Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2007

Finance Department Briefing

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, in response to the Thursday question, the government House leader said:

Next week will be “Honouring our Veterans Week”, allowing members to be in their ridings during this important time.

That is a direct quote.

Apparently, the Department of Finance or the office of the Minister of Finance did not receive a memo in relation to that because, in response to an ongoing request for several weeks for a briefing on the purported side deal on the Atlantic accord with Nova Scotia, yesterday afternoon members received an invitation from the finance minister's office to be in Ottawa Monday for a briefing.

We all know that it would have been quite possible for the finance department to offer a briefing when the House was in session. If all members were to avail themselves of this briefing, we can imagine the cost of all members travelling back to Ottawa during a recess week in order to attend this briefing.

To make matters worse, this is a week, as the hon. House leader has said, and we should be in our ridings during this important time honouring our veterans. I was very sad to learn this morning of the passing of a dear friend and Canadian veteran, Cecil Nickerson, a great person who lived in Middle Sackville and who I represented for some time. His funeral is on Monday.

I would like to hear from the government that it would reschedule this briefing to save taxpayers dollars. Surely the Minister of Finance would want to do that, one would hope, in view of the vast expense this could entail and also so that members could be in their ridings, as suggested by the House leader for the government.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is a point of order that needs to be addressed in the chamber. I believe it is something that should be taken up with the members involved and the finance department. I do not think it is a government response. It was one of the ministers who scheduled the meeting. We all have conflicts at different times in our schedules, as we know, so I think that is something that should be handled between the members involved and the minister's office.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the very reasons that have been mentioned by my friend for Halifax West, I wonder if someone on behalf of the government would undertake today, before the House adjourns, to raise this matter with the powers that be within the government, whoever they may be, to ensure that a satisfactory answer is given.

The member for Halifax West, who has raised this point, has raised it in a very sincere and honourable way and I would hope the government would respond accordingly.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether all hon. members would be satisfied with having a delay of over a week for that briefing? Would that be acceptable and should it then be the following week?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for this for some time now. It has been over a month since the announcement of the side deal, so called, and I would have thought that the finance department and the minister's office certainly could have arranged this during the past few weeks when the House was sitting.

In view of the fact that they did not, we have waited this long and I would be prepared to wait until the House is sitting again because it would certainly save the taxpayers money and members could be in their ridings, as the House leader of the government has suggested they should be, honouring veterans next week.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the circumstance that the member has been caught in and I extend my condolences to the family.

Certainly, if the hon. member wishes a separate briefing, I will speak to the department and see if we cannot arrange that.

It is unfortunate that the briefing happened at this time. As all members are aware, there was a lot of effort put into making sure that our economic statement was complete and ready to present to the House, even though we were not able to present it in the House. That was probably part of the issue, but the department is doing its best to make sure that arrangements have been made for all hon. members who are involved or interested to have an appropriate briefing.

If the hon. member wishes to speak to me later today, we will see if we cannot arrange that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I think we will leave it at that. It is not necessarily strictly a point of order, but I felt that it was important to have the issue aired. Hopefully, there can be some discussions either between the Department of Finance and the particular member or some further negotiations.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Aeronautics Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

When the House adjourned, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had eight minutes left on debate. I do not see the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work done by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster on this file. His work and advocacy in opposing this bill is something that needs to be considered because of the people who have come to him and have approached our NDP caucus to tell us their stories about why it is important to make sure that the airline industry is safe, that the workers are kept safe, and that the travelling public can travel with certainty about their safety.

I want to tell a story this morning about my riding of Vancouver Island North where we do not have the ability to get from one town to another without the use of airplanes or water taxis. We have remote areas, a lot of places where our first nations live, up and down the coast, that are only accessible by air or water. There are no roads into these communities, so we rely heavily on small airlines to transport us.

I have had the opportunity on many occasions to travel in the riding. Even before I was an elected member I would travel on small airlines. My family lived in one of those remote communities for a time and I appreciated very much the fact that the pilots got us there safely. But sometimes it was not a fun experience. There has been nasty weather and one has to travel in the winter. As I have tried to let people know in the past, it is not all glorious out there.

