Ed Fast

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was very encouraged by the hon. member's comments. He started off talking about all the great things in the throne speech. I think that is echoed in Canada. Canadians have picked up on the fact that the throne speech is a very forward looking document. It was a clear statement of where Canada wants to go. It wants to take its place on the world stage. It also wants to grow as a country and provide a great place for Canadians to live.

The member talked about Arctic sovereignty. He supported our initiatives there. He talked about tourism. He talked about infrastructure and supported that. He liked the aboriginal skills training. He liked the water strategy. He also liked the citizenship for Aung San Suu Kyi.

He then got into these big four but he actually never got around to talking about them because, quite frankly, I suspect that he actually really liked the throne speech. Perhaps he should be on this side of the House rather than that side.

After all the plaudits that he gave our throne speech and all the positive comments he made about the throne speech, he and his leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party, have stated that they will sit on their duffs and not even vote. They will not represent their constituents and Canadians across the country and take a position on the throne speech.

Everything the member said seems to indicate that he liked our throne speech, subject to what he calls the big four, which he did not get into in great detail. Why is it that he, his leader and the other members of his party in the House do not have the courage to actually take a position on the throne speech?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I by welcoming the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to this august chamber. I hope she has as much satisfaction in serving her constituency as I have had in my first 20 months in the House.

As time goes by, she will notice there are many opinions floating around this chamber and, as she knows, opinions are, at the very heart, subjective. They are our own feelings about different issues. However, from time to time, all of us make statements that allege certain facts. She made one of those, and I think she may be incorrect and I want to challenge her on that.

She had suggested that in Canada's role in Afghanistan, in trying to rebuild and reconstruct a fledgling democracy in Afghanistan, somehow Canada had failed to turn the Afghan people into allies of ours.

In fact, a recent poll last week indicated that a huge majority of the Afghan people were not only very aware of the role Canada plays in Afghanistan, but in fact support Canada's role there and want our armed forces to remain engaged in providing security and protection to the people of Afghanistan.

In light of that poll, which was done by a very prestigious Canadian polling organization, could she explain how she then would allege that the Afghan people were not allies of Canada? From my view, it is very clear—

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully as my Liberal colleague misrepresented our anti-crime legislation.

If we ask Canadians across Canada whom they trust on the issue of crime, two-thirds of Canadians say it is the Conservatives. They like the Conservative crime agenda. They know we are getting tough on crime. They know we are getting things done.

It was interesting to listen to the Liberal leader's response to the throne speech. I also listened to the comments of a number of other Liberal MPs today in the House. The Liberal leader said that there were five of our six anti-crime bills that he actually supported. I listened to that member who said that she would love to fast track the legislation. Yet I listened to the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, also a Liberal MP, and what did he say earlier this morning? He said that it is neo-conservative crime legislation.

I want to know, does the member believe it is neo-conservative crime legislation? Does she support her leader? Would she be honest with Canadians and let them know what she really thinks about getting tough on crime?

[Justice, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend the Minister of Justice for his campaign to tackle crime.

Today he brought forward our comprehensive tackling violent crimes act. A recent survey has shown that two-thirds of Canadians like the direction our government has taken in fighting crime.

Canadians like the idea of serious jail time for serious gun crimes. They like the idea of tougher bail rules. They want to see children protected from predators. They also like the idea of cracking down on drunk and stoned drivers, and strangely enough, Canadians say they want dangerous offenders to face longer prison sentences.

Now Canadians want to see action. That is exactly what they will get from our Conservative government, but will they see action from the Liberal Party? Will the Liberal leader for once listen to Canadians and vote for our anti-crime strategy? Methinks the only thing the Liberal leader wants to do is save his own skin.

Will the Liberals ever stop being soft on crime?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Let's talk about the RCMP investigation.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments in the House. What disturbed me is his reference to the government's anti-crime agenda, our efforts to make our communities and streets safer as being neo-conservative.

Yet had he listened to his own leader's comments, the response to the throne speech, his own leader referred to and claimed that he was supporting five of our six initiatives in our anti-crime legislation.

Is the hon. member accepting that in fact his own leader supports the so-called neo-conservative agenda of our government and yet he himself opposes it? He should bring some clarity to the question.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention but, of course, I disagree with him profoundly. It is interesting that at committee stage even the Bloc members initially opposed our legislation, but once they understood what it was about, once we introduced some amendments, and once they were able to introduce some amendments, we actually came to a consensus and realized this legislation was good for Canada and aviation.

