Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 175 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Dairy Producers of Canada welcome the amendments to the compositional standards for cheese proposed by Canada's new government.

Most countries that are known for their excellent cheeses have very strict standards. The Conservative government has taken the initiative to ensure that cheese standards uphold consumer confidence and protect Canada's reputation as a producer of quality cheese.

This support provides yet more proof that the Liberals were unwilling to do anything and the Bloc unable. For the past 16 months, our government has been taking real action and keeping its promises in this file as in others.

In closing, I would invite all of my colleagues to sample Le Lotbinière cheese, which is one of our high-quality cheeses available in supermarkets all over Quebec. Le Lotbinière is made by the Bergeron master cheesemakers, whose contribution to the economy of Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly has been invaluable. It is perfect with fruit at a picnic, and it works well for fondue and raclette.

* * *

[English]

Relay for Life

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize those who helped organize as well as those who participated in the annual Relay for Life which took place in North Bay, Ontario this past weekend.

This fundraising event, which involved over 225 cancer survivors, also served as a memorial to friends and family members who succumbed to the disease.

The theme of this year's event was “Cancer Never Sleeps”. Those who took part in the overnight relay will not rest until a cure for cancer has been found. Every step taken during the relay takes us one step closer to that goal.

The Relay for Life takes place in communities across Canada and is a celebration of life, a way of remembering loved ones and a tribute to the family members and care workers who help cancer patients through a trying time. On behalf of all survivors, I thank them. We would not have made it without them.

* * *

[Translation]

Petite-Rivière-Saint-François Massif

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Charlevoix region is waiting for close to $30 million over five years that was promised by Ottawa to help complete a major project: the development of the Massif de la Petite-Rivière-Saint-François by developer Daniel Gauthier. This project has yet to be launched because the Charlevoix region is still waiting for the millions promised.

The project involves upgrading the railway between the Gare du Palais station and Pointe-au-Pic, and includes a 150-room hotel, a multifunctional conference facility and a public market for locally grown products. We cannot allow this project, which has support from the community, to wither away, just because the federal government did not want to sign an agreement in time. Without a signed agreement, the developer cannot start work, since it would no longer be eligible for available grants.

This major project, which would create 600 permanent jobs is crucial to the region's economic development. I am calling on the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to keep his word. Why is the Conservative government so quick to find money for military equipment and not to help a project that will create jobs and put Charlevoix on the map?

* * *

[English]

Aboriginal Women

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Sharon McIvor has won her case in the B.C. Supreme Court, arguing that it was wrong for the federal government to arbitrarily say that women could not pass Indian status on to their children. This is a long overdue decision to reverse decades of discrimination against first nations women.

Along with difficulties accessing programs available to status Indians, the effects of Bill C-31 were felt throughout the community, where children faced acceptance or rejection based on their different status.

The government knows it will lose this case if it goes forward. Its own internal documents show that. However, the minister has told the media that this judgment may not be enough and he is contemplating spending more taxpayer dollars to fight this decision at a higher court, this from the minister who insists the Conservatives are working to bring human rights to first nations.

Human rights are inalienable and Sharon McIvor has proven through her long battle that those rights should be recognized.

The minister should accept this ruling and start making the necessary changes in his department to deal with the influx of people applying for status.

* * *

(1410)

Stem Cell Research

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, much has been said in the House about stem cell research and the tremendous possibilities for regenerative medicine. Spinal cord injuries, tissue replacement and even sports injury repair are hot topics of discussion.

Whether it is baby Cole in Cape Breton who is undergoing a transplant, or toddler Joseph Kim in Coquitlam, B.C. whose blood may save his five year old brother, stem cells and transplants have been in the news.

Recently, a plentiful, non-ethically charged and underutilized source of valuable tissue has been coming to the forefront. Umbilical cord blood is a rich source of blood tissue and stem cells that until recently has been largely discarded.

Increasingly, blood and bone marrow specialists have been calling for a national cord blood bank. Dr. Armand Keating, Director of Cell Therapy at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Stephen Couban of the Bone Marrow Transplant Group are two prominent advocates.

Motion No. 287 gives this Parliament an opportunity to support this life-saving initiative. Let us move quickly to make a national cord blood bank a reality and help Canada develop the rich potential of regenerative medicine.

* * *

John Turnbull

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Father's Day was different for the family of John Turnbull this year. Mr. Turnbull, who was born in 1919, died earlier this year and was interred on Saturday.

As his son Greg said, he was a member of the “greatest generation”, one that survived the depression, fought in the war and then raised families and built our Canada with great sacrifice and no complaints.

During World War II, he joined the West Nova Scotia Regiment and was stricken with rheumatic fever, which affected him for the rest of his days. In 1945 he married Gladys, his amazing wife of 61 years.

John was an outstanding sportsman, expert shot, woodsman and fisherman. He was a hard worker and the chief of the volunteer fire department in Mount Uniacke.

When he moved his family to Dartmouth, he became a cub leader and coached baseball. His wife has been one of the most dedicated volunteers in Nova Scotia for many years. They contributed to building a better community. He was a strong, dedicated and caring man.

We join Gladys, Janice, Meredith, Greg, my best man, Larry and his grandchildren in mourning the loss of John Turnbull, a charter member of Canada's greatest generation.

* * *

Tax Freedom Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today is Tax Freedom Day, the day when the average Canadian family has earned enough money to pay all of the taxes levied on it by the three levels of government.

This year, Tax Freedom Day is arriving four days earlier than in 2005 and 2006 thanks to our government delivering on our promise to reduce the GST by 1%.

While the Liberals made promises they did not deliver on, we took action to reduce the tax burden for hard-working Canadians.

In addition to lowering the GST, we introduced a host of other measures to reduce taxes for students, seniors, low income Canadians and families.

Worth particular mention is the introduction of pension income splitting for seniors and the new $2,000 child tax credit that will provide up to $310 per child in tax relief to three million Canadian families.

The bottom line is this: since taking office we have paid down the debt by $22.4 billion and at the same time provided $37.8 billion in tax relief for families and individuals.

When it comes to tax relief, Canadians finally have a leader and a government that knows how to get the job done.

* * *

[Translation]

Claude Poudrier

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to congratulate a citizen of Trois-Rivières on an outstanding youth education project.

Claude Poudrier is the founder of a training project in environmental and citizenship education called “Action-Research for Community Problem Solving”, which is currently being implemented in 15 school boards across Quebec.

As a teacher, Mr. Poudrier actively promotes a problem-solving approach that encourages thousands of Quebec students to target problems within their environment, analyze them and find possible solutions that involve taking concrete steps to improve their environment.

This teacher/researcher has a degree in psychoeducation and teaches at the Saint-Gabriel-Archange elementary school in Cap-de-la-Madeleine. He deserves great admiration for his invaluable contribution to the well-being of our youth and, therefore, our future generations.

* * *

[English]

Justice Legislation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as we approach summer and look at our accomplishments it is clear that this government is getting the job done on criminal justice.

We set out with an ambitious plan to clean up the disastrous Liberal soft on crime agenda that allowed violent criminals back into the community, handcuffed prosecutors, marginalized victims and allowed organized crime to prosper.

We are delivering on our commitment to make our streets safer by getting tough on violent, repeat offenders and cracking down on organized crime and gangs.

Over the past 18 months we introduced 13 bills and only have two yet to be passed by this House.

We have passed laws that deny house arrest to serious violent offenders, make street racing a crime and expanded the use of DNA evidence for tracking criminals.

We are waiting on the Senate to pass five important bills that include mandatory penalties and a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes and raising the age of protection to 16.

This government is getting the job done and, as the justice minister says, we are just getting started.

* * *

(1415)

[Translation]

Jean Cadieux

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Université de Moncton honoured the memory of Jean Cadieux, an extraordinary Acadian nation builder, by renaming the faculty of administration building after him.

Mr. Cadieux played a pivotal role in creating the Université de Moncton. He was a champion of bilingualism and contributed to advancing Acadian society.

He was dean of the school of commerce in 1963 and then president of the Université de Moncton for five years. He also helped establish the first French school of common law in the world.

Although Jean Cadieux passed away in February 2006, his work, his dedication and his involvement will live on in Acadia forever. Therefore, together with the Université de Moncton, which has renamed the faculty of administration building after him, I acknowledge Mr. Cadieux's contribution.

* * *

[English]

The Budget

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for the summer adjournment of Parliament, MPs who will return to their ridings across the country should be listening to their constituents' concerns and advice.

However, Liberal and NDP MPs will have some explaining to do this summer.

Their constituents will be puzzled as to why their MP voted against a budget that provided: a new working income tax benefit for the working poor; a new $2,000 child tax credit for every child under the age of 19; new funding from the federal government to the provinces and territories to develop environmental measures to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; a commitment to reduce patient wait times in every province and territory; a commitment to Canadian women that this government will combat cervical cancer; and finally, after 40 years and two generations, income splitting for seniors.

As Ricky said to Lucy and I say to the Liberal and NDP members in this House, “You have some 'splainin' to do!”

* * *

Kelly Morrisseau

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Kelly Morrisseau was 27 years old and seven months pregnant when she was stabbed and left to die near an Ottawa area park. This tragic death is yet another example of the violence and death faced by aboriginal women in Canada.

Tomorrow is National Aboriginal Day and we are reminded that not only have we failed Kelly, but we have failed a generation of young aboriginal people.

Since the federal government instituted a 2% funding cap in 1996, the number of aboriginal youths in higher education has fallen by 9%. The government must rescind this cap.

We must show that as parliamentarians our response is not more hollow words and more hollow promises. Let us start today by first helping to give hope and opportunity to the three children Kelly Morrisseau left behind. I invite all members to join me and the NDP caucus in making a donation to the Kelly Morrisseau fund.

Together, let us start investing in a better future for all aboriginal children.