Just this past year, in the spring, I was travelling to one of our small communities in one of our small airlines and the plane had to stop at many little places and pick up passengers coming in and out of the small logging camps. We had our earphones on so we could hear each other talk and I heard the pilot say: “Can you guys keep your eyes open, there's heli-logging in this area and if one of those helicopters comes out of the clouds with a log, we need to get out of the way quick”, because we were flying fairly low.

It was a little disconcerting to think that we had to be the eyes and ears for the pilot in his small plane while he was wiping his window off with a cloth because the air system was not working properly and we could see little cracks through the doors on the plane because they did not close properly. There are little things that make us concerned for our safety, but we get in those planes and we travel, and we trust those pilots. They do a great job for us. I really want to acknowledge that they are the ones responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their aircraft because most of them are owner/operators.

It is disconcerting that this bill would take away government oversight and put the responsibility into the hands of a corporation where profit is the bottom line, and where shareholders expect to see a return on their investment by the corporation. So quite often we see these companies cut corners to make ends meet or to make sure that they get a return on their investment. That does not help the travelling public. It makes us a little more uncomfortable when we have to get into these airplanes.

I hope that the story I am going to tell about an incident that happened in my riding a few years ago will help people understand the importance of safety for the travelling public.

Before I get to that, I also want to acknowledge that at least half, maybe more, of the members of the House do not even live in Ontario where they are able to drive to Ottawa. Instead, we have to take airplanes weekly or sometimes daily in the cases of some members who have to travel back and forth, such as ministers who are always travelling. We want to make sure we are safe. We also want to make sure that the workers, whose jobs are to make sure we are safe, are safe as well. It is for them that we are speaking about this issue and raising concerns as well.

As my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, also mentioned, we have seen what has happened with rail safety in this country. We have seen more derailments and the industry is basically inspecting and regulating itself, and it has not done our environment any good. We have seen spills of huge proportions.

The devastation of the Cheakamus River in British Columbia on the coast will have repercussions for years to come on the ability to fish in that river. First nations are very concerned about their ability to harvest any of the fish that they would have had from that river. The communities that are along that river have to worry about their water supply. So many things have happened because of a train wreck and yet the industry seems to get away with it, basically. The trains are still travelling. It is still happening and nothing has been done.

To go back to my riding, the story that I want to tell is about Kirsten Stevens who is a young woman from Campbell River. Her husband worked in the forest industry. That is another reason that we use these small planes as I mentioned earlier. Loggers and people who work in the bush take these planes to get out to their camps.

The plane filled up with the workers one morning, took off and crashed into the ocean just off one of our small islands. It took a couple of years for Ms. Stevens to have the plane recovered from the ocean. She has been working diligently trying to get answers as to why this plane went down. There were questions of pilot error or malfunction of the engine. The authorities could not do an inspection because they did not have the wreckage. It took a long time for the wreckage to be brought up and it was only brought up because of the families of the people who were killed in that terrible accident. The accident left a woman without her husband and children without their father. I also knew one family fairly well who lost their son. It was a devastating accident and it touched a lot of families, and a lot of lives.

However, there was stalling and finger pointing from all sides of the government and from the Transportation Safety Board. It took several years for them to bring up that wreckage to carry out an investigation into what really happened. I find that quite sad because those families needed some closure into the death of their loved ones and also because they had to work so hard. Here they were in the grieving process and they were out there trying to get answers and nothing was forthcoming.

It just points to, I hate to say, a lack of caring but that is how these people felt when they were ignored or they were let down. There was a lot of back and forth. It was just sad. I really have to commend Ms. Stevens for her diligence and for not letting this go when she was under so much stress. So, in a lot of ways, it is for her that we also want to make sure this bill is opposed.

