Olivia Chow

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I met with a mother whose son was shot and killed, not by a rifle but by a gun. If one were to talk with her about guns, she would say that guns, whether they be long guns or short guns, are bad.

In the old days, maybe in the 1950s, when kids got into fights they may have pulled knives on each other or fought with their hands but not many of them had guns. Today, even though the youth crime rate has gone down, we are seeing that the rate of kids using guns to shoot each other has gone up. We cannot compare knives to guns.

I will go back to the example I was using. If someone were to spend $150 million building a house, I cannot imagine that person would bulldoze it to the ground just because the roof was leaking. The person would spend a bit of money to repair the leaky roof. The member would not get a bulldozer and scrap the entire house. I cannot imagine anyone would do that to a house that is worth a bit of money.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, “first mourn, then work for change”. That was the rallying cry 18 years ago and every year on December 6 tens of thousands of women and men all across this country say, “Yes, we will mourn, but we will work for change”.

In the Montreal massacre 18 years ago, an assault rifle was used. Every year, when we have the candlelight vigil, we make a commitment to ban violence and to reduce the gun culture.

An assault rifle is a long gun. It is a gun that is used to kill animals sometimes in rural Canada, but in a lot of other places, especially urban centres, assault rifles and long guns are used to kill people and a lot of those people are women.

I do not know if some members of Parliament were here 18 years ago, but for every year since, on December 6, we wear white ribbons. The white ribbons are from the families in Montreal who say they want to work for change. It is also a symbol, saying that we want to stop men's violence against women. I hope members of Parliament remember that moment.

We know that 88% of women killed with guns are killed with shotguns or rifles. We know that 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that key to protecting women and children is licensing and screening, including the renewal.

Of the gun deaths in Canada, 80% are suicides, most by using rifles or shotguns that were readily available. Access to guns is the fifth highest risk factor in spousal homicide.

We have heard from different inquests in domestic violence that a lot of the women are killed because of the gun culture and because of passion, but also because of access to guns.

Perhaps, if more women were elected to the House of Commons, this debate would be somewhat different.

The long gun registry has been working. The gun registry is very mismanaged, but it is working. It is being used. Over two million gun owners are licensed and six million guns have been licensed. We now have police using this registration database 1,500 times per day and are reporting successful use of this tool in fighting an illegal gun trade.

It works. Why? We have seen statistics that say there were 525 fewer gun deaths, which include suicides, homicides and accidents in 2002 compared to 1989, the year I was just talking about. It is a 60% reduction. We are talking about 525 lives. We are talking about 40 fewer women per year being shot, compared to 15 years ago. Every year, 40 fewer women being shot. I want people to remember those lives.

There were 100 fewer murders every year with rifles and shotguns. Think of that number as we are debating this bill today. Think about those women. Think about those murders. In Quebec alone, there were 30 fewer gun related suicides each year among young people in 2000-01, a 50% drop from the average of 56 firearm suicides in this group in the nineties. Obviously, the gun registry is working. Yes, it is mismanaged, but does that mean we need to scrap it? No.

We need a better and improved system. We need better screening, tightening the screening, getting and requiring the gun clubs to provide information on individuals who are having problems, who may be slightly bordering on very dangerous behaviour. There should be at least two references and spousal notification when a spouse is getting a gun.

We definitely should be banning semi-automatic rifles. Because of the registry some who did not need their long guns gave them up because they had no use for them, which means that we are getting the guns out of places where people do not use them, so that there is less chance of accidents, less chance of guns being stolen.

The gun registry is like building a house. We have a foundation; the walls are in and the roof is in. Yes, there are some problems with it. Maybe it has a lousy coat of paint or ugly drapes, but we do not destroy the entire house. We have already spent a lot of money. For us to scrap it now would mean a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money that was already spent.

Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, said in 2006 that there were problems in this registry. This bill was tabled on June 19, 2006, but nothing happened for an entire year. Why not talk to Canadians? That did not happen. It did not go to committee. If it is so important, why did it not go to committee? Why was there no debate?

Instead, the Conservative government decided to have an amnesty and said it would not charge any more. Each year that has happened $20 million is not being collected. The total for almost two years now is $40 million.

I heard tonight that perhaps we should take that money and invest it in young people, invest it in anti-crime initiatives. The Conservatives, during the election, said that they would provide $50 million in crime prevention programs. That did not happen, did it?

Even today in the House of Commons during question period we heard only $10 million being announced and we do not even know where we can find this $10 million because if we check the website for the National Crime Prevention Centre there are no clear guidelines. How do communities apply? I do not know.