One of the things the member just mentioned was his concern about this being a disaster waiting to happen. I believe he talked about moving in a direction that will be disastrous. Then he referred to privatization. There is nothing in this bill that I can see that refers to privatization, nothing.

I challenge the member. He is not a member of the committee and may misunderstand certain parts of the legislation, but if he is speaking in the House today I am sure he has read through the legislation. I would challenge him to point me to the sections which actually move Canadian aviation in the direction of privatization, move the whole issue of safety management into the private sphere. I do not see it. Maybe he does.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is the organization that represents all the major airlines around the world, gave testimony at the committee. When asked where Canada stands in terms of aviation safety, the response was that Canada is the leader. When we asked what safety management systems are going to do to our already excellent record, the ICAO said that they would just enhance it considerably. In fact, safety management systems are being implemented in the United States and around the world. Canada is one of the leaders and this legislation is leading legislation.

What is also remarkable is that not only does ICAO support it, not only does Transport Canada support this legislation, not only do the airlines support this legislation, but the two airline pilots associations that appeared before committee strongly support SMS. They wanted to make sure that there was strong regulatory oversight. The amendments that we adopted at the committee, as the members will know, do exactly that. We are not trying to bail out of our responsibility as government. We are insisting that we move forward to enhance aviation safety, not move backward.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at the committee there was some confusion about the number of inspectors that Canada had in the past and the number that we have today.

Initially the suggestion came from the NDP, the Bloc and a couple of the witnesses that supposedly at one time there were 1,400 inspectors. That number had gone down to somewhere around the 750 mark. In fact, later on, evidence at the committee, as the member knows, showed very clearly that of the 1,400, a very significant number had been reclassified. They were still in the system. In fact, the evidence at the end of our committee meetings made it clear that if anything, the number of inspectors that are in place today is higher than it was 10 years ago. We have not in any way taken away from that.

I wanted to point out to the member that when we were discussing the amendments at committee, we acknowledged that there was a clear role for the minister to oversee aviation. We introduced an amendment that the minister shall continue to carry out inspections of the aeronautical activities of holders of Canadian aviation documents.

We are not saying that the designated organizations are going to take over the role of government. The amendments that we accepted at committee make that very clear. At no point in time do we ever want to compromise aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to actually enhance aviation safety considerably.

When we heard evidence from international organizations, such as ICAO, they confirmed that Canada is a leader in aviation safety and it is a leader in implementing SMS. The world is looking to us as the model to follow. I think that is encouraging news for the member. I encourage him to support this legislation.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-6, which is clearly a bill that would lead to improved aviation safety in our country.

Once we cut through all the rhetoric we hear in this House, the bill would move us a huge step forward in improving the safety of aviation in Canada. As a member of the transportation committee, I had a chance to hear all the witnesses who appeared before us, and there were many of them. They represented the different aspects of the industry. They represented, of course, Judge Moshansky, who was involved in an earlier inquiry into the Dryden tragedy.

What came out very clearly from all the witnesses, even those who were perhaps opposed to the direction in which this bill was going, was that if we pushed them far enough, the witnesses would admit that safety management systems are a good thing for the aviation industry. SMS, as we call it, clearly improves safety. It is another level of safety that we superimpose upon the already existing regulatory and enforcement framework.

When we were at the committee, the members of the committee know that, as a result of the testimony of the witnesses, we as a government brought forward amendments, as did the other parties, the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Quite frankly, I believe we were able to accommodate most of them because all of us had a common goal: to ensure that aviation safety in Canada is improved.

The committee also heard from representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization. When asked what Canada's record in civil aviation safety was, they said that Canada was the leader in aviation safety. When asked where Canada was in terms of implementing SMS, they said that Canada was the leader in adopting SMS, which is a good thing. It is not a bad thing, as the NDP would have us believe.

We heard a lot of rhetoric in this House several minutes ago about how this legislation was essentially a get out of jail free card, that this legislation was full of holes and that it would actually lead to a reduction of current safety levels. That is not true.