She has written to me on several occasions and one of the things that she has stated with regard to getting some answers is:

The standards, regulations and oversight are very different between these classifications, [meaning air taxi and airline], and when you add to that the lack of union, professional association, lobby group or any form of real OH&S protection for the air taxi worker, then the situation is quite frightening.

When she says it is frightening, I know exactly what she means. At least once a year small planes go down in the various areas of my riding. Quite often, those planes are recovered and the people may be injured but not seriously hurt and can go back to work, but every once in a while we have the devastation that happened with Ms. Stevens' husband and the others in that crash.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and others who have spoken on Bill C-7 are quite right to be concerned and to raise those concerns. We went through this back in the spring and here we are again in November raising the same concerns, so I hope the government is listening and will do the right thing and make sure the industry is kept safe.

The travelling public needs to know that and we all need to know that as we use airplanes more and more. Smaller airlines are popping up all over the place. We need to make sure that those airlines are strictly regulated, that there is oversight and that there are investigations when there are any signs of something going wrong. We do not want to see another Jetsgo fiasco in this country, with an airline that had a multitude of problems over several years and yet was deemed to be safe. We all know what happened with that.

We want to make sure the travelling public is safe and can travel with the certainty that they do not have to worry every time they get on an airplane. We also do not want to have another instance of what Ms. Stevens had to endure.

I thank my colleague again for raising these concerns so that we have an opportunity to speak to this legislation. I could go on for another half an hour and talk about the small airplanes and the commuters in my riding, but suffice it to say that the workers who travel on them and the communities that rely on them need to know that they are reliable and safe for the future.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on addressing the issues around the variations in the aviation industry across the country. One of the good things that we have in Canada is a consistent policy on aviation that covers the country. Mechanics and service technicians, whether they are in one part of the country or the other, are used to a system that is reliable, straightforward and transferrable across the country.

In many of our northern and remote locations, we rely on technicians and mechanics. They are not in a team and they are not in a group like Air Canada, which has thousands of employees. They are single mechanics. They are people who sometimes actually have to fly the planes as well. They are versatile. They are expected to do so much with very limited support, very limited access to spare parts and very limited access to all the things that make a successful aviation industry.

So what are we doing with this bill? We are destroying the conformity of the aviation industry across the country. I have a question for my colleague. When a mechanic in one of these isolated communities who is trying to fix a plane needs to understand the system, would he be better served by having the safety system distributed across the country without any central control, without the level of central control that we have brought to the system over many years?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question from my colleague from Western Arctic is very well put. He raises a lot of points.

He talks about mechanics and technicians. Something that we are also losing in this country is the opportunity for trades training. In my province of British Columbia, of course, we had a program called the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, cut several years ago, that helped people get certified as mechanics, as technicians and in all kinds of trades. These people are now disappearing and we are seeing a shortage of skilled workers in this country.

The NDP has called many times for the input of dollars into trades training. We also want to make sure there are standard practices across the country, so that people working in one province or another have the level of training that allows them to use those skills in every province.

Some of the people who work on the small airplanes, the owner-operators, as I have said, may not be able to afford mechanics. They are doing a lot of the work themselves. I am trusting that they are well trained and have the ability to fix what is necessary, but I would hate to think that there are people out there putting things together with baling wire and chewing gum.

It is imperative that we have qualified technicians, mechanics and other tradespeople working on aircraft so we can be assured they are safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about what is so important and so essential about this bill we are looking at today, Bill C-7.

I want to start by talking a little about my community of London—Fanshawe. There is a wonderful airport in London--Fanshawe, the London International Airport. It is certainly not as grand as Pearson or the airport in Vancouver, but it is a remarkable little airport inasmuch as it has an impeccable safety record. The people who work there take great pride in keeping the public safe and doing their job in an exemplary way. They have remarkable community relationships and have made it very clear that safety is first and foremost when it comes to London.

We have heard about the experiences of my colleague in regard to the tragedies that have ensued for the people of her community. We most certainly do not want these kinds of tragedies to proliferate across the country. That is why the New Democratic Party is opposing this bill. That is why our critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has been so very clear and so very vociferous about the concerns here.

