Debates of June 19th, 2007

Motions in Amendment

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from a lot of people who came forward. The Moshansky report on the crash that happened in Dryden in 1989 has been mentioned many times in the chamber today. I was not on the airplane, but that is my home town and I was on the site shortly after that. I was the mayor of Dryden, serving 10 years later, and we did a memorial to that, so I know the issue well. I met Justice Moshansky a number of times.

What came out of testimony from people from my riding, who travelled to the committee on DaxAir, based out of Red Lake, was that a number of small commuters, a number of small operators, a large number in northern Ontario, were literally out of sight, out of mind. They are serving the communities in the north. They are under pressure constantly to adjust the regulations so the operators can make more money. The pilots and the passengers could be put at risk if this is allowed.

What would the member say about the small operators? When we use the safety management system, we do not have inspectors and we leave them to look after themselves. The problems they can get into—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to leave enough time for the member for Victoria to answer the question.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could have explained the NDP position any better. That is why we hold the position we hold. I agree that problem has not been considered.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to begin by recognizing and paying tribute to my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the transport critic for the New Democratic Party, for being a stalwart champion of the interests of the consumer during this lengthy debate, the study of Bill C-6. It is generally agreed he has been a leader among the opposition parties to ensure that the voice and interests of Canadians are put front and centre as we go through this whole interesting debate about air transportation safety.

We are very concerned that both the tone and the content of Bill C-6 are really geared toward the financial bottom lines of these air transportation carriers and we could put at risk, or at least put back in the order of priority, the best interests of Canadians.

I should note that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, worked in collaboration with stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents a great many airline personnel and workers, and IAMAW, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Both these unions have advocated on behalf of the best interests of their own members, but also the best interests of the public at large when it comes to any changes that we make to the air transportation system.

A number of amendments were made at the committee stage, put forward by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. That is perhaps why so many of us are taken aback today. We made amendments at committee that we believed were progress, with the cooperation of the various stakeholders such as the unions. However, then today, we find the federal Minister of Transport making a bid to sweep aside the changes to the airline bill, which were intended to ensure safety in the skies.

We find it very troubling that the government has tabled a motion to gut the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, which my colleague, Burnaby—New Westminster, and other members of the transport committee so diligently put in place. We cannot understand how a minister of transport, in all good conscience, could undermine the work of the committee. Its earnest interest was simply to do what was right for Canadians. It certainly has my colleague, the NDP transport critic, scratching his head and wondering what possible motivation there could be. What possibly could be driving the government to, if anything, back away from safety as priority number one. It is a grave concern to us.

We are very critical of Bill C-6 in its current form. There are a number of issues, in fact too many issues for me to deal with in any depth in the 10 minutes that have been allotted to me. I will point out some of the concerns in which I have a particular interest. One is Bill C-6, as contemplated by the government, will actually undermine and reduce the freedom of information, the freedom of Canadians to know what the safety situation is of airlines, in that it withdraws seven sections of the act from the Access to Information Act.

I sit on the committee that is responsible for privacy, ethics and access to information. It troubles me greatly to see government in any of its activities pull back from freedom of information. On those grounds alone, I would criticize the bill. The public has a right to know what the government is up to and surely the public has a right to know the safety and maintenance information about airlines. Airlines and carriers of the general public are not just the average private business.

Canadians have a right to be more involved in airline safety and they certainly need more thorough information. I am critical that Bill C-6 would remove sections from the scrutiny of the Canadian public through freedom of information laws.

I am also critical that the systems maintenance regime would now be put under the scrutiny of the airlines. We believe this is a stepping back again of government scrutiny and government supervision of airline safety management and essentially the airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define its own safety level of its operations.

One would think that the airline would make this a priority and that safety interests would be the airlines' top key concern and priority, but in our experience it is a legitimate role of government to take responsibility for those things.

I am also very concerned that another element of this bill would become very weak or in fact non-existent, and that is the whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection for employees has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who might suffer reprisals as a result of blowing the whistle.

I would remind members that this is one industry sector about which, for heaven's sake, the public has a right to know. The public has an interest in knowing if there are any shortcomings in the maintenance regime, and whistleblowers should be rewarded, not criticized and certainly not suffer any form of reprisals. Those three things, piled together, give more than ample reason to be critical of Bill C-6.