The old program was mismanaged in terms of the anti-crime prevention programs, but we need to improve on that. Improve the gun registry, strengthen it, and manage it well. What we should not do is scrap it and have this bill passed because it would be very unfortunate. We know what the results would be: homicides, suicides, and accident rates would go up. Lives would be destroyed and most of those lives would belong to women.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend a question regarding the whistleblower piece she just talked about. An article in the Toronto Star of June 23, 2006, states:

More than three-dozen airline pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers and Transport Canada employees say they are afraid to speak out about serious safety concerns in Canadian skies—an industry code of silence that has triggered calls for whistleblower protection aimed at aviation workers.

While U.S. airline workers have a federal law upholding their right to speak out without fear of reprisals, their Canadian colleagues say sharing what they know would jeopardize their livelihoods and careers in aviation.

Let me give an example. Four Air Canada Jazz mechanics were suspended in June of last year when they warned of poor maintenance of the airplanes that threatened passenger safety. The pilots, various mechanics and air traffic controllers are saying that the management of the airlines would rather not know about any of these safety issues. There is a long list of information saying there is pressure to cut corners, something that all mechanics encounter in the industry as a known stigma, and other mechanics have said there are serious problems. They are over-burdened and underfunded. There are somewhat inefficient government regulatory bodies, et cetera.

Why is it that the U.S. prohibits retaliation? It has very clear legislation, called AIR 21, directed at the airline industry. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees involved in raising concerns of reporting violations of airline safety rules and regulations.

Why is it that Canada does not have such legislation? There are so many examples of airline mechanics and others being fired. Is that fair? Would this bill make it even worse?

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have found out that 80,000 passengers have been put at risk over the past five years when planes have come dangerously close to each other in Canadian skies. These findings are based on Transport Canada data. That includes more than 800 incidents between 2001 and mid-2005 in which planes were getting too close to each other. In some cases, they were seconds away from colliding.

What should happen? We are saying that the Transport Canada guidelines will need to make sure devices are put into the planes to ensure there is a system to make sure the planes do not come close to one another.

Why do I raise this? It is because through access to information my office was able to find out that recently in downtown Toronto at the island airport we had an incident on March 13, 2007, I believe, when a Cessna 150, a training school type of plane, was doing circuits around runway 26. There was a Porter Airlines flight, a Dash 8 400, approaching the runway. The plane doing circuits on runway 26 cut off the Dash 8, overshooting, and the two aircraft came within 400 feet vertically or a half a mile horizontally of each other. That is very close. How did I get that information? I obtained it from access to information.

Under clause 7 of this bill, no one, no member of the public, whether it is a member of Parliament, a journalist or a person concerned about airline safety, would be able to get this kind of information. The Toronto Star did a series not long ago, in September 2006, recording all of the problems that various airlines, the industry and the passengers had. What will happen after Bill C-6 passes is that all of this information will not be allowed to become public.

Where is the accountability when there is no transparency and no openness? What is the government afraid of? Why is the government shutting down the public's right to know about airline safety? If the government is not doing that, then we should cancel clause 7 and get rid of it. The bill is very clear. Clause 7 says that we cannot continue to have this information.

Earlier there was a question about Toronto's downtown airport and Porter Airlines. Parts of Bill C-6 say that it is now going to be up to the industry to decide the level of risk that the industry is willing to accept in its operations, rather than it being done through the level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest. It allows the government to transfer the responsibility from the minister and from government so that the industry itself would set and enforce its own safety standards.

That is not the way to go. Why?

Let me describe Toronto's island airport for members. The island airport is in downtown Toronto. It has a large number of pilot cautions. I will tell members what they are. It is stated that all arriving and departing aircraft are instructed to avoid flights over the CNE and Ontario Place. The wind turbine at the CNE grounds is listed as a hazard. There are two large chimney stacks that are noted as hazards, the Hearn power generating plant and the incinerator on Leslie Street.

Pilots also are instructed not to fly over surrounding neighbourhoods, including the entire Bathurst Quay, the residential condominiums along Queen's Quay, and the island community. There are close to 20,000 residents in that downtown area. There are high-rises, some of which are 40 to 50 storeys high. Some of them are within a few seconds to a few minutes of the airport.

Pilots are also warned about vessels with 120 foot masts in the vicinity of the final approach to all the runways. There is frequent banner-towing activity over the CNE, which is a hazard. The flagpole in Confederation Park is listed as a hazard. As well, pilots are cautioned that a number of new high-rise buildings have been approved around Fort York. Also, a building on Fleet Street is 44 storeys high, so just along Fleet Street there are at least five to eight new high-rise condominiums that have been approved and are going in.

That area is surrounded by large buildings. Also, because it is right by the lake, people have observed that lake fog in the spring and fall sometimes causes poor visibility at the airport. There is severe weather, such as crosswinds, wind sheer and air turbulence, creating difficult landing conditions. In fact, in just the short while that Porter Airlines has been flying into the island airport, there already has been one incident in which the aircraft could not land at the island airport and was told to go to Pearson International Airport.