When we read through the flaws that he sees in Bill C-7, I am sure that all members of the House will agree that we need to take a careful look at this bill. We need to consider very carefully before we proceed.

According to my colleague from Vancouver, the bill is seriously flawed and still needs amendment. Among those flaws are those having to do with the new safety management systems, the immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions, the heightened secrecy and less access to information on the safety performance of airlines, and the fact that this information is out of the reach of the Access to Information Act.

That should send chills down the spines of everyone who has ever boarded an aircraft in this country or who is contemplating boarding an aircraft in this country. We cannot get the access we need to the information we need to know that we are indeed safe.

The irony of this, of course, is that we now have a government that is so determined to cuddle up to George Bush that it is willing to allow no fly lists. The government is willing to allow the Americans to have access to information about passengers who are boarding Canadian aircraft, but the government is not willing to look at the planes themselves. The government is not willing to say to the companies that they have to make sure the mechanics of the planes are absolutely safe, that the nuts and bolts and the things that truly reflect safety are in place.

As I have said, we oppose this bill. We have been remarkably fortunate in Canada, but the time is coming, if we allow this bill to go forward, when we will not feel nearly so safe and we will not be nearly so fortunate.

I want to give some sense of the background here. Bill C-7 constitutes what my colleague calls a revolution in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come, not just right now and not just in the next few months, but for years to come. It enshrines aviation safety management systems, SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects, as is the case with rail safety management.

We know about the numerous derailments since the privatization of rail safety. We constantly hear about them in the news. We know that the effect is not only a human effect, but an environmental effect. We hear of trains going into rivers and trains derailing. The cost in terms of the environment and human life is simply not acceptable.

We have experience with the privatization of rail safety, but apparently that is not enough. We cannot seem to learn from that. We now need to take the next step and risk safety in the air. As frightening and as dangerous as a train wreck is, it is on the ground. It gets a whole lot scarier at 30,000 feet.

The SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high levels of projected inspector retirements. I find it interesting that apparently we need at least 100 additional inspectors to ensure the safety of our airlines. I guess the Conservative government cannot be held solely responsible here. It is very clear that the Liberals had a whole lot to do with cutting the service sector of Canada and crippling those who provide services to Canadians, underscoring the fact that apparently the Liberals were not concerned about the kind of services that Canadians receive, including safety on our railways and safety on our airlines.

We need these inspectors and nobody seems to be prepared to ensure they are there. If they are there, then we do not need to rely on the industry itself being the arbiter in terms of what is safe and what is acceptable.

I would like to give the House a little history on the bill. Originally, it was a Liberal bill authorized by former transport minister Jean Lapierre. Apparently, after a 45-minute staff briefing, the Conservatives and the Liberals were initially willing to let Bill C-6 pass without further amendment. However, that raised a lot of alarm bells. There was growing concern and opposition to Bill C-6 from a wide range of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee over a series of many months. These critics, and this is significant, included Justice Virgil Mochansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors; unions; the CSPA; the UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; the teamsters and CUPE representing flight attendants; as well as the IMAW.

The criticisms from those witnesses focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny and away from the critical eyes of our community. That is at the centre of all of this.

The airlines get to determine what is safe and what is not safe. It is kind of like bean counting. A corporation assesses how much it will cost to meet certain safety regulations compared to the lawsuits that would ensue as a result of accidents. If the corporation deems that it would be less expensive to simply allow the accidents to happen and face the lawsuits compared to the maintenance and safety costs, it opts for the bean counting, it opts for allowing the suits to go forward.

I would suggest that in a country where we pride ourselves on the restrictions, the controls and the oversights that keep our people safe, this is simply not acceptable.

In the face of this widespread opposition, the government was forced to make some amendments. In other cases, the three opposition parties united to force these amendments on the government.

We saw a number of amendments in the detailed clause by clause. The new legislation required the minister to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety and a new legislative obligation for the minister to require that aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards.