The bill has a rather rocky history in that it was introduced in the last Parliament by a senator in fact. It came to the House first known as Bill S-33, introduced by the other place. We are always suspect, frankly, when bills come to us through that back door mechanism. After a great deal of debate there, it was later reintroduced as Bill C-62 under the Liberal regime in September 2005, but it died on the order paper and did not go past first reading.

When we came to it in this particular Parliament, I note that a great deal of time has been spent on this already. It was introduced on April 3, 2006 as Bill C-6. After a brief staff meeting, the NDP was disappointed that the Conservatives and the Liberals initially struck a deal to pass Bill C-6 without any further amendments. This is why I began my remarks by complimenting my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, for the yeoman's job he did, virtually alone at the committee, to overturn that alliance that was put together by the ruling party and the official opposition that they would somehow ram Bill C-6 through in its flawed state.

There was clearly a lack of consultation with the stakeholders or these many amendments would not have been developed. I cannot imagine any government going forward with legislation like this without doing a comprehensive consultation with groups like CUPE and the IAM. When we received it back today and realized that this was not only not in its original form but that the amendments made at committee would be stripped back and undermined by the minister and that the Tory amendments intend to gut air safety, we could not help but stand up and be critical.

People will notice that a number of speakers from the NDP are speaking back to back on this bill because the public has a right to know and the public deserves to know. The public should know what is going on in our air transportation safety system and I do not believe, if it were left to the devices of the ruling party and its partners in crime, the official opposition, which has been absent, AWOL as it were, in terms of doing its job as official opposition and bringing the government to task for the glaring problems and oversights with this--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am standing as a member of the party that introduced a bill like this in the last Parliament. I take exception to a member suggesting that there was collusion between the Liberal Party and the governing party to ram a bill through without debate.

The truth of the matter, if the member can ever recognize it, is that there were four months of witnesses, debates and scrutiny that surfaced in the form of a series of amendments now before the House and the only party that voted against all of the amendments proposed by all the interested parties, all of the industry sectors, all of the labour unions and all of the client representatives was none other than the NDP.

In fact, today we are looking at a series of NDP motions that are doing exactly what the member is accusing the government of doing, which is a series of motions to gut the amended bill. The worst offender of them all is the clause that asks to remove clause 12. Clause 12 was asked by Judge Moshansky to be maintained and strengthened in order to give substance to Bill C-6 and the member from the NDP on the committee decided to say no, that they will not have that. Such hypocrisy, it is incredible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the criticism that we have is focussed on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada contemplated by Bill C-6, a bill that would allow a greater ability of the airline industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny. Those were the legitimate grievances that we brought forward.

The NDP moved more amendments than any of the other parties and we stuck to them, forced them through and worked with them, while the Liberals shed theirs as it was convenient after they had made the splash that they had put forward amendments.

We stuck to ours and got them through. We worked the committee as it should. However, we were disappointed with the Tory amendment today which would gut air safety. It is worth noting an article in The Hamilton Spectator in which retired Alberta justice, Virgil Moshansky, said:

I think it is very troubling that the government has tabled a motion that has gutted the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, approved by the committee after four months of hearings.

We concur that it is very troubling and that it should be condemned and voted against in this particular House of Commons. The Liberals are supporting the Conservatives' amendment to gut the bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Judge Moshansky is the one who approved of the safety management systems.

My hon. friend from Victoria, who spoke before us, said that just because government or somebody says something it still does not make it so. Well, the opposite is true as well. Just because the NDP members read something into something does not make it so, and that is what they have doing all day throughout the debate.

I will point out once again that safety is an airline's bottom line. If it violates safety, its bottom line will be affected directly. However, I will point out one thing that keeps coming up. Members keep talking about the 100 vacant inspector positions. What they do not say is that there are 873 inspector positions and that 100 empty positions at any one time has been a relatively constant number for the last number of years through attrition and so on, and in fact the vacancies are advertised and this is not an abnormal situation. To take it to their numbers, there are still 773 aviation safety inspectors on the job.

I feel pretty safe and I think most people here do. The NDP will never get the relationship about risk management, safety and the practical common sense bottom line.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we do not get, will not get and will not tolerate is any reduction in the public's right to fly safely in a safe air transportation system. Any efforts to undermine or diminish, in any way, shape or form, the safety of Canadians and our air transportation system, we will work against and we will in fact condemn.