* * *

National Aboriginal Day

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to recognize National Aboriginal Day, which is held on June 21 of each year and which we have celebrated every year since 1996, when former Governor General Roméo LeBlanc formally announced that the federal government would designate this date to honour and celebrate Canada's first nations, the Métis nation and the Inuit.

I am proud to represent a riding comprised of the Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene, Ojibway and Métis nations. Aboriginal people in the Churchill riding represent 65% of the population. They have traditionally been homemakers, fishermen, hunters and trappers, which today they continue, and they also have moved into a wide range of careers, everything from miners to professors.

Some of the people in my riding who have made a difference in this country are former Churchill MP Elijah Harper, National Chief Phil Fontaine, Chief Ovide Mercredi, a former national chief, educators Edwin Jebb and Doris Young, and councillor Bobby Smith.

I also would like to acknowledge the recipients of awards recognizing three special aboriginal women: Bernadette Beardy, Ruth Norton and Betsy Buck.

On this day, we celebrate their accomplishments and our communities and cultures.

* * *

[Translation]

Hate Propaganda against Women

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, a motion put forward by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre to add the word “woman” to the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda was adopted by everyone except the Conservative Party.

The government and its Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women do not seem to be too concerned about the prevalence of hate propaganda, yet it can be found in ads, in songs, on television, everywhere.

It is high time to give the justice system tools to eradicate this scourge. That does not mean encroaching on freedom of expression, but when freedom of expression is used to perpetrate gratuitous violence against women, it has to be censured.

The Conservative government has to implement this April 22 motion. It is a matter of political integrity and, above all, dignity and respect for women.

* * *

(1420)

[English]

World Refugee Day

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today marks World Refugee Day, a celebration of the contributions refugees have made and a plea to halt the conflicts, famines and persecutions that produce them.

Unfortunately, there are some 40 million refugees worldwide, a number that is increasing precipitously as conflicts in the Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and other areas intensify.

At a time when action from the international community is critical, the minority Conservative government is slowly dismantling Canada's refugee system and has ignored playing an active role as a peacemaker.

By failing to fill the growing number of vacancies on the Immigration and Refugee Board, the government has created a mounting backlog of refugee cases that are lingering in limbo. Why the delay? Seemingly because the government wants to insert politics in a non-partisan process.

I urge the government in the spirit of World Refugee Day to do what is right, fill the vacancies, clear the backlog, stop putting partisan politics before those struggling to find a safe place to live, and bring Canada back to being an international peacekeeper.

* * *

Government Policies

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, last year Canadians voted for leadership.

Through strong leadership, the Conservative government has delivered on its five priorities and more.

The Federal Accountability Act is leadership. Legislation to get tough on crime is leadership. Patient wait time guarantees is leadership. Supporting our farmers is leadership.

Tax reform for seniors is leadership. A renewable energy initiative is leadership. Tax relief for working Canadians is leadership. Campaign finance reform is leadership.

Cutting the immigration landing fee is leadership. Creating a national infrastructure plan is leadership. Creating Canada's first ever climate change plan is leadership.

This government continues to deliver on its commitments. Canadians voted for better government and Conservatives have delivered.

This government has shown leadership for families, for business and for all Canadians.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Now I encourage all hon. members to show a little leadership and be quiet for question period.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. We are into question period now. Perhaps a little order would be appropriate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the deaths of three Canadian soldiers who served with courage and honour in Afghanistan. That is the ultimate sacrifice citizens can make for their country.

[English]

On behalf of all of the Liberal caucus and indeed all Canadians, I want to extend my sincere condolences to the families of these three fallen heroes, to their friends and to their comrades.

We will remember them. We will honour them. We thank them.

I would like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to pay his respects.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words.

This is of course a terrible tragedy, as it always is when Canada loses brave men and women who are willing to put on the uniform to defend not only our own rights and freedoms but those of people around the world.

We obviously will remember these three fallen members of the armed forces in our thoughts and prayers. Our condolences and heartfelt sympathies go out to their families, friends and colleagues.

* * *

(1425)

Equalization Formula

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister tabled his budget, he said that it would be the end of the era of federal-provincial bickering, but since then things are so bad that now we have premiers accusing the Prime Minister of acting with “dishonour”.

I ask the Prime Minister, what would it be like if we were in an era of bickering?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that the budget was well received by most provincial and territorial governments. At the same time, the budget increased transfer payments to every provincial and territorial government this year and into the future. We have tried to base those decisions on a set of principles that everyone can understand.

We have respected special deals, side deals, that we signed before the budget. The value of those deals remains identical to the value there was before the budget was tabled. We have provided new enriched programs to others. We will not provide new side deals--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, about the claim the Prime Minister just made that he respected Atlantic accord, the Hon. John Crosbie said, “The public isn't that stupid”.

It is time for the truth. Will the Prime Minister admit that he should stop insulting the intelligence of Canadians and instead say that he broke his promise?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

I disagree, Mr. Speaker. Here are the facts. The transfers under the Atlantic accord to Newfoundland this year are exactly the same as they were before the budget and, under the new equalization formula, Newfoundland will be able to gain when that accord runs out, as it surely will under its current terms, in 2012.

I say again that every province can have the arrangements they signed before, but the new arrangement has to be available to all. There will be no new special deals only for some provinces and not for others.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians and all members of this House mourn the death of our soldiers in Afghanistan today.

The government does need to be accountable with Canadians about this mission. It is incumbent upon the government to tell Canadians how long this combat mission will last.

The Prime Minister has described his own end date of February 2009 as arbitrary. Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last? Canadians deserve to know. Is it not time for the truth?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the government has been extremely clear on this point. Three of the four parties of this House have agreed with this military mission to February 2009. The government has been clear.

If there is to be any military activity after that date, that would have to be approved by Parliament. This is, frankly, something the previous government did not do, but we will do that in the future. We have been very clear on that. I have communicated that to foreign leaders at the appropriate opportunities.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, with the imminent departure of the Royal 22nd Regiment, the moment of truth for the mission has arrived. Canadians are entitled to hear the truth from this Prime Minister and they deserve straight answers.

Does the Prime Minister plan to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or will he commit to respecting the date he set that was passed by this House?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear that the mission will end in February 2009. A new mission after that date would have to be approved by this Parliament. I must remind members of the Liberal Party that their leader said that he saw a possible role for Canada in training Afghan forces and protecting reconstruction activities even after this date.

* * *

(1430)

Equalization Formula

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Bloc and myself, I would like to offer our condolences to the families of the soldiers who were so tragically lost in Afghanistan. I would also like to offer my condolences to their comrades in arms.

With respect to the fiscal imbalance, everyone in Quebec agrees that the formula should not be based on specific agreements that confer certain advantages on one province or another. There are rumours that the government is negotiating a new formula with Nova Scotia.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the only fair equalization formula is one that includes all 10 provinces and 100% of natural resource revenues?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the fairest formula is the one that this Parliament and this government adopted, the one that the Bloc Québécois voted for. It is based on the recommendations that resulted from an independent inquiry by Mr. O'Brien, recommendations that were modified to honour this government's commitments, and I think that it is the fairest solution.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, all parties in Quebec's National Assembly agree that the solution to the fiscal imbalance must not be based on a temporary financial agreement but on a permanent formula. The only way to fix this is to transfer tax fields.

The Prime Minister promised to fix the fiscal imbalance once and for all. When will he acknowledge Quebec's demands and transfer tax fields?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, fiscal balance was restored by a Conservative government. This country must have a government that respects provincial areas of jurisdiction.

I would like to quote the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who said: “Now that the fiscal imbalance has been corrected, the provincial government will be able to announce subsidies or tax cuts.”

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Quebec that he would limit federal spending power in Quebec's and the provinces' areas of responsibility. Then the Prime Minister watered down his promise by limiting it to cost shared programs.

The Prime Minister promised to limit federal spending power, period. Will he take action and present concrete proposals in this regard?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovermental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have had negotiations and talks with the Quebec government and other provincial governments on the federal spending power. To this date we have not received a proposal from any provincial government.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government has said, minister Benoît Pelletier maintains that he does not have the necessary tools to set appropriate limits on federal spending power. The latest budget deals with cost shared programs, but that is not what we are talking about. Truly limiting spending power means two things: unconditional withdrawal from all areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and the provinces and full compensation. Will the government do this?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovermental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC):

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there is wording in our budget related to cost sharing programs and to limiting the federal spending power. It is the intention of our government, as we have with the settlement of the fiscal imbalance, to limit our spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction where it touches on obviously provincial programs.

Again, we are open to proposals. We have not yet seen a proposal from the Quebec government or any other province at this point.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the NDP caucus extend our condolences to the families of our fallen soldiers.

[Translation]

Our condolences also to the comrades of our soldiers.

[English]

Across the country there are Canadians now who are having to choose between buying groceries or getting the medications their doctor says that they need. Some provinces like Saskatchewan and Quebec are taking some leadership here, but the result is we are getting a patchwork quilt because there is no leadership from the federal government when it comes to prescription drug costs.

Whether or not people get the drugs they need does not depend on their illness. It depends on how much money they have, where they live, or whether they have the right disease to match up with the right province. When are we going to see some leadership on the health care issue by the government?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt is aware, we are in discussions with the provinces and territories on this very issue to see how the federal sphere of competency can be helpful in what is a provincial sphere of jurisdiction.

However, the hon. member asks about leadership. It is this government that has ensured that there has been extra spending on health care in this budget and in last year's budget to the tune of $1.1 billion last year and $1.2 billion this year. That is real leadership.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, discussions do not treat diseases and the fact is that the government has not moved at all on the whole concept of a national approach to pharmaceuticals as requested by the provinces.

I have been discussing this matter with the premiers and I can tell members that they can feel the foot on the brake. The result is that every day families spent $4 billion on prescription drugs last year, provincial governments $7 billion, and companies $10 billion. Meanwhile, 3.5 million Canadians have no coverage at all.

The fact is that we need universal prescription drug coverage now. Why will the government not get moving on it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well this would be an intrusion into the provincial area of jurisdiction, so one has to deal with the provinces and territories on this issue.