There were many more amendments. An amendment was added to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of a possible conflict. An amendment was added ensuring employees and their bargaining agents would be included in the development and implementation of SMS, something that is certainly not happening today.

After extended debate, the government was compelled to introduce those amendments, as well as a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada that their employer is violating the law.

A new definition of the safety management system was put into the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risk to the lowest possible level, rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks to ensure the industry does not accept other higher levels of risk in its day to day operations.

The government then tried to kill this bill in committee. It wanted none of it. If we look back at these amendments, they make perfect sense and yet the government was quite willing to kill the bill to get rid of these amendments, instead of having the concern it should have for the people of our community.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London—Fanshawe for dealing with the concerns we have with the bill in such a comprehensive way.

I, like other members of our caucus, want to thank our former transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the tremendous amount of work he has done on this bill and for bringing to public exposure the flaws and the concerns that we have on this bill.

I thank the member today for reiterating and emphasizing some very key points that need to be brought forward in this debate and emphasizing why it is that we in the NDP moved this motion for the bill to go back to the committee. We believe that it requires a further examination by the committee and by witnesses who have concerns about the bill.

I have a question for the member for London—Fanshawe on one element of the bill. One of the concerns that we have on this bill is what is called a fatigue risk management system. This is a very big issue because we know in the airline industry, it is basically a 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year operation. Collective agreements are in place but the protection of workers from fatigue, measures that need to be prescribed clearly to ensure there is not overtime and overwork in terms of people getting into a position of fatigue, is something that is very important, and I think the travelling public would agree with that.

What we have learned from the bill is that this new fatigue risk management system is actually something that will move us away from the Canada Labour Code dealing with employment standards, which is part III of the Labour Code, and part II, which deals with occupational health and safety.

As people who work in the airline industry, they would be covered by the Canada Labour Code. The code exists for federally regulated employees. However, through this bill we would see a departure from that and we would see a special little system supposedly designed for workers in the aeronautics industry.

I wonder if the member would comment on our concern about moving away from the Canada Labour Code and setting up a boutique kind of proposal that will cover only this sector of workers. To me, that is something we should be concerned about because we are all worried about the amount of overtime people must do now. People are working way too many hours, and particularly in the airline industry this would be a concern, where issues of public safety are so prevalent.

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

Mr. Speaker, the best answer to my colleague's question is to look at what has happened in this country in the recent past. I would go back to those accidents regarding rail freight and the impact those accidents had on not just the environment and the economy, but on workers. It seems to me that fatigue was an element in those accidents.

Within the past few months, we saw rail workers go out on strike trying desperately to get the attention of their government to say that working conditions were not right, that they were ripe for a series of accidents and that they were very concerned about themselves, their families, the travelling public and safety among rail workers.

The response of the government was to write back to work legislation. The response of the government was to dismiss the concerns of those very responsible workers and say that their concerns did not matter, that they should go back to work and that it has had complaints from people who matter far more to it than the travelling public and the workers who actually ensure that the freight and the economy continue to move.

When we start to apply this to airline workers, that theory is compounded. I know there have been in the past very clear rules in regard to the number of hours a crew could work. If they are tired and if they are excluded from the Canada Labour Code, then it behooves their bosses, I believe, to force more time upon them. We know that if there are fewer employees working more overtime, the overall cost to the employer is less. We simply cannot allow that. On our highways, truckers who are exhausted are creating a level of danger for the public.

I would say that this new regime, this fatigue risk management system, is simply unacceptable. We must have the Canada Labour Code in place to ensure that crews are safe, that passengers are safe and that our airways are safe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to listen to the voices of those who have not studied the bill.

I am wondering whether the NDP position is now one that says that the government has fallen through on bringing a bill before the committee and giving the committee members an opportunity to shape the bill, which is what we do in a minority Parliament, we actually shape the bill.

I am wondering why the NDP members would say on the one hand that they applaud the work of their colleague on the committee, the tremendous work that the committee has done and then highlight the improvements that have been debated, discussed, voted upon, brought forward and now in the real bill, and then on the other hand say that even though all this has been done they will vote against it.