Riding of MacLeod

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to spending time in my beautiful riding of Macleod this summer. I have represented Canada around the world but nothing compares to the natural beauty of Macleod.

From the southern Alberta Summer Games being held this year in the Crowsnest Pass in July to Longview's Bar-U Ranch, a national historic site celebrating its 125th anniversary this year, Macleod is rich in history and activity.

Macleod's businesses and communities are at the forefront of local innovation and development, especially in the biofuels industry. In fact, Ag Energy Corporation in Vulcan and Western Biofuels in High River will benefit from the investments made by the federal government in biofuels.

This summer, farmers in my riding know that they will be able to market their barley outside of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Families and individuals will benefit from tax relief provided by the government's budget.

Business and industry will benefit from Canada's first free trade agreement in six years with the EFTA countries and the new FIPA with India.

I look forward to a great summer sharing these and all the other achievements of the government with my constituents in the beautiful riding of Macleod.

Birthday Congratulations

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Burma, myself and all other members would like to wish Aung San Suu Kyi a very happy and healthy 62nd birthday.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma and a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has been under house arrest for over 11 years and will be alone during her birthday as no one is allowed to visit or contact her.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been persecuted along with thousands of others for standing up to the military junta in Burma and trying to restore democracy in that country.

Today we acknowledge not only the birthday of one of the most admired and respected people in the world, but we salute Aung San Suu Kyi for her bravery and lifelong dedication to her country.

We are giving Daw Aung San Suu Kyi a great gift. All of us here in Canada's Parliament, one of the most respected parliaments in the world, have unanimously passed a motion calling for her release. We wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi a happy birthday

Economic Awards Ceremony for the Saguenay Chambers of Commerce

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in April, the Saguenay chamber of commerce and junior chamber of commerce held their 3rd Gala du mérite économique. Michel Paquin, president, and Alexandra Cormier, president, welcomed more than 550 representatives of Saguenay's business community to the awards ceremony.

CGI emerged the big winner, with three awards: one for company of the year, another in the financial, real estate and professional services category, and a third for international trade.

I would also like to congratulate the other winners that evening: Novelis Inc., Usine Saguenay, Nippour Géomatik, Paco, La Villa des Sables, Les Bergeries du Fjord and La Ferme A.B.G. Blackburn Inc.

Regional entrepreneurship is important to any community. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the entrepreneurs and businesspeople in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Saguenay on their talent and know-how.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sham marriages and immigration fraud directly affect many Canadians who are exploited by spouses solely to enable immigration to Canada. To help, they call for new policies such as those in place in other countries which establish a defined period of temporary status for sponsored spouses.

Other Canadians who have sponsored spouses and family members from overseas have been victims of domestic violence and family breakdown. When marriages break down the sponsoring spouse remains financially liable for their estranged spouse under the sponsorship agreement. This includes social assistance payments. These payments, usually in the thousands of dollars, are made without the knowledge of the Canadian spouse. When provincial governments seek to collect, it causes terrible hardship, loss of savings and even family homes.

Canadians can be victimized twice, once by an abusive spouse and then by the state on behalf of the abuser.

Our policies must ensure that in cases of domestic abuse and family breakdown, Canadian sponsors are not further victimized by government.

Darfur

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Darfur has been a major concern for Canadians and the Government of Canada. Canada is part of an international effort to end the suffering of the people of Darfur and has been at the forefront, both diplomatically and financially, to stop the killings and bring peace to the area.

Canada strongly supports the implementation of the AU-UN hybrid force as an essential step toward protecting people.

During my visit to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in May, I urged the Chinese foreign minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to assist the international community in bringing a lasting peace to this troubled region.

I recently made the same representation to the Indian government through its high commissioner to Canada.

Canada welcomes the Government of Sudan's acceptance of the AU-UN hybrid mission and encourages all parties to uphold their agreements to support its early and effective implementation.

I hope that this is not an empty promise by the Government of Sudan but one that it fully intends to keep. All Canadians are urgently looking to end the bloodshed in Darfur.

Ocean Ecology

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud of Jeremy Wedallas, a 12-year-old from Erin, Ontario, who recently wrote me a letter, visited my office, and was welcomed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well.