The aircraft flying into the island airport, the Q400, is certified to operate in crosswinds of up to 60 kilometres per hour. During February 2006, wind gusts of over 60 kilometres per hour were recorded on 11 different days, so in one month alone there were 11 days when the crosswinds were too strong.

There is also another problem at this airport. The runway is incredibly short. The Q400, when fully loaded, requires 1,402 metres for takeoff and landing, which is almost 200 metres more than the longest runway at the island airport. That is how short the runway is. These are the safety requirements at the downtown Toronto Island Airport. Even Bombardier, which manufactures the Q400, has said that 1,400 metres of runway is required only if one of the two engines fails on takeoff.

There are a lot of problems at the downtown island airport. There is also a problem with the large number of birds in that area. There is a bird sanctuary nearby. Occasionally people have to shoot off some guns in order to scare away the birds. Transport Canada statistics show that the shore birds, and gulls in particular, account for the greatest number of bird strikes and that 80% of bird strikes occur during takeoff and landing. There are all sorts of problems.

Also, the island airport is run by a port authority that this year at the annual general meeting declared a loss of $6 million in a $10 million business. It is quite incredible that our government is continuing to subsidize a money-losing business and that this rogue agency continues to run an airport that is not welcomed by the citizens of Toronto and definitely has a lot of safety problems.

We are seeing a pattern in Bill C-6, which deals with airline safety. We have other bills like this before us, such as Bill C-45, the proposed fisheries act, which basically allows corporate polluters to dump toxic substances without fines. The new act allows the minister discretion to give alternate measures to big polluters instead of criminal records as mandated in the old fisheries act. Environmentalists and people who are concerned about the Great Lakes, for example, are appalled. There is a big campaign against the bill because it is seriously flawed. That is one of the patterns.

Other things are happening. Last week we discovered that at least 90,000 toys in Canada have dangerous levels of lead and again the government is asking the industry to determine what the safety level is, just like it is doing for the airline industry. We are asking companies to detect toxins and lead in toys and asking them--

[Petitions, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from petitioners also from across the country who say that many tradespeople can be out of work in one area of the country while another region suffers from temporary skilled labour shortages simply because the cost of travelling is too high, and that out of work tradespeople currently have to finance their own travel and accommodation should they wish to move to another region where there are jobs available.

Therefore, these petitioners are asking us to support Bill C-390, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which would allow tradespeople to deduct travel and accommodation expenses should they need to move to a new region for employment.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a large number of parents across Canada who say that high quality child care is a benefit to all children, that it enhances health and school readiness, that it reduces family poverty, that it promotes social inclusion and workforce productivity and that cancelling funding for new child care after a year eliminates the plans of communities to expand affordable child care to rural and other high needs communities in developing their child care plans.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase the funding for a national child care program and also protect child care and make it accountable by enshrining it in legislation with Bill C-303, the national child care act, to be a cornerstone of Canada, like the Canada Health Act.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce three petitions. The first one is very timely, as we are about to debate the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-6.

The petitioners state that the Toronto Island Airport is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and has been losing money every year for the last 15 years. They note that the Toronto Port Authority lost $6 million this year in a $10 million business, that operating an airport is contrary to the vision of a clean, green and vibrant waterfront, and that the Toronto Port Authority is an unaccountable and rogue agency that was created against the wishes of Torontonians.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to first, abolish the Toronto Port Authority; second, close the Island Airport; and third, return the waterfront to the people of Toronto.

[Petitions, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition, which is close to 200 pages, comes from over 3,000 Canadians from cities coast to coast, like Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Halifax.

The petitioners want the federal government to legitimize cycling as the preferred means of transportation and to make it a part of the solution to climate change.

The 3,000 Canadians want the federal government to offer a tax credit to bicycle commuters similar to that offered to public transit users; set up a program similar to Britain's cycle to work initiative, that the employer purchase a bike and claim the tax back from the government and sell the bike to the employee at a tax free price; offer tax incentives to employers who set up bike lockers and showers for employees; and the removal of the GST from bikes and bike accessories.

Last weekend many parts of southern Ontario experienced smog days. The time for action is now.

[Petitions, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

The first one is 18 pages and it contains the signatures of Torontonians who love their dogs and cats and are worried about the safety of pet food.

The petitioners were astounded to find out that the Canadian government plays no role in inspecting, monitoring or regulating pet food sold in Canada. They note that it is irresponsible of the federal government to wash its hands of ensuring pet food safety as half of all Canadians own pets.

The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to regulate pet food.

[Health Canada, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are 90,000 toxic toys with high levels of lead in them and the impact on children includes vomiting, diarrhea, coma, or even death. One would think that the government would yank these toys off the shelves but it has not. It is up to private companies to decide whether these toys are toxic. It is up to private companies to yank them off the shelves if they want to.

Why is the minister allowing our children to be poisoned? What is he going to do about it?