What is it about NDP logic that says that every time we take a step forward, we must take two steps back so that we can complain about the fact that somebody is moving forward?

I find it absolutely fascinating that the House leader for the NDP would repeat things that are totally untrue. Does she expect, in asking her colleague, who has never attended one of those meetings, that if she repeats something that is clearly untrue, the general public will believe it to be something that it is not? Is it part of the NDP approach to engage in debate for the next election and send out messages that have nothing to do with reality?

The reality is that we have an aviation industry and an industry that involves many owner-operated flights, small companies, all of them concerned with aviation safety. It is part of the business. We do not expand the exercise by ensuring that everybody suffers an incident or an accident. The NDP members do not seem to grasp that. They also do not seem to grasp that all the improvements that their critic participated in bringing forward are ones that the Canadian public wants.

Is it the NDP's position that it will thumb its nose at everything the Canadian public wants? Is that what it wants to go into an election with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that I am not the House leader. If he has a question for the House leader, I suggest he ask her.

In response to his question, I was in the House and listened very carefully to the debate on this bill and the arguments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. It seems to me that during the debate there was a rush of frenetic need to get this pushed through very quickly. The hon. member opposite was part of that.

I suppose when one undermines the safety of Canadians, by not ensuring 100 inspectors are available, one would like to push things through rather quickly so the Canadian public, which he seems to be so concerned about, will not notice. I find that quite reprehensible.

In response to the other part of his question about air safety, I am sure Mr. Hunter Harrison was very clear in terms of his vociferous assurances that when it came to rail safety, he would maintain the safety of that system. Yet we see very clearly that when push comes to shove, when the bottom line is affected, the profits of a company seem to have far more interest for those in charge than the safety of the people depending on it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never miss an opportunity to give the public another opportunity to understand what we are debating.

The bill is about aviation safety. I note the NDP members have focused as much attention on railway safety as they have on everything else.

Whenever members of Parliament are concerned with the security and safety of the travelling public, it is always to be commended. This is why the committee members should be commended. They studied a bill for more than six months.

It is true that we brought an exhaustive list of people before the committee, an exhaustive list of interested industry operators, of union representatives, of professional organizations and of interested third parties. It is true that many of them said they liked the bill. Some of them even said they wanted to add some more. Others even said that we could improve the legislation by doing certain things. Everyone of them was listened to with deference and respect, and their input was incorporated in the amendments, now the bill. They are all in the bill.

It is verging on the dishonest, but I do not want to use that word too heavily, to suggest that the input people had as witnesses in the committee, before the committee members looked at the amendments, is the view that should prevail today.

For example, referring to Judge Moshansky is not very direct or honest. Judge Moshansky said he thought we should do the following. We did what he suggested. It is in the bill.

It is unfortunate and verging on the dishonest to refer to the lack of inspectors when we have amendments in the bill that must ensure the financing, the training and the deployment of inspectors to guarantee the safety mechanisms that we propose as standards. The members have already acknowledged they are there. The standards have been upgraded. The resources to ensure they be in place and supervised appropriately are there. That is in the bill.

It is verging on the dishonest to suggest that we are now talking about a bill that would impose extra work on professionals. They are governed by collective agreements. They are governed by their own professional code of conduct. They are governed by the Canada Labour Code, which is not superceded by any proposed amendment.

If NDP members want to kill a bill in which they participated in shaping for six months, then they should say to the general public that they want to be obstructionists, that they should give themselves a different name. They can do that. It is okay. I do not have any problem with it. However, it is verging on the dishonest for the members of the NDP to make the suggestions they have about the members of the Bloc and the Liberal Party, who believe in making Parliament work, who listen to the general public and who take into consideration the voice of experts in the field and then structure legislation.

Yes, it was with the cooperation of the government members. I know there are those who think we should take partisanship to the extreme and say that everything the Conservatives do is bad. I commiserate with them because it is as a result of the NDP manoeuvring in the last Parliament that we have the government we have today. However, I will not fall into the temptation of getting into partisanship by believing that.