He outlined his concerns about ocean ecology. Jeremy pointed out three areas of importance to him related to the preservation of our fishery: shark finning, bycatch and bottom trawling.

He stated that he was pleased that Canada had banned shark finning, where sharks were caught, the fins were cut off, and the shark was thrown back into the ocean to die. He also outlined his concern about the millions of tonnes of bycatch that are discarded each year.

I congratulate this young man for bringing these important issues to our attention. I was most impressed with his indepth knowledge of our ocean ecosystems. It is certainly commendable that this young man, at the very young age of 12 years, has such an interest in this important part of our environment.

I would like to congratulate Jeremy and urge him to keep up the good work.

Ponoka Stampede

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Day festivities feature picnics, parades and fireworks. In Ponoka, Alberta, we top all other festivals by hosting the largest and best six-day professional rodeo in the country.

For the last 71 years, the Ponoka Stampede has treated people from all over North America to top notch entertainment, exciting races and affordable family entertainment.

The stampede has become a tradition not only for the spectators but also for the 500 volunteers who come out every year, making this spectacular event one of Alberta's prime annual tourist attractions.

This year the animated mile-long parade, that hearkens back to the days of the old west when gunfighters and yodelling cowboys roamed the Prairies, will be led by none other than the captain of Canada's gold medal hockey team and all-around good guy, Shane Doan.

There is something for all ages: superb stage shows, chuckwagon races, pancake breakfasts, rodeo clowns and much more. The high calibre of stock and contestants, plus the unsurpassed facilities, ensure a great show rain or shine.

I encourage one and all to come to Ponoka from June 26 to July 2 and experience some real western hospitality.

Phoenix Environmental Awards

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Phoenix environmental awards were given out in the Quebec National Assembly's red room for the first time.

Created in 1998, the Phoenix environmental awards focus on people and organizations in Quebec whose actions respect the environment. Projects that took place in whole or in part during the year preceding the awards ceremony are eligible for awards.

Fourteen Phoenix prizes in six categories are given out each year to individuals, institutions or associations in Quebec that demonstrate a commitment to environmental protection. Among other things, the Phoenix environmental awards are meant to encourage the protection of natural places, like Gatineau Park, for future generations.

I would like to highlight the fact that thanks to initiatives like the Phoenix awards, organizations are being rewarded for their work and their commitment to the environment.

Canada Transportation Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced a bold bill to regulate the activities of railway companies, particularly to deal with noise in the vicinity of marshalling yards.

This bill was debated at length and was even improved by members of all parties in committee, after lengthy discussions, in order to protect citizens and to ensure that their rights are respected.

Unfortunately, the Senate diluted the bill by giving in to pressure from the railway companies. Consequently, Bill C-11 will not benefit from the improvements made by the members of this House. It is regrettable that some members of the Senate substantially altered a bill adopted by Parliament and did not respect the will of those elected by the people, even members of their own party.

Rather than playing ping-pong with the Senate and having the bill delayed indefinitely, we will forge ahead in order to provide Canadians with the means to limit unreasonable noise near marshalling years, after years of waiting. Despite the obstacles, our government is doing its job.

Immigration

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, immigration is, has been and will continue to be the lifeblood of Canada. We have built one of the most diverse and inclusive countries in the world.

After the 1956 revolution 200,000 Hungarians fled a brutal Soviet communist dictatorship, with 90% finding initial refuge in Austria.

Canada did more than any other country in accepting 38,000 Hungarian refugees. Never before has Canada been as hospitable.

Fifty years ago today, my parents Nora and Sándor, my siblings Paul and Margaret, and I landed in Vancouver.

On behalf of my family and all refugees, I thank the Canadian people, with special thanks to family friends, the Hays, the Campbells and the Tanacks, for their immediate hospitality.

My passion for civil liberties, human rights, the charter and citizenship rights is grounded in my personal experiences.

The fact that a refugee could become a member of Parliament in this country speaks volumes about the kind of country we live in.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, former public security minister Anne McLellan interfered with the Ottawa Police investigation into the RCMP pension scandal when she said, “there is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated”.

That was after RCMP whistleblowers warned her of corruption, so why did McLellan, a minister responsible for the RCMP, prejudge a police investigation?