In the meantime, we have acted. The federal government's responsibilities in terms of the Canada Health Act and in terms of funding of Canadian health care are in fact ensured.

We have launched a national cancer strategy. Why is the hon. member not supporting our government when it comes to a national cancer strategy? That is what Canadians should be asking.

* * *

Status of Women

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yet another broken promise by the Conservative government. During the election the Prime Minister wrote to women's groups and guaranteed that if elected, it would “take concrete and immediate measures…to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women”.

However, now the government says one thing while it does exactly the opposite. Canadians deserve answers. It is time for the truth. Why has equality been removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada? Equality, Mr. Speaker.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell that member that she belongs to the Status of Women. She should understand that this government works on a principle of equality and that is how we run our mandate.

* * *

[Translation]

Official Languages

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, since coming into power, the Conservatives continue to attack official language minorities. The elimination of the court challenges program is the most striking example of that. Canadians deserve to get real answers from this government.

Will the minister responsible for official languages promise, once and for all, to reinstate funding for the court challenges program for minorities?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to promoting linguistic duality. The latest budget earmarks $30 million over two years to help minority communities in our country. The government will continue to do its job in this area.

* * *

[English]

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has yet to deliver on its promise to create 125,000 new child care spaces. This betrayal is happening while Canada lags way behind other OECD countries on investments in early learning and child care.

Canadians want to be leaders not laggards. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the Conservative government to tell the truth.

When is the government going to deliver the child care spaces it promised Canadian parents?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Sheila Copps not long ago pointed out that the previous government did not create a single child care space with its plan.

I point to the commitments in provincial budgets this spring where provinces say they are going to use that money that we are providing them to create spaces. But more than that, upon coming to office this government provided families with $2.4 billion a year through the universal child care benefit, which is helping families who want choice, something the leader of the Liberal Party said he would take away. I do not understand it.

* * *

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a report from the minister's own expert panel on drinking water for first nations said the government's plan “may even put drinking water safety at risk by diverting badly needed resources into regulatory frameworks and compliance costs”. The truth is that the minister has only half a plan. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the Conservative government to tell the truth.

When will the minister put money where his mouth is? When will he tell the truth?

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the delivery of drinking water to first nations communities, but let us talk about human rights because for 21 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to matrimonial property rights. For 30 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to Canada's human rights legislation. The member, together with the Liberal Party, is supporting that sad state of affairs by blocking Bill C-44.

Yesterday in committee she said, “It doesn't matter whether first nations women's rights are postponed for six months, eight months or a year. It makes no difference to them”.

* * *

[Translation]

Securities Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, after meeting with his Quebec and provincial counterparts to discuss the creation of a Canada-wide securities commission, the Minister of Finance indicated that he plans to form an independent expert panel to advise on possible securities regulation. The Quebec finance minister, however, specified that the passport system would remain her priority. In fact, no one but Ontario wants any other arrangement.

Can the Minister of Finance explain what he is doing in this area of jurisdiction that is none of his business, unless he hopes to give his friends on Bay Street another handout?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned yesterday, there was a good exchange of views on this issue of securities regulation with provincial counterparts. It was a good meeting. The discussion centred around the need for better access to capital by Canadian companies, a more competitive cost of capital, increased investment choices for Canadians and, of course, this would create more jobs for Canadians.

We are within the federal jurisdiction and we will be preparing a paper on this issue, and I hope the hon. member will read it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, by failing to respect the will of Quebec, he is violating the civil code of Quebec and ignoring the national character of Quebec? In actual fact, the openness that his government is so proud of is reserved only for Ontario, to the detriment of Quebec and the other provinces.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that is nonsense. I know he likes to fan these flames, but that is completely and utterly untrue.

The fact of the matter is that all provinces are involved in these discussions. They are important discussions for Canada. They are discussions which the International Monetary Fund urged Canada to undertake and to get into, and we are doing that in an appropriate, responsible and collegial way.

* * *

[Translation]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors sounded the alarm on the federal government's inaction at the current round of WTO negotiations. Quebec's agriculture minister and the president of the UPA said the following in a press conference: “The Government of Canada is responsible for the WTO negotiations and their subsequent results. Those results will be deemed positive if, and only if, producers under supply management come out as winners in this negotiation”.

Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to carry out this mandate?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that for the past 14 months, unprecedented measures have been taken in defence of supply management. As a result, it is obvious that the Government of Canada will continue to support and defend supply management. Those were our instructions. The motion put forward in this House specifies that we must defend supply management and not touch the tariffs and quotas. That is what we will do.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he is currently not negotiating at the WTO. To say they are defending supply management is nothing but fine words if there is nothing concrete to back them up. All the countries at the WTO are currently positioning themselves and presenting their points of view, expect for Canada, according to the federal minister himself.

Will he stop shamelessly shifting the blame for his inaction to the GO5 coalition and start fulfilling his responsibilities by emphasizing the vulnerability of the sectors under supply management?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he wants, but one thing is certain: the coalition's instructions were to defend supply management and not to touch tariffs and quotas.

The minister has said so time and time again in this House. This has been repeated over and over again. Again, what language should I say this in? This government will defend supply management.

* * *

(1445)

[English]

Income Trusts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers showed up in Waterloo, Ontario last Monday, as they did in Burlington last week, and as they will in Whitby next week and in scores of other cities.

Income trust investors are asking for one thing above all, proof that the government was justified in decimating their savings with a new tax and a broken promise.

Canadians deserve answers, not blacked out pages, not moody arrogance from the Minister of Finance. It is time he told us the truth, so let us have it.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is a question from the member who used to campaign in favour of income splitting and then voted against it when it came to the budget.

Yesterday we heard a call from the Liberal Party to hold byelections quickly. I know that the member said that he thought anyone who crosses the floor should go back to the people for ratification. The opportunity is coming. The time is coming. The member should get in line. We will give him what he wants and help him keep his promise.

* * *

[Translation]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, all credible scientists, economists and environmentalists unanimously agree: This government's climate change plan will see greenhouse gas emissions increase over the next 50 years. Canadians deserve some answers. It is time for this government to tell the truth.

When will the Prime Minister admit that his ecofraud has not fooled anyone? When will he adopt the clean air act?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting to note that the Liberals are doing everything they possibly can rather than talk about their record. Why do they not quote Professor Mark Jaccard?

Professor Mark Jaccard last year wrote a report on the Liberals' record on climate change. The report was entitled, “Burning Our Money to Warm the Planet: Canada's Ineffective Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. It said that the leader of the Liberal Party's promise would lead to an increase of 50% in harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

We will cut greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute 20%. That is our commitment. That is our promise.

* * *

Ministerial Expenses

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, hearing the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity boast of taking more than 100 trips to perform outreach, it is logical to wonder how much it all cost.

Despite Treasury Board guidelines that require such expenses to be posted, not a single disclosure has been made since April 2006. There is not one trip reported. For the Minister of Canadian Heritage there are no disclosures at all.

The government has again broken its promise on transparency again. In fact, if that promise was in NASCAR, it would have flown off the road and erupted in flames at every race it ever entered.

When will the government tell the truth and disclose these expenses?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our track record of cabinet ministers' expense spending, because it is a fraction of what the Liberal ministers spent. We care about the taxpayers' dollars.

While the Senate is over there refusing to do its job on all our bills, it is worth noting that the Senate government leader under the Liberals spent almost 4,000 times in expenses in their last year what our Senate leader spent.

As for NASCAR, we are proud to be sponsoring a car at NASCAR, not like the Liberal member for Bourassa who said that he finds NASCAR bizarre. We find it exciting and so do a lot of other Canadians.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Conservatives promised to implement a wait times guarantee for all Canadians. Eighteen months later, Canadians are still waiting and their health care is being put at risk.

Stop the smoke and mirrors. Canadians deserve answers and it is time for the government to tell the truth.

When will the Conservatives establish a wait times guarantee, which they specifically promised well over a year ago?

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member missed the press conference, but indeed, the Prime Minister and I were able to announce that we have in each and every province and territory a patient wait times guarantee, at least one in many of the provinces and moving ahead with more.

We have kept that promise. We are moving to reduce wait times. We are moving to increase accessibility in our health care system.

After 13 years in which the wait times in this country doubled, we are moving to act.

* * *

Democratic Reform

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this spring the House of Commons has been very busy. There were 29 bills sent to the Senate, including all of the government's priority bills such as the budget, and bills to make our streets and communities safer.

However, the Liberal dominated Senate continues to obstruct and delay bills like Bill C-10, which institutes mandatory sentences for gun crimes.

I heard the Liberal dominated Senate is now refusing to do its job on democratic reform and refuses to vote on a bill that will democratize the Senate by limiting senators' terms to eight years instead of 45.

Could the Prime Minister please tell me if the Liberal dominated Senate is really refusing to do its job?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that in rejecting terms of less than 45 years, the Liberal Senate has not merely defied the government, it has defied its own leader here in the House. It has defied its former leader in the Senate and of course defied public opinion and all common sense.

Liberal senators will not stop Senate reform. They will only ensure that they are not part of the reform that is coming, because reform is inevitable, because the public will not stomach any longer an institution that functions like that.

* * *

Consumer Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there has been tainted carrot juice, spinach laced with e-coli, dog food that leads to severe health issues and death. Now we find that ordinary Canadians have been exposed to counterfeit toothpaste and other personal hygiene items. Canadians are quickly losing confidence in imported foods and personal items.

With bad trade deals and understaffed inspectors, the government does not seem to grasp the severity of the issue. Releasing warnings to the media is not enough.

Why has the minister not taken the Consumer Products Association's advice and made importers responsible for the contents of their goods?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a serious situation. The hon. member is talking about the possibility of tainted toothpaste which has been available in the marketplace.