I only say that it is absolutely crucial, when members of Parliament gather together for more than six months and iron out all the difficulties, whether they are real or perceived, that we present the bill to the House and give it at least one more chance. We went through this, it is called report stage. The amendments that members did not like or did not think they could put forward, could have been brought in a committee of the whole to get support of other members of Parliament to give it one last chance. We did that.

This bill sailed through at report stage. Now we have all those complaints from members of the NDP, the new whine party. They are saying that notwithstanding everything the rest of the general public represented by legitimately elected individuals think, it does not matter. They want to hold up the bill. They want to ensure the bill does not get approval of the House. That is okay.

If members have a firm ideological position based either on a good solid footing or on whatever comes up on the day, that is okay too. However, we should not try to project it as being something more than that. It is nothing more than obstructionism and it cannot be thought of as anything else.

The NDP is not interested in aviation safety. It is not interested in the security and the job security of those people working in the aerospace and aviation industry. It is not interested in the business interests of Canadian enterprises, be they big or small. If it were, the bill would have passed the House last June. If it were, this bill would have passed last week when it was reintroduced as part of the negotiation to bring back bills at the same stages when the House last adjourned.

Members of the House can disagree with each other. It is unfortunate that we have come to a stage where we want to express our differences by calling others liars. We are not. It is verging on dishonesty to suggest implicitly or explicitly that there was collusion, in private, in secrecy, on this bill. The minister who brought the bill forward appeared before the committee two or three times. I enjoyed giving him a hard time, but that is what the process is for. Therefore, if anyone had a problem with the minister's bill, we brought him and his officials before the committee over and over again. There was no secrecy.

The plan was to have members of Parliament structure this bill. Members of Parliament have structured the bill. The NDP, while it takes great credit for having done great work, has just said, with the last several interventions, that it is not part of the process. It certainly is not an honest part of the process. I wonder whether the members of the NDP will wake up and decide to make the House work. If they do not want to do that, perhaps they should all resign en masse and do the Canadian public a favour.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to smile a bit while listening to the diatribe from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. He is very good at giving lectures to other members of the House about doing their job. That comes from a member of a caucus which at a critical moment when we had a job to do, and that was to decide whether or not to vote confidence in the Conservative government's direction and whether or not to vote for the mini-budget just a few days ago sat on their hands and did nothing. In effect, he abdicated his responsibility. Talk about not doing his job. There are some glaring examples.

I am astounded that the member would rise in the House and be cynical about the legitimate and good faith attempts of the NDP to hold up this bill. Yes, we did that in June. We fought tooth and nail to hold up this bill because we thought it was a very bad bill. Based on what our member had done in the committee, based on the witnesses that were heard, based on what we heard from workers who will be affected by this bill, we understood that this was not a good bill.

If the member opposite thinks that it is a fine bill, then that is his prerogative, but I find it to be the height of cynicism to attack our party because we dare to have the courage to stand up in this House and say that this bill is not a good bill.

We have given some very clear reasons why the bill is not good. It is not because we are not interested in the aviation industry or the people who work in that industry. It is precisely because of our concerns about the workers in that industry, about where the industry is going overall that we have decided we need to blow the whistle on this bill.

The member may disagree with us, which is fine. I totally respect that. But come on, his note of cynicism that somehow we are not doing our job or that we are lying is outrageous.

It is only fair to say that we have legitimate concerns about this bill. Our role as parliamentarians is to stand in this House and voice our concerns, which is more than what the members of his party did when it came to the Speech from the Throne or the mini-budget. The Liberals were silent. When it came time for a vote they were silent. We take our responsibility very seriously and I am proud of that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded since we are getting into lecturing and sort of religious illusions that we also serve who wait and sit. She might think that is cynical, but the fact of the matter is I asked her and her colleagues to tell me why she would suggest that there are not going to be inspectors when in fact that is built into the bill.

