Irene Mathyssen

[Automotive Industry, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Siemens VDO, in London, announced the loss of 250 jobs. It is closing the plant there. Over the last 10 years, we have lost almost 2,000 jobs. This closure will have a devastating impact on workers, their families and the London area.

When will the Prime Minister start protecting Canadian jobs in the automotive industry and will he commit to cancelling the unbalanced Korean free trade agreement?

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after what happened in my city of London, Ontario, it seems to me that infrastructure and the things that keep people safe are very much in trouble. Last Wednesday there was a $190 billion cut to the government's capacity to make sure that safety elements were in place.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this $190 billion funding cut could seriously impact on the government's capacity to ensure airline safety.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on the very clear concerns that she has articulated with regard to the secrecy surrounding the bill, the lack of whistleblower protection, the lack of oversight and the maintenance shortcuts.

I know the member was once an airline employee and, therefore, has a real insight into what happens and what will happen to the employees who are profoundly concerned about the impact of this legislation. I wonder if she could comment about the effect this would have on the people who work on airplanes.

[Infrastructure, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly money is needed now. There is a giant hole in the middle of downtown London. The Finance Minister's unbalanced mini-budget on Wednesday clearly stated cuts to spending, a $90 billion cut in funding capacity.

What we need is investment in our cities and in ordinary Canadians, and not big tax cuts for oil and gas. Crumbling infrastructure will hinder economic growth, not strengthen it.

Will the minister invest in our cities today, or will the government leave Canadians dodging holes?

[Infrastructure, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a six metre hole in the heart of downtown London. This hole left thousands of workers unable to work, including many federal employees. The power was out for more than 10 hours. The end result for many businesses is hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost revenue. That is the reality.

Will the minister provide the infrastructure money needed for London and the thousands of cities across this country whose streets are literally crumbling?

[Amabile Youth Singers, November 2nd, 2007]

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.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

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.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

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.

[Aeronautics Act, November 2nd, 2007]

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.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have this chance to respond. I was looking at some figures, and I guess the old saying that figures do not lie or liars figure or something like that might pertain to this situation. The Conservatives talk about $1,200 for each child under six. That does not buy adequate child care. It does not create a single child care space.

Earlier the minister said they have created all kinds of spaces. I would like to know where and I would like to know how many. I am not hearing any strong numbers. What I do know about that $1,200 is that it is taxed back. The end result is that in the last fiscal year $340 million was taxed back from hard-working families on this child benefit. Annually, it is going to be $400 million. We could create a whole lot of national, affordable, decent child care for that kind of money.

The Conservatives did not do it. The Liberals did not do it. We are prepared to do it.