I can tell the hon. member that in fact we do have inspectors and investigators who are on the scene and who are busy analyzing the products to see whether there is any kind of health hazard. That is what we do. We are responding to this situation. Indeed, we do have staff who are involved in the counterfeit situation as well. They monitor to ensure that we have a response if counterfeit products do appear on our shelves.

The best advice I can give until that investigation is complete is buyer beware.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The health of our children is being put at risk.

Why is it only the responsibility of those who sell the tainted goods and not also the responsibility of those who import the tainted goods?

If the minister believes the current regulations are adequate, would he be confident eating an entire meal or using personal products that are not regulated?

How many more tainted products do Canadians need to be exposed to before the minister makes real change?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely incorrect. In this case the importer has in fact acted to remove the products from the shelves. That is what a responsible importer would do.

The hon. member should be aware that we do have an enforcement mechanism. We do have a monitoring system. Can it catch everything? Obviously not, because that is why we are faced with this situation. We are going to continue to monitor and continue to enforce.

The fact of the matter is if there is a problem in our food supply, we will do everything that we can do and that a government should do, but also, people should take care. The fact of the matter is we get what we pay for. In this particular case, what has happened is not acceptable.

* * *

Softwood Lumber

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the government brags about its softwood lumber sellout, but only seven months into the deal the U.S. has started attacking our programs, increasing the 10.8% duty to a 15% tax. Now we learn it is getting set to impose a new 50% penalty tax, while at the same time starting new lawsuits against us using our very own money which the Conservatives surrendered in the first place.

Canadians deserve answers. It is time to tell the truth. When will the government stop caving in to the White House and the U.S. lumber lobby?

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the truth of the matter is it is time the hon. member, members opposite, members of the NDP and the others who oppose the softwood lumber agreement faced up to the fact that without the softwood lumber agreement, we would be facing new chapter 19 lawsuits, new actions. We would be facing duties of 30% or 40%. And we would not have put over $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians.

* * *

Automobile Industry

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, our auto industry is very concerned that the Conservative government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea. Based on the government's track record on the softwood sellout, the industry has every right to be concerned. There are numerous reports which indicate that thousands of auto sector jobs will be lost.

Canadians deserve answers, and it is time the government told the truth.

Will the government ensure that any agreement with South Korea will not sell out our auto industry?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me. I guess when the Liberals lose some critical members from the other side, they start to take their economic lessons from the NDP. Even the language is NDP language.

We will not enter into free trade agreements that are not in the best interests of all Canadians and all affected industries.

* * *

Government Policies

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve answers, but the government has never felt the need to give them, not to ordinary people through the media or question period; not to members of Parliament in committees, the unbelievable dirty tricks manual; not to groups that have made the environment, literacy, women, you name it, Mr. Speaker, their life's work. We can ask them. They cannot even get a meeting.

Canada works because with more potential differences than any other country, we talk, we listen, we do not purposely strategically divide. The current Prime Minister is different. He is the great divider.

When will the Prime Minister begin offering Canadians real answers?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our Canada is the Canada that my grandmother, a refugee from communism, told me about when she said it was a country of freedom, hope and opportunity. She told me one did not have to be from the elite. It did not matter if one's father was a professor, a politician, a businessman or a diplomat. It did not matter. One could succeed simply by working hard and doing one's best.

That is the Canada that Conservatives believe in. That is the kind of Canada that this government is trying to build.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, when one does not give answers for a while, people might still assume one has them, then months pass and they wonder.

It has been the last few weeks, having governed to campaign, suddenly with no campaign, the Conservative government has shown clearly that it has no purpose, no direction, no idea of what to do. In 17 months it has gone from decisive to decisively wrong to decisively decisive. There is nothing else there. The government became so old, so fast.

When will the Prime Minister understand what the public already knows? For the Conservative government the problem is not just not giving answers, it is not having them.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. government House leader.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can see today a choice, a choice between the pessimism of people who are desperate to hang onto power, who wish they were in the government on this side, which is delivering results.

We are not just delivering answers, we are delivering the things we committed to Canadians, such as lower taxes. We are delivering balanced budgets. We are correcting a fiscal imbalance. We are delivering legislation that is making our streets and communities safer by getting tough on crime. We are delivering democratic reform legislation. We are trying to get our Senate cleaned up. We are trying to make our country a better place.

Who is in the way every step of the way? One group of people, the Liberal Party.

* * *

(1500)

[Translation]

Expenses of the Former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this week at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the federalist parties demonstrated their deep attachment to the monarchy by refusing to ask Quebec's former lieutenant governor to appear and testify about her excesses and expenses. A Conservative and an NDP member even want to hear from legal and constitutional experts before making the simple decision to ask her to appear.

Lise Thibault is no longer the lieutenant governor and as she has returned to private life, what would be the reason for not wanting her to testify about how she spent taxpayers' money?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government acted decisively. First and foremost, this government asked the Auditor General to investigate, and she did. This government asked the RCMP to investigate, and it is doing so at present. This government recognizes and respects the authority and the independence of parliamentary committees to invite whomever they wish to appear. That is the government's position.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the federalist parties are placing their affection for the monarchy ahead of the interests of taxpayers.

Does the federal government intend to follow Quebec's lead and henceforth require future lieutenant governors and the Governor General to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to justify their expenses? Expert legal opinions are not needed for that.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member seems to be forgetting something. This government, when it took power, tabled a bill on accountability, which is now law. That is our trademark.

We do not tolerate secrecy. We do not tolerate corruption. We are transparent, we are accountable and we are serious about protecting the rights of Canadian taxpayers. That is our trademark.

* * *

Supply Management

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, supply management is currently being viciously attacked at the WTO negotiations. Quebec's agriculture minister and the UPA have joined forces to implore the federal government to defend Quebec producers at the WTO. It is time for this government to tell the truth.

Is it true that our negotiators received strict orders from this government not to interfere in the process, meaning that they have an empty chair strategy? Will the government officially and firmly commit to supply-managed producers that they will not experience any tariff decreases in the short, medium and long terms?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the instructions are clear. Our government will defend supply management. No, we will not touch quotas. No, we will not touch tariffs. This is what Canada's negotiator will say loud and clear—defending supply management as is.

* * *

[English]

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United Nations Human Rights Council concluded its fifth regular session in Geneva.

Canada has always held that the council needs to live up to expectations to promote and protect human rights around the world through an objective and impartial body. So far, the council is failing to live up to these expectations, but our Conservative government has maintained a principled position.

The main emphasis of the fifth session was institution building, yet Canada did not agree with the final consensus document. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs say why Canada did not agree with the conclusions reached by the human rights council?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canada was in fact disappointed with the human rights council, created to promote and protect human rights, which failed to respect its founding principles in the text that was adopted this week.

We cannot, for expedience, accept a permanent agenda item on the Palestinian territories, singling out one situation while at the same time eliminating a special human rights scrutiny of countries of concern, such as Cuba and Belarus. It is a contradiction.

If the human rights council is to be successful and avoid being discredited like its predecessor, the founding principles must be respected and upheld.

Canada, for its part, will continue to work for an effective and credible human rights body that is consistent in its principles and its actions.

* * *

(1505)

Veterans Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, by the end of the day, Canada will lose 120 World War II and Korean veterans and/or their spouses due to the aging process.

A widow from Cape Breton came to the House to make the Prime Minister keep his promise to extend the VIP immediately, but he told her it would be in the next budget. If that is to be true, and no one trusts the Prime Minister any more, that means 69,000 veterans and their spouses will die before they see the extension of this program.

Why did the Prime Minister break his trust with the widow of a veteran and is this the Canada that the House leader so envisions?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to enhancing that program. The member knows this. In fact, if he were being intellectually honest, he would tell the House that we brought 12,000 people, veterans and spouses, into that program in the last year alone.

When we do it, we want to do it in a way that is consistent with the department and consistent with the good delivery to veterans and widows. We are committed to doing it, and we will get it done.

* * *

Fisheries and Oceans

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are very concerned about the appalling lack of conservation for wild salmon and halibut. Numbers are down and fishermen cannot get their quota, yet DFO insists on extending their openings. The wild salmon policy is clear: conservation first.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans trying to eliminate the fishing on the west coast or will he commit to increasing funding and staffing for conservation measures to maintain sustainable fish stocks for west coast sport, commercial and native fishermen?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this government has put more money into conserving fish on the west coast than any government before it. We have more boarding enforcement officers than ever before.

If the member wants to see what we will really do for the west coast, I suggest to her that she stay tuned.

* * *

Canada Summer Jobs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let us review the summer jobs fiasco. Let me give the minister a few highlights.

He cancelled a program that worked; brought in one that does not with less money and a new criteria; organizations and students were thrown into disarray; scrambling ensued; and departmental officials admitted in committee that the program was botched. Now the minister refuses to come clean with details about funding.

I want to wish the minister a happy summer, a good guy, but we need to ensure that next year summer will be good for everyone else involved in this program.

When will the government start telling truth about the Canada summer jobs fiasco of 2007?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the truth is students are getting the best jobs they have ever had under the new program. That is the truth.

For my friend, though, I do not care how many times he asks me, he is not young enough to qualify for a Canada summer job. He needs to get that into his head, but failing that, I hope he and his family have a terrific summer.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, heart and other related diseases affect thousands of Canadians every year. Earlier today the Minister of Health announced the government's response to the report by the trans fat task force.

Could the Minister of Health informed the members of the House what our government is doing to help Canadians make healthier food choices?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today I announced that we are accepting the recommendations of the task force to limit trans fats in our food supply at 2% for vegetable oils and 5% through the rest of the food supply.

We have given industry two years to use market forces, which they are doing. We have cut the trans fat supply in half over the last two years in our food supply because of the results of consumers and industries.

I hope that will make a difference. I think it will make a difference for our health, and I hope it will make a difference for some members of the House as well, because they need the help too.

* * *

[Translation]

Presence in Gallery

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

We have several aboriginal veterans with us today.