This entire scandal occurred during the Liberal reign. Liberal MP David Smith benefited from dirty contracts from his cousin and Liberal riding secretary, Frank Brazeau. Paul Gauvin, an RCMP CFO, is a former Liberal staffer who was later appointed to the RCMP also by the Liberals.

Anne McLellan must explain why she covered for Zaccardelli and why she did so little while Liberal insiders got away with so much.

Devils Lake Diversion Project

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

Mr. Speaker, over a week ago, with no notice and in flagrant violation of the boundary waters treaty and a Canada-U.S. agreement requiring the installation of an advanced filter system, North Dakota opened the tap on its Devils Lake outlet dumping contaminated water into the Red River water system.

High chemical levels together with alien species, including at least three parasites, clearly pose a threat to the huge Red River ecosystem and the largest inland commercial fishery in Canada.

The Manitoba government has done what it can, calling for the 2005 agreement to be honoured and challenging North Dakota's decision to water down its environmental standards. But where is the federal leadership on this international crisis?

The NDP initiated an emergency Parliamentary debate, resulting in a unanimous motion for the strongest possible actions, but empty rhetoric and diplomatic niceties have to end on the part of the federal government. Canadians want action, not more shadowboxing.

Where is the plan to put the plug back into Devils Lake?

Government Policies

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with any luck, this time next week members of the House will be back home enjoying a barbecue with family and friends and talking to constituents about the session that was.

No doubt there will be questions about how a government can get things so wrong: detainees in Afghanistan, two disastrous environmental plans, the twisting of truth on the matters of income trusts and the Atlantic accords, and of course, the biggest spending budget in Canadian history.

Whatever happened and where did this train wreck come from? I believe it comes down to leadership. We have a Conservative leader who would rather be confrontational than cooperate, would prefer needless confrontation with the opposition as well as with the media, and would prefer confrontation with the provinces and even with his own caucus.

I encourage all members to enjoy their summer. With this government still at the helm it is the only peace they are lucky to enjoy until a Liberal government is back in power and we get rid of the rascals across the hall.

Audréanne Campeau and Vincent Rainville

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ingenuity of two senior high school students at the Saint-Joseph composite school in Mont-Laurier. They took top honours at the provincial finals of the Bell science fair. Audréanne Campeau, 17, from Lac-des-Écorces, and Vincent Rainville, 16, from Mont-Laurier, won a number of prizes with their “passive house” project, which was among the 100 best projects presented.

With 120 hours of work and a $20 investment, they designed a model of an environmentally friendly home, along with pamphlets, posters and fact sheets, which won them the Université du Québec prize. They will be part of the Quebec delegation at the Canada-wide science fair and will participate in the international science fair in Durban, South Africa. They also won the Synapse silver medal, awarded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique bursary.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I wish them much success in the next round of competitions.

Veterans Affairs

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo accused me in the House of trying to score cheap political points over the issue of extending VIP benefits to widows of deceased World War II and Korean War veterans.

In a letter to Joyce Carter, dated June 28, 2005, the current Prime Minister wrote that a Conservative government would immediately extend the VIP to these widows.

On October 28, 2005 the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, as veterans affairs critic, also wrote Ms. Carter and said that she had been advocating for an extension of the VIP benefits and that this position was adopted by the Conservative Party.

War widows know who has acted to score cheap political points. After a year and a half in office, Canada's not so new government, the Prime Minister and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo clearly did not get the job done.

Must war widows now resort to taking the Prime Minister up on his challenge to the provinces and sue him over another example of breach of faith in order to get what was promised to them by these promise-breaking Conservatives?

Justice

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to wait any longer for mandatory sentences for gun crimes or for an increase in the age of protection for young people. They waited long enough while the opposition stalled and delayed at committee.

In fact, just this morning the member for Yukon filibustered a discussion on Bill C-32 which would increase minimum penalties for alcohol and drug impaired drivers.

Bill C-22, increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16 years, was held up at committee.

Bill C-18, the DNA identification bill, was held up at committee.

Bill C-10, the bill for mandatory sentences for gun crimes, was also held up at committee by opposition members who are so out of touch with Canadians and still prefer to coddle criminals.

The good news is these three bills have finally passed the House. The bad news is that they are down the hall at the Senate.

Will the Liberal interim leader tell his unelected senators who are preoccupied with protecting their terms to protect Canadians and pass these bills?