Why does she suggest that the Canada Labour Code does not apply when that is an untruth of the worst variety? Why does she deliberately say that we did not listen to witnesses--and I am talking about us; I am not talking about the government side--as she indicated that the opposition members worked together in order to bring this to fruition?

Then she says we did not incorporate what CUPE or other labour unions or professional organizations suggested. We brought all of those amendments forward for the scrutiny of members who take their jobs seriously, and I dare say yes, even her party's member on the committee. That is why I am absolutely flabbergasted that on the one hand she praises his work, who worked to ensure that we came up with this bill and then on the other hand en masse members of that party would turn around and say, “We don't care what our member did; we don't care what anybody else did; we are going to vote against the bill“--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I hate to interrupt the member for Eglinton—Lawrence in full flight, but the time has come for statements by members.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, among the citizens of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean there are many workers, athletes and artists who contribute to the renown of our region throughout Quebec, Canada and the world.

In the worker category, Chantale Lalancette, from the artisan cheese factory L'Autre Versant d'Hébertville, was named woman farmer of the year by the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec.

In the athlete category, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region racked up seven awards at the annual gala of the Fédération québécoise des sports cyclistes. The awards included a plaque for international organization of the year, won by the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup in St-Félicien, and an award for professional female athlete of the year, won by Josée Tremblay, from the Vélo2Max club in St-Félicien.

And in the artist category, Pascal Côté, conductor of Forestare and a native of Roberval, won the Félix award presented at the ADISQ Autre Gala for instrumental album of the year.

Congratulations to these constituents of mine, who represent our lovely part of the country beyond its borders.

Remembrance Day

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to honour Canada's veterans as Remembrance Day will be upon us. It is a time to reflect on the sacrifices made by the men and women who have served our country so honourably. It is a time to honour those who have served before and those who continue to serve.

This year I had the opportunity to train with the Canadian army in Wainwright, Alberta. I saw the fierce commitment and the extreme dedication that our armed forces have for their jobs and to this country. It is for this reason I stand today to recognize their contribution.

Kenora riding has a proud tradition of sending soldiers and remembering their sacrifices. From Red Lake to Kenora, from Sioux Lookout to Dryden, our communities will gather at their cenotaphs on this day of remembrance.

Many communities in the north remember the important contribution aboriginal veterans have made to our country. It has been estimated that over 12,000 aboriginal people have served in world wars and peacekeeping missions throughout the world.

Our men and women in uniform make us proud. We have not forgotten. We will not forget.

Agriculture

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate Ms. Armande Henri Amireault of Épiphanie in the Lanaudière region, who was named female farmer of the year at the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec's Saturne gala on October 20.

Armande Henri Amireault worked in the agricultural sector for over 40 years. Together with her husband, Yvon Amireault, she operated a mixed farm that included dairy, poultry, pork and field crops. Their two sons, Christian and Marc, have now taken over the farm work.

The award for young female farmer was given to Chantale Lalancette of Hébertville in the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Sylvie Lévesque of Saint-Denis-de-la-Bouteillerie on the South Shore won the 2007 female farmer entrepreneur award. Last, but not least, the dedicated female farmer award went to Martine Laverdière of Armagh in the Bellechasse region.

Congratulations to all of these women who are passionate about working the land.

Amabile Youth Singers

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

Mr. Speaker, the Amabile Youth Singers is a community choir from London and area comprised of 67 choristers from ages 13 to 22.

This accomplished choir has won the CBC national choral competition consistently since 1986. As well, it has won several international choral competitions in Europe, including winning two gold medals at the Choral Olympics in Bremen, Germany in 2004.

As a result of its international acclaim, the choir was invited guests of the Finnish government in September 2007 to participate in the prestigious Sympaatti Festival in Helsinki, Finland.

The choir's performances and workshops received standing ovations and high praise.

My sincere thanks to Lauren Toll, John Barron, Brenda Zadorski and the Amabile Youth Singers for representing our country and showing the world the talent that exists in Canada. Congratulations to all.