[English]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of members of the National Aboriginal Veterans Association, who are here in Ottawa to celebrate National Aboriginal Day tomorrow, June 21.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(1510)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Willowdale is rising on a question of privilege.

* * *

[Translation]

Resignation of Member

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to address you and my colleagues. It is with great emotion that I announce today that after July 12, I will no longer be the federal member for Willowdale.

[English]

While this is a very difficult decision for me, we all know a law was passed that would see an election in the fall of 2009. As my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, said yesterday, I feel this is the best option we have for renewal and for the voices of tomorrow to be heard in this august chamber.

For the right hon. Prime Minister, while I respectfully understand the calling of a byelection is his sole prerogative, I can assure him that the people of Willowdale will stand behind him if he chooses to do so.

[Translation]

It was a great privilege and a great honour for me to have served in the national capital under this Prime Minister and to have represented the people of Willowdale.

[English]

There have been many highlights. I am proud that in 1982, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, I was able to help pass Criminal Code changes that created the offence of sexual assault and ensured that a woman's previous relationships could no longer be put on trial.

As chair of the finance committee in 1993, the very first duty assigned to me by the prime minister was to find a way to honour our election commitment to replace the GST. We looked at over 20 alternatives and we found one. The conclusion was that we would harmonize the federal sales tax with the provinces. We would have tax included pricing and, most important, we would change the name to the national value added tax.

I can say that former Prime Minister Chrétien was not very happy but former Prime Minister Mulroney was.

The finance minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, instituted pre budget consultations by the finance committee which continue to this day and have been adopted by other legislatures in Canada and abroad. Our reports were long and scholarly and, as I was so often assured, they were, perhaps sometimes, read by someone in finance.

Secretary of state for financial institutions was an active stint. It included foreign bank branching, a five year review of the Bank Act which resulted in the longest bill to ever hit Parliament, the deneutralization of our insurance companies, FINTRAC to counter money laundering, major reforms to the office of the ombudsman and four major financial institution mergers without a public furor.

I want to say that our financial institutions in Canada are among our leading corporations and many are global champions. I believe mergers will help our banks remain competitive and that these mergers can be engineered without major job losses or branch closings, as evidenced by the TD Canada Trust merger. We should not fear bank mergers.

As minister of international trade, I received incredible support from the prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, to develop and implement a commercial strategy, not just for the U.S., EU and others, but especially for the Brazils, Russias, Indias and Chinas. We see the strategy being continued today but I believe there is urgency in bringing greater resources and efforts to bear.

I visited China three times and India twice, as well as Russia and Brazil. The prime minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was a huge help with these BRICK countries. We visited them and opened doors for Canadians that only a prime minister can open.

India is especially dear to me. Last Saturday night in Toronto, I met with Kamal Nath, India's industry minister. He is a great leader, politician, statesman and friend. Later on in the evening, Heather and I attended the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce dinner where he was a keynote speaker, along with someone else from this House. It was a splendid event.

I remember not only fruitful bilateral dealings with Minister Nath, but our work at the WTO. I especially recall going three days without sleep as we worked in the green room in Geneva at the end of July. It was hot and there was no air conditioning. We opened the windows but there were no screens. Millions of mosquitoes joined us inside but, nevertheless, we achieved a framework agreement for Doha.

Today, success in this realm seems illusive. However, I leave this House believing that a successful outcome of the Doha round is critical. It must be about development and, most important, only the WTO can rein in the obscene agricultural subsidies that we find in the U.S. and in the EU. Bilateral and regional deals will not do it.

(1515)

Life in the public eye has had some precious moments. A few days after the same sex vote in this House, I was scheduled to attend the laying of a cornerstone at a convent, something I faced with great trepidation. The Mother Superior met me at the gate and said, “Jim, thank you for what you did”. I asked her what she was talking about. She replied, “Your vote for same sex marriage”. I told her that she had to be kidding. She said, “No, Jim, Jesus would want us to be inclusive”.

I am very proud of the parishioners of Newtonbrook United Church who have donated a huge, expensive property at Young and Cummer, raised the money and built 52 affordable housing units. This is a shining example of what more of us might do to help others.

I recall the time I worked long and hard to get a young man with severe disabilities into a proper facility that could cope with his needs. During the next election, I called at the family's door and asked if I could put up a sign. He replied, “No, I am not Liberal”. As members in this House know, one's best efforts are not always met with a reward but that is not the reason that we make those efforts.

There are so many to whom I am grateful. I want to thank the involved, caring and committed people of Willowdale who made my public years possible. To the officers and employees of this House, I thank them for being unfailingly helpful. To the many public servants at finance, trade and elsewhere, I thank them. They are among the hardest working and ablest people I know. To our extended family of outstanding staffers over the years, to whom I owe so much—would it be in order to recognize them in the gallery?

The Speaker: No.

Hon. Jim Peterson: No. They are right up there.

My staffers are among Heather's and my closest friends today. My mom and dad are both 94 and they have given me more than any son could hope for. They are to this day an incredible inspiration. I could not have chosen better parents or better Liberals. To my brothers, David and Tim, who have always been there for me, I look forward to seeing more of them and their exceptional families. I could not have chosen better brothers.

My most important thanks goes to Heather, who, if members looked in the gallery she would be there but I cannot recognize her. I met Heather the first week of grade nine and eight years later I finally got her to marry me. That was 44 years ago. Heather has shared this journey with me 24/7 and I thank her. I thank her for her unconditional support that has made all of this worthwhile. I thank her for her wisdom and advice which have proven invaluable. I thank her for her love that has made tough times easier, good times better and, at election time, she got far more signs up in Willowdale than anyone else.

Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues throughout the years from all parties in this House, including you, Mr. Speaker. We may at times have differed over policies but we never differed over the need to serve our constituents with dedication and commitment, to work to make a difference in the lives of people and to build a better Canada and a better world.

In closing, I would like to say that over the course of my life I have visited and worked in many countries but it has always been such a great joy to come home to Canada. We Canadians are among the most fortunate of all people on earth.

I leave my colleagues today fully confident that they and those who follow will ensure that Canada is always the envy of the world.

(1520)

[Translation]

Thank you for everything you have done for Canada. Thank you for everything you have done for me.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I thank the hon. member for Willowdale for his announcement.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings ]

* * *

[Translation]

Ethics Commissioner

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Pursuant to section 72.13(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House the annual report of the Ethics Commissioner on activities in relation to public office holders for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

[English]

Pursuant to section 72.13(1)(a) of the Parliament of Canada Act it is my duty to present to the House the annual report of the Ethics Commissioner on activities in relation to members of the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

* * *

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.

* * *

Committees of the House

Public Safety and National Security

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for Public Safety, I am pleased to table the government's response, in both official languages, to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The government's response agrees with the recommendations of the standing committee to consider the advisability of new enabling legislation for the establishment of a missing persons index for Canada following the completion of the ongoing federal-provincial-territorial process, which is intended to address the legal, financial and privacy issues surrounding the implementation of such a system.

The government recognizes the important work that has been done to advance this issue by the hon. member for Burlington, by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and many other parliamentarians.

* * *

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have three reports to table today.

First, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Quebec City, Canada, November 13-17, 2006.

The second is respecting its participation in the parliamentary Transatlantic forum of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. on December 11 and 12, 2006.

The third is regarding the participation in the joint meeting of the defence and security, economics and security and the political committees held in Brussels, Belgium, February 18-20, 2007 and the annual economics and security committee consultation with the OECD of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Paris, France on February 21 and 22, 2007.

(1525)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the co-chair's meeting in Washington, D.C., United States of America, on April 16, 2007.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two reports.

The first is pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) and it is the report, in both official languages, of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the winter meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Vienna, Austria, February 22 and 23, 2007.

The second report is pursuant to Standing Order 34(1). I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the fall meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in St. Julians, Malta, November 17-19, 2006.

* * *

Committees of the House

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding debates on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

* * *

Canadian Heritage

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage related to the nomination of Mr. Tom Perlmutter to the position of Government Film Commissioner of the National Film Board of Canada.

* * *

Industry, Science and Technology

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to a study on counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

* * *

Justice and Human Rights

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, February 6, 2007, the committee has considered Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and as agreed on Tuesday, June 19, 2007, to report it with amendments.

I would like to commend the members of the committee. We sat very late yesterday to conclude this particular debate on Bill C-32 and were successful in bringing it to the House today.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Alexa McDonough:

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House congratulates the Pugwash conferences on science and world affairs, on the occasion of their 50th anniversary, for their significant contribution to nuclear disarmament.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

* * *

(1530)

Petitions

Passports

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to present two petitions signed by hundreds of people in northern Ontario concerning the need and desire in our region to actually have adequate passport services.

As we know, we have had major passport issues with backlogs right across the country, but in northeastern Ontario we are challenged because we have no walk-in passport facilities anywhere. We have people who have to often travel 12 hours by bus to get walk-in passport service.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to work to develop a walk-in passport service for northeastern Ontario, like other regions in the country are able to have, so that people in our part of this country, and it would service also possibly people from northwestern Quebec, can get walk-in passport services on a need basis.

I am very pleased to bring forward those two petitions today.

* * *

Natural Health Products

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on two different subjects. I have a group of petitions on Bill C-404. There are about 500 signatures coming from Kelowna and Surrey in British Columbia and as far away as Quebec.

The petitioners call on Parliament to take note that the weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders through the judicious use of natural health products. They note that Canadians support the use of natural health products to promote wellness and health.

They call on Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products by removing the GST from natural health products and implementing Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (natural health products).

* * *

Age of Consent

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by some 400 petitioners from British Columbia, many from my riding.

The petitioners call on the government to take note of the age of consent and protection for our children from sexual predators. They call on the government to make this a priority and to raise the age of consent to 16 to protect vulnerable 14 and 15 year olds.

The bill, I believe, is at the Senate. The petitioners are hoping the bill will be enacted.

* * *

[Translation]

Income Trusts

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of David Marshall of Cornwall, Ontario, I would like to present a petition on the government's broken promise regarding income trusts.

