry so that we know how the security agencies are conducting investigations, and how they are protecting Quebeckers and Canadians. We have to keep all our compassion for the families and loved ones of the victims of the Air India attack. We all agree that an inquiry will not bring the Air India victims back to life, and that it will never succeed in consoling these families and their loved ones. Nevertheless, a verdict of not guilty and acquittal of the accused based on a lack of evidence and a series of fumbles by CSIS and the RCMP is quite unacceptable.

An independent inquiry would make it possible to prevent such an injustice from occurring again. Such an inquiry would soothe the pain and suffering of the families of the victims of the Air India tragedy, who feel cheated by the Canadian legal system. Full light must absolutely be shed on what the court described as “unacceptable negligence” in talking about the destruction of evidence by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It is absolutely vital that we have an open and transparent process to discover what took place in the Air India plane crash.

The families and communities have a right to know. Quebeckers and Canadians should be able to feel secure and sheltered from terrorist acts. They should be able to count on the agencies mandated to ensure their security. They should know whether CSIS and the RCMP are able to fulfill their respective missions, which amount to ensuring security.

So the Bloc Québécois supports the Prime Minister’s initiative to set up a commission of inquiry into the Air India tragedy.