One of the big objections was the suggestion that this bill and the safety management systems were, in effect, self-regulation or deregulation of the industry. In other words, the suggestion was that the government was washing its hands of the whole safety issue when it came to aircraft. However, that is not the case at all.

A number of very good suggestions were made at the committee and we as a government said that they were excellent suggestions. To ensure there was no doubt that we still had a strong regulatory oversight, we agreed to amendments that were brought forward by the other parties and other members of the committee that would ensure there was no step backward, that the existing enforcement mechanisms would still be in place, and that superimposed on that would be the safety management systems that each organization would need to adopt.

The beauty of safety management systems is that we are now empowering companies, airlines, small aircraft operators and their employees to identify safety concerns and report those on a non-punitive basis. That means that if I, as an employee of an airline, find that someone missed a bolt here or someone else did not do the work correctly on the aircraft, I can report that and not worry about being punished for that.

It is quite clear from the evidence that we heard at committee that implementing SMS and engaging the front line workers in the airline and aviation industry will lead to an increase in the number of reports made about safety issues by 400% to 500%. That is excellent news.

The other thing is that the new authority in the Aeronautics Act will not allow the minister to abdicate his oversight responsibility to an industry body. These designated organizations will be allowed to monitor the activity of a specific segment of the industry, but only in those areas that represent a low level risk in relation to aviation safety.

I would like to address a number of the motions that have been brought forward by the NDP. Unfortunately, as usual, NDP members had an opportunity at committee to bring forward amendments. The amendments were defeated, or the NDP members did not think of them. Now after the fact, the bill is back before the House and they want to bring these same motions forward again.

There is a process in place. If a specific issue has not been addressed when the bill is at committee, surely this is not the place to bring it up, unless it is of critical importance. Quite frankly, all the critical issues were dealt with at committee. We came to a consensus with all of the opposition parties, notwithstanding that the NDP in the end opposed it.

For example, the first motion brought forward by the NDP has the effect of limiting the definition of a violation to mean only a contravention of the act or of an instrument, and would therefore create a void since it would exclude a security measure and an emergency direction. More important, the impact of the motion would be to remove the minister's ability to issue an administrative monetary penalty for contravention of a security measure or emergency direction. That is why we do not support this motion.

There is another motion which eliminates the regulatory authority of the Minister of Transport to require designated organizations to carry insurance. During committee discussions this motion was presented, but it was not approved. All concerns in regard to designated organizations were adequately addressed. Where? At the committee. They are found in the reprinted version of the bill.

Furthermore, there was also an amendment that the committee would review designated organizations in three years. We are going to live up to that commitment. That is good. That is healthy for aviation safety.

A third motion, again that we as the government oppose, came from the NDP and it deletes the substance of Bill C-6. It is trying to essentially remove clause 12 which contains important amendments that introduce the concept of designated organizations, in other words, organizations that industry can work through to ensure that safety measures are being implemented throughout the industry.

This clause also deals with expanding the enabling authority for management systems. Everyone, including international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, have determined that these amendments are an important step in advancing safety.

Canada has been called a leader, as I mentioned earlier. To carry this motion would be a cause for embarrassment with countries that are following our lead. Our lead is one that leads to greater, not less, aviation safety within our country.

There is a fourth motion the NDP brought forward which again we oppose. It is similar to the previous one. It is deleting all sections that deal with designated organizations. We had a good debate at committee. The majority on the committee agreed that designated organizations were a huge step forward in adding another level of accountability, responsibility and monitoring.

There is a fifth motion, which again we oppose, which imposes new compliance tools. The amendments contained in this motion are also meant to make the administrative compliance activities more consistent with other transportation acts, such as the Canada Shipping Act. This clause addresses how the minister will handle notices of violation, assurances of compliance and monetary penalties. It does not make any sense to remove this clause from the body of the bill. We would be gutting it. We would be taking away some of the essential elements of implementing safety management systems in Canada.

There are other motions. For example, there is a motion that would remove all protection from access to information sought in the bill. Canadians would like to see accountability in government. They want access to information that is important.

What our bill does is it strikes a great balance between confidentiality where employees are concerned, to make sure that they are willing to report safety problems and that they are not afraid. Otherwise we will find cover-ups. As I mentioned earlier, we expect that this legislation is going to increase the reporting by 400% to 500%. That is great news.

All members of this House should be supporting this bill and opposing the motions put forward by the NDP.