Mr. Marshall remembers that the Prime Minister was bragging about his so-called commitment to accountability when he stated that there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but that he shamelessly broke his promise by imposing a punitive tax of 31.5%, which wiped out $25 billion that more than two million Canadians, mainly seniors, worked so hard to save for their retirement.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to do three things: first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on a flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and third, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

* * *

[English]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens from across British Columbia.

The petitioners have viewed Al Gore's presentation An Inconvenient Truth and they believe that it summarizes the life-threatening global danger from atmospheric pollution as also reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and scientists of many nationalities.

The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada legislate programs consistent with meteorological reality and act immediately to reduce the climate change crisis by diminishing fossil fuel dependency, while sponsoring initiatives and incentives to promote less harmful technology.

* * *

Human Trafficking

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from hundreds of constituents across Canada. The petitioners call upon the government to continue its good work in combating the horrendous crime of human trafficking.

* * *

[Translation]

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition from several hundred people in my riding. It concerns, among other things, eliminating the waiting period for employment insurance.

For months, if not years, we have been talking about eliminating the waiting period. Despite my attempt last week to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, my private member's bill was not adopted.

The petitioners criticize the Conservative government for not wanting to go ahead with eliminating the waiting period. As soon as the Conservatives had the chance, they voted against eliminating the waiting period. The petitioners are also calling on the Conservative government to make sure people have the choice of applying for employment insurance on paper or on the Internet. The petitioners are asking the government to eliminate the waiting period for employment insurance once and for all and to respect those who need it the most: the people who work every day and have no choice but to apply for employment insurance because they do seasonal work.

* * *

(1535)

[English]

Asbestos

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a petition from hundreds of Canadians from all over British Columbia who call upon Canada to recognize that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. Yet, Canada continues to be one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world.

Canada allows asbestos to be used in construction materials, textile products and even children's toys. Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing this industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all its forms, to introduce a just transition program for asbestos workers, end all government subsidies of asbestos in both Canada and abroad, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from this terrible product, such as the Rotterdam convention.

* * *

Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents from the county of Two Hills, the town of Two Hills, Willingdon, Myrnam and Derwent. The petitioners call upon the government to expedite the immigration process for all qualified physicians seeking to practice in rural Canada.

* * *

Income Trusts

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of Mr. George Chin of Calgary, Alberta, who remembers that the Prime Minister was boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but that he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon the Conservative minority government to, first, admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

* * *

Natural Health Products

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present three petitions from my constituents. The first is signed by 92 people.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products by removing the goods and services tax on them and by enacting Bill C-404.

* * *

(1540)

Federal Minimum Wage

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 41 constituents in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-375, to re-establish a federal minimum wage and set it at $10 an hour.

There are more than two million Canadians who make less than $10 an hour, and we know the impact of poverty on health, social development and our economy as a whole. We know that a federal minimum wage can lift minimum wages across the country, and that since the federal minimum wage was abolished by the Liberals provincial wages have been stagnant.

This petition is urging the re-establishment of a federal minimum wage and setting it at $10 an hour.

* * *

Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-394, called the once in a lifetime bill.

My bill recognizes that family sponsorship is a key component of a fair immigration policy. The current family class rules are too restrictive and they mean that close family relatives in many cases are not eligible for sponsorship. I have had a huge response to this private member's bill.

The petitioners are urging that we act to redefine family class under the immigration and refugee act by passing Bill C-394.

* * *

[Translation]

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by 100 people in New Brunswick. The petition states that the employment insurance program was set up to help workers who lost their jobs and their salary temporarily or permanently. In today's economy, a loss of even one day's pay is a hardship for too many people.

The two-week waiting period is unfair to workers who are already suffering the loss of their jobs. This petition calls on the government to reject the mandatory waiting period and to allow workers to apply for benefits as of the first day.

It also calls on the government to reinstate the appropriate number of staff at the regional offices of Service Canada in order to give applicants the choice of applying on paper or on line, and to provide them with help from a well-informed staff member.

* * *

[English]

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 211 will be answered today.

[Text]

Question No. 211--Mr. Wayne Marston:

What projects, grants, contributions and any other funding support has Human Resources and Social Development Canada funded for the riding of Hamilton-East—Stoney Creek since February 7, 2006?

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, government information on funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees issued by departments and agencies is based on parliamentary authorities for departmental or agency programs and activities. This information is listed by department and government organization in the public accounts and disclosed on the websites of government organizations. However, government organizations do not compile or analyze expenditure information by electoral district. Consequently, at present, it would not be possible to provide the information in the form requested.

Over the course of the 39th Parliament, a number of government organizations have undertaken efforts to identify federal expenditures by postal codes which could then be summarized by electoral districts using a tool developed by Statistics Canada. While there is some promise in this approach, there remains a significant potential for error since over 5,000 postal codes straddle two or more electoral districts. Moreover, the government would have significant concerns about the quality of the financial data derived by this approach because there is no way to track the geographic area in which federal funding is actually spent. For example, federal funding could be provided to the head office of a firm situated in one electoral district, while the funding was actually spent by a subsidiary located in another electoral district. This may also be the case for payments to individuals, organizations or foundations. For these reasons, and the fact that fewer than half of government organizations have acquired the Statistics Canada tool, it is not possible to produce an accurate and comprehensive answer to this question at the present time.

That said, Statistics Canada has initiated a process to enhance the accuracy of the tool that provides the link between postal codes and electoral districts. The process will allow departments to better approximate by electoral district data gathered on a postal code basis. The improved tool should be available in the fall of 2007. In the interim, the Privy Council Office will also launch an interdepartmental process to determine whether this tool can be extended to all government organizations as well as the means to ensure that it is used in a consistent manner across the whole of government.

* * *

[English]

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 184 and 208 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Text]

Question No. 184--Mr. John Cummins:

With regard to the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory, both in the Strait of Georgia, the Fraser River and elsewhere, as set out in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and Side-Agreements: (a) what was the nature of the vessel traffic in the Tsawwassen Territory in 2006 both on the Fraser River and the Strait of Georgia; (b) how will vessel traffic in the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory be impacted by the Final Agreement and what studies have been undertaken on the impacts of the Final Agreement on vessel traffic; (c) in addition to the Strait of Georgia and the Fraser River, what are the additional bodies of water within the Territory; (d) what species of fish or shell fish were caught by recreational and commercial fishermen within the Tsawwassen Territory in the years 1986 to 2006; (e) what was the number or quantity and the landed value of fish and shellfish caught under commercial license by species in each year during the period 1986 to 2006; (f) how many commercial fishermen were licensed to fish for any area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (g) how many recreational fishermen were licensed to fish in the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (h) how many commercial fishing licenses by species were held by fishermen for any part of the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (i) how many hours of fishing time were authorized for the Tsawwassen Indian Band to undertake food, social and ceremonial fisheries by species for each year during the period; (j) how many pounds of fish were landed by the Tsawwassen Indian Band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year during the period; (k) how many sockeye salmon could have been caught under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right Allocation for each year if it had been in place during the period, and what was the total catch of Fraser sockeye for each year during the period; (l) how many members of the Tsawwassen Indian Band as registered under the Indian Act were resident on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve for each year during the period; (m) what studies have been undertaken to identify the impacts of the creation of the Tsawwassen Fishing Right on other recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in what is now the Tsawwassen Territory, in particular the displacement of traditional recreational and commercial fishermen; (n) if the 0.78% of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch for Fraser sockeye that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen Band had been fished by the Tsawwassen Band what would the total catch be in pounds for each year during the period; (o) what measures have been put in place to guarantee that those recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in the area that now constitutes the Tsawwassen Territory will be able to continue to fish in the public recreational and commercial fisheries unimpeded; (p) what would have been (i) the value, in number of fish, of the 0.78% allocation of the Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch to the Tsawwassen Band for Fraser sockeye for each year during the period as provided under the Final Agreement and accompanying side-agreements, (ii) the total Canadian commercial catch of Fraser sockeye for each year, (iii) the average allocation to the Tsawwassen Band for the period based on the 0.78% allocation; (q) what would have been the value, in quantity and dollars, of the 3.27% allocation of terminal commercial catch of Fraser River chum salmon to the Tsawwassen Band for each year during the period; (r) what would have been the value of the 0.78% allocation to the Tsawwassen Band of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch of Fraser River pink salmon for each year during the period; (s) what would have been the value of the five commercial crab licenses to be issued to the Tsawwassen Band under the Harvest side agreement for each year during the period; (t) what is the size limit going to be for crab taken under the Final Agreement and Side-Agreements for food, social, ceremonial and commercial purposes; (u) what is the quantity and value of the crab taken by the band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year of the period; (v) what was the quantity and value of each species caught during food, social and ceremonial openings or under such licenses and exported to the United States or any other country for each year during the period; and (w) does the Final Agreement and Side Agreements provide for self catch monitoring and reporting by the Tsawwassen Band and, if so, how does that differ from the reporting and catch monitoring planned for those public recreational and commercial fisheries that will still be able to operate within the Tsawwassen Territory following the implementation of the Final Agreement?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 208--Mr. Nathan Cullen:

With respect to the Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia and Alberta: (a) what is the most up-to-date assessment of the economic impact of the infestation, including, but not limited to, lost lumber, hectares, employment, and longer term regional development; (b) how many communities and families are affected by the infestation, according to province; (c) within affected areas, which communities are considered to be the least and worst hit, according to province; (d) what financial resources are estimated to be needed to adequately respond to the crisis, on an annual basis; (e) how much money has the government committed to the problem over the last five years, on an annual basis; (f) what were the dates upon which these funding announcements were made; (g) of these funds, what amount has actually been disbursed, on an annual basis; (h) from which departmental budget were these funds disbursed, or to have been disbursed from; (i) which communities in British Columbia and Alberta, on an annual basis, received federal money to tackle the infestation, and in each case, name the recipient agencies and projects that received funding; and (j) which branches, of which departments, are tasked with developing and implementing a strategy to tackle the infestation?

(Return tabled)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand?

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Motions for Papers

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call Motions Nos. P-23, P-24 and P-27

Motion P-23

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 21, 2004, email addressed to Adam LaRusic, Senior Environmental Assessment Engineer, Pollution Prevention and Assessment Division, Environment Canada (Vancouver) from Lisa Walls, Acting Manager of Pollution Prevention and Assessment Division, Environment Canada (Vancouver) noting the Department of Fisheries advised the Vancouver Port Authority that the Terminal 2 project could be removed from the Deltaport Third Berth Project environmental assessment scoping document without the need to have public consultations.

Motion P-24

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 21, 2004, memorandum addressed to Lisa Walls, Acting Manager of Pollution Prevention and Assessment Division, Environment Canada (Vancouver) from Adam LaRusic, Senior Environmental Assessment Engineer, Pollution Prevention and Assessment Division, Environment Canada (Vancouver), stating that the Terminal 2 project should be included in the cumulative effects assessment portion of the Deltaport Third Berth Project environmental assessment.

Motion P-27

That an Order of this House do issue for a copy of Canada's Sixth and Seventh Periodic Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers Nos. P-23 and P-24, in the name of the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East, and P-27, in the name of the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, are acceptable to the government and will be tabled immediately.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Pugwash Conferences

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been further consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House congratulate the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs on the occasion of their 50th anniversary for their significant contribution to nuclear disarmament.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Aeronautics Act

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No.1.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-6. This is very much a consequential act, which would make a significant change in the airline industry.

Today we are debating a series of amendments to Bill C-6 that were introduced to make it a better bill, but the government has decided to take out some of those amendments, water down the bill and water down safety requirements for the airline industry in this country, in particular for Air Canada as well as WestJet, which quite frankly did a good job of lobbying to get less accountability to the public into the system.

It is important in the debate to talk about the overall situation in manufacturing and also connect that to why Canadians and Canadian consumers deserve greater accountability. It is perplexing why the government wants to continually take those types of amendments out of legislation.

Most recently it did this with regard to the rail transportation amendments, and once again it has taken out provisions for accountability for the airline industry in regard to providing full information in terms of disclosure about the ticket, the price, the charge, the fees and all those different and often hidden charges that are in the system. The government took those out of the previous bill, which is puzzling.

In the previous bill, the government also took out the opportunity for neighbourhoods to have mediation when there is a dispute with rail properties and their usage. I do not understand why the government would want to take away these civil liberties that consumers really deserve and should have our open market society.

These provisions, which were introduced by the NDP, are important. My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, deserves a lot of credit for working hard on the bill. He was able to work with other opposition parties to change the bill significantly in favour of the public, but we now are seeing the erosion of those changes, and in particular a safety management system that really will give the industry carte blanche in terms of its operation and the actual application of reporting safety hazards and problems in the airline industry.

Even when there are violations, and I will get into some of the particulars later, the industry actually gets a get out of jail free card. It can make self-correcting measures. At the same time, this will do nothing to punish a race to the bottom, which can happen in this industry.

We have been fortunate. The airline industry rebounded somewhat in this country after 9/11. We have had significant problems and challenges. Extra fees were added for security as well as other types of operations. There have been increased costs for fuel and other types of factors that have really challenged the industry.

The industry has done a good job of working its way back, but at the same time it does not take away from the fact that we do not want to have less accountability, fewer restrictions, and less opportunity for the public to get information about safety issues.

Today, the parliamentary secretary, who was actually the chair of the industry committee, tabled a report from our counterfeiting study that our industry committee just concluded. Part of the testimony we heard was that counterfeit parts are being used by current airlines and other industries. We heard that not only in terms of aerospace, but also, for example, in regard to circuit breakers that were knock-offs and ripoffs and were being used in hospitals, which can affect Canadian patients. If we have less reliable and unaccountable products as part of the system of managing our hospitals, what takes place when there is a problem? There is no accountability.

We heard evidence in the industry committee that we are getting knock-off parts that are being used in the aeronautics industry. Why would we allow this to continue? The recommendation of our committee is to clamp down on some of the counterfeiting that is out there and to make people more accountable, not only those who are procuring the counterfeit products but also those who are the distributors of those products and, lastly, the companies and the countries that are allowing this to be perpetrated.

(1545)

At the same time, by removing accountability, we are now going to be introducing a system that will allow a company not to have to report to the department to the fullest extent possible when we have airline industry problems. That is an issue. As a young father, I have brought my daughter here to the House of Commons for this last week. We flew here. One thinks about the safety issue. I do not like to fly as it is. I have never enjoyed that part of this job, but at the same time, one gets over it.

However, what one does hope is that we have the highest degree of safety standards. I have confidence in the airline providers that we have had, but at the same time we know that at times there have been providers that have actually taken out safety requirements or have had improper practices that have put people at risk, not only in this country but around the world.

We have had that happen in this country, too, and Jetsgo, for example, is an oft-cited case in which thousands of passengers got on planes that had problems. The reporting and the accountability were not up to snuff in terms of how I would feel about it.

When we get on a plane we want to feel that there will be the best practices possible. Those best practices come from healthy competition but also from the accountability of the consumer being able to make the right choice about how they want to spend their money and also knowing the value of that related to the product they have. Some of it is safety driven. Having that opportunity to select safety as a priority for one's purchasing is something that consumers across the country deserve, not only in aerospace but also in automobiles and other types of manufactured devices.

We can see that things do get through the system. Again, on counterfeiting, right now we see a toothpaste that was in Canadian stores. It was poison, quite frankly. Also, my son was one of those persons who had a Thomas the tank engine train that was painted with lead-based paint from a company in China that was importing it into Canada.

We can see that not only are we getting some of these products into the country—and our laws at the border to regulate and inspect them are deficient—but they are getting into our system. This has penetrated into our aerospace system, as was shown by the evidence presented at the industry, science and technology study on counterfeiting. Why, then, would we change Bill C-6 to take out provisions that would provide for less accountability when we need it most right now?

That is important. Once again, consumers should have the opportunity to evaluate and equate the safety of airlines when they are making a purchase. It should be just like they do it for comfort. I do not believe the bill does us a service in that regard. I am very troubled by the fact that we would do it when we have a situation emerging in Canada that has been identified as a priority.

It is important to note that on the counterfeiting study we have all party unanimous consent on a series of recommendations. That is important, because we know that there is a public priority for those recommendations. That is why I am troubled that the government wants to move away from that accountability.

As for the corporate responsibility, when we look at the history of it in this country, it has had some unique things that are quite puzzling. It was only a few years back that we were able to wrestle down the Liberal government to get it to change the tax deductibility of corporate fines and penalties.

Let us imagine that. If a company polluted or was caught in some type of business practice, went through the court system, was fined, penalized—the whole judicial review—it then wrote off up to 50% of the fine as a business related expense. If in their corporate plans companies used pollution discharge that is illegal or used products or services that were counterfeit or certainly not at the industry standard where they were supposed to be, they would actually be allowed to write off 50% of that.

I will conclude with this. There are other important issues in the bill. They involve everything, even whistleblower protection, which is being usurped; it is conditional in the bill, which makes no sense at all. We fought across the country to get whistleblower protection here in Ottawa and there are still some problems with it, so taking that away from another important bill makes no sense whatsoever.

To conclude, let me say that this is a plea to the government. We do not want to have our transportation systems, which business travel and passenger travel depend on so much, put under a cloud that could create further problems for our productivity.

(1550)

That is important to note because if there is a significant safety problem as a result of this bill and accountability is brought to bear on those who brought it here, other people will pay, people other than the injured and the people who rely upon the practice or the business itself. Other people will lose out as well. That is why we need to change this bill and make it better, like the way it was.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that we are not going to see any Conservative MPs getting up to speak to this issue. They themselves are embarrassed about how reprehensible, how reckless and how irresponsible this bill and the Conservative amendment are, so they just do not speak.

We are into the third day of debate at report stage and we do not see Conservatives defending their position. They cannot because it is an indefensible position to put ordinary Canadian families in the kind of peril the Conservatives seem to want to put them in. What we saw with the railway system, the Conservatives now want to do with the airlines.

I was interested in the comments that were made in committee by Kirsten Brazier, the president of Dax Air. She was actually brought to the committee by the member for Kenora. She said the following:

When we started our company, we both agreed we would do our best to abide by the standards and operate safely and responsibly. We knew we were going to have a tough time because of the state of the industry we are in, where cutting corners is common practice. We are all faced with rising costs and a declining market, so to compete, many operators continue to overload their airplanes, cut rates and push weather, basically getting more done for less....We find ourselves in the position that many others have come to: either cut corners to survive and compete or go out of business. While we expected a few challenges in establishing our company and operating principles, we also expected that our doing-it-right approach would be supported by Transport Canada. We have found that this is not the case.

When company spokespeople are coming forward and saying they are being forced to cut corners on safety, why would the Conservatives put forward an irresponsible bill when we know that this is essentially the problem?

We are putting Canadians' lives in danger. Instead of trying to rectify the problems, the near misses and the many near accidents that we are facing, instead of coping very responsibly with those, the Conservatives are doing exactly the opposite and giving the most irresponsible companies a get out of jail free card.

Why does the member for Windsor West think that the Conservatives are taking this clearly irresponsible action?

(1555)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in his work on this bill.

Quite frankly, I am troubled by the fact that the Conservatives want to let corporate criminals get away. If the bill passes, there will be an adjustment process, a fixing of the problem that allows them to not receive any type of penalty for the injurious effects that have cost passenger safety, and potentially lives. That is unacceptable.

Canadians expect to get good products and good services that are safe and fair for their hard-earned money. We heard this before when we got rid of the tax deductibility that the Liberals allowed for the environment and fines. Good companies were coming to me and saying that some companies had business plans to rip off the system, either by environmental degradation or with some types of business management systems that were counter to the actual competition, such as subsidizing through illegal practices. Some companies would use that as a subsidy to take out the good people in the system.

That is what is unacceptable about this. If there needs to be a fix in the system, it is to bring greater accountability, which is what we want. What they are doing is unacceptable.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Justice Virgil Moshansky said:

This is an ominous sign for the future of air safety in Canada, particularly if Bill C-6 is allowed to proceed...

When people like the hon. Justice Moshansky are raising serious concerns, why are the Conservatives doing this? Why are they being so irresponsible?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, their ideology has taken over. Their ideology is to get government and regulations and any type of accountability that protects consumers out of the way. That is why we have not seen the review of the Competition Act which was supposed to happen. That is why we see CN and the rail system get a similar pass. And the Conservatives are giving that to the airline executives and management which really should be held accountable if they have practices that hurt customers and the general public.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. I want to begin with a brief citation from an article that appeared in the Toronto Star about a year ago:

Jetsgo, which offered tickets as low as $1, had repeated mechanical breakdowns, shoddy maintenance practices, inexperienced pilots and midair mishaps.

Transport Canada, which is mandated to keep Canada's skies safe, knew of the problems, but for 2 1/2 years dismissed the troubles as the growing pains of a start-up operator.

Only after a near-crash in Calgary in January 2005 did it take tough action, but even after a special inspection the next month revealed serious trouble, the regulator continued to publicly tout the airline as "safe."

I raise this because the bill we are dealing with today, Bill C-6, is about health and safety. It is about the health and safety of the public in the airline sector. It is about the safety of people who work in this sector. Bill C-6 would not address the situation the article describes with Jetsgo, which subsequently did go bankrupt, but it would make this situation worse.

We have seen, certainly for more than the last two decades, a period of deregulation and privatization, increasing transfer over to the private sector of oversight and enforcement of various rules. I do remember the pre-deregulation period in the transportation sector. The public was assured and the airline industry was assured that there would be no compromise on safety, that public safety was paramount and that even though companies were to be privatized and there was to be deregulation in terms of fares and routes, there would not be deregulation of the public good when it came to safety, that that would never happen.

Today we have Bill C-6 which would do just that. I want to review what it is that Bill C-6 will do. It will enshrine what is called safety management systems and it will enshrine them so that the companies themselves in effect will be supervising their own safety compliance. It transfers increasing responsibility over to the industry itself to set and enforce its own standards. It is designed not to enhance the public safety or security in the airline industry. What it will do is help Transport Canada deal with limited declining resources and projected declining numbers of airline safety inspectors due to retirements.

Certainly the Canadian public wants to be assured that their safety is paramount and is not compromised in dealing with administrative concerns about lack of resources or demographic changes among the inspectors because of retirements. Canadians have a great deal to be concerned about with this legislation. Self-enforcement when it comes to public safety in the airline sector is simply unacceptable.

It began in the U.S., but it has expanded to Canada and to many other countries. We have seen with deregulation absolutely cutthroat competition in the airline sector. I have worked in this sector. I have seen the changes that have taken place over the last several years.

The kind of service that has been offered to the travelling public has changed dramatically. Certainly no one would want to see their safety treated as the change in meal service has been treated on the airlines. No one wants to go from a full breakfast on Air Canada to peanuts and have their safety treated in a similar fashion. However, we are finding this incredible cutthroat competition in the airline sector.

(1600)

When it comes to food, bringing one's own lunch, breakfast or dinner is not a big deal and people are doing it. However, when it comes to public safety and security, we do not want public safety and security to be subject to cutthroat competition.

Competition has been exacerbated by high fuel prices which have squeezed the airline industry even further. With the high prices of fuel combined with cutthroat competition, airlines are being driven into the ground. The industry has been littered with bankrupt airlines going back a number of years.

There is one area in which we do not want airlines to compete. In that incredibly fierce competitive environment, the one area we want completely protected from cutthroat competition surely is public safety.

We know there have been a number of close calls over the years, but generally, I think the travelling public feels fairly confident in the airlines when it comes to public safety. This goes back to the reassurance that Canadians had prior to airline deregulation and privatization that whatever happened, public safety would be paramount.

The issue we are raising around Bill C-6 is the concern that public safety will no longer be paramount. That bedrock confidence Canadians have in the safety and security of their airlines can no longer be resting on absolutely firm ground as it has been in the past.

I do want to commend my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the tremendous work he has done in the transport committee in trying to amend what is a very bad bill. He has been successful in making a number of positive changes that have tightened this bill to some degree, but not to the point where the public can have assurance that their safety is going to be completely uncompromised. For that reason, I am rising to oppose this bill. I think it is not in the best interests of Canadians.

We are a vast country that was built on effective transportation. Certainly the railway from sea to sea and airlines in the 20th and 21st centuries have allowed Canadians to stay connected with one another. For our country more than any other country in the world to compromise public safety with a bill like this by transferring responsibility for safety enforcement to the very companies that are in this cutthroat competition in a deregulated environment, I believe is wrong.

(1605)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work the member for Parkdale—High Park has done on infrastructure, pressing for urban transit and a new deal for cities, as well as the work she has been doing on behalf of her constituents and for consumers. This is very much a consumer issue. Essentially, we have the Conservatives pushing forward with this bad bill, unparalleled bad choice of policy.

There was a report in the Hamilton Spectator this morning by Fred Vallance-Jones, who is one of the foremost journalists in the country looking into air safety issues. Part of the article quotes Richard Balnis, who is a senior research officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. He says:

This is an incredible deal that has been struck with the airlines that Transport Canada is saying, 'We cannot oversee you anymore, so we're going to trust you to do it yourself, and the quid pro quo is we are not going to enforce against you, but more importantly, we're going to put a secrecy cone over the both of us”.

This article goes on to reiterate the investigation of air safety by the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star and The Record of the Waterloo region. It says:

—gave publicity to the government's plans for SMS, many groups appeared before the Commons transport committee to warn Canada could be heading for an aviation catastrophe. The newspapers' investigation found more than 80,000 passengers were put at risk over a five- year period from 2001 to 2005 when planes came dangerously close to each other in Canadian skies. It also found rising numbers of mechanical defects and lax safety regulations.

We have the appalling record that Transport Canada has, only through luck, avoided a catastrophe certainly in the last few years. Essentially we have this excellent investigation done by The Toronto Star, the Hamilton Spectator and the Kitchener Waterloo The Record. We have a case by case examination of the number of passengers that came close to tragedy.

Why would the Conservatives proceed with a plan like this when they know that Canadian families are absolutely opposed to putting their loved ones in danger and when all the evidence shows that we have less and less security in our air space, less and less enforcement of safety regulations and fewer and fewer flight inspectors? We have 100 vacant positions the Conservatives refuse to fill.

In all that dynamic, why would the Conservatives push forward with what is exactly contrary to the public interest and to what Canadians want and need?

(1610)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash:

Mr. Speaker, why would the government not act in the public good? The public expects not only effective regulation, but oversight and enforcement of those regulations.

I also argue that the government has generally abandoned the public good when it comes to infrastructure investment. I know in my own neighbourhood of Parkdale—High Park, due to lacking a very small amount of money, public swimming pools are closing and the community is being abandoned in its struggle to maintain this infrastructure that is good for the community and for children and prevents disease and crime.

Why would the government not invest in this kind of infrastructure? Why will the government not act in the public good to have effective oversight of our transportation sector, which is exactly what Canadians expect from our federal government?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Conservatives, at some point, will actually defend this deplorable, reckless and irresponsible approach of gutting aviation safety. I hoped one would stand up. Hopefully, they are not all sheep.

I would like to quote a poll of federal aviation inspectors. They have found that nearly three-quarters of inspectors believe a major airline accident is looming because of increasingly lax safety oversight.

When three-quarters of the federal aviation inspectors are saying a major airline accident is looming, does the member not believe that the government should be heeding those who understand best what is important to maintain the safety in Canada's airlines?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Peggy Nash:

Mr. Speaker, clearly what we have here is a case of ideology trumping not only common sense, but trumping the public good. It is hard to believe that any hon. member in the House could defend the bill that the government has put forward. It is not surprising that the Conservatives are not rising to their feet to defend this legislation.

Clearly, it is not in the public good. I appreciate my hon. colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and all the fine work that he has done to bring the weaknesses of this bill into the public domain.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I rise to speak to Bill C-6. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to deal with an issue that many of our constituents do not have the time or the ability to delve into this type of legislation, but yet it impacts their lives in a serious way.

The region I represent in northwestern British Columbia is often described as remote. It is certainly spread out. When I return to my constituency, I use any one of a number of seven different airports to access the communities and villages that I serve and represent. Air safety is one of the most important issues for the constituents who I represent.

It goes without saying that the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is laudable and commendable due to his unending energy in trying to squeeze out of the government and the other opposition parties better legislation. We all know that at the end of the day, regardless of partisan interests, we only want to promote legislation that most protects the health and safety of Canadians. Members of Parliament only want legislation that properly balances the powers that be within the country and those interests of the voters who we represent.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is a broad, sweeping bill. It is a bill that has had some long history of debate. It has been pushed by various governments, previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Conservative government. Each time the bill is presented, the part which is most desperately flawed pertains to the interests of average Canadians.

Representatives from the industry are always front and centre and are always well represented and well rehearsed in the things that they want primarily around the issue of self-regulation and them being able to monitor themselves and their safety record. Whereas, the bill does not balance properly on the side of constituents, flyers, people who rely upon air travel and depend upon it.

Often the captain will come on the intercom and comment that the most dangerous thing we will do that day is drive to and from the airport and that the flying is incredibly safe. This is an unbelievably important part of the airline industry.

Anyone who knows the history of the airline industry in North America, the first and most important thing it had to address and deal with was the concept that this was a dangerous activity. For many people initially, the idea of getting into a plane was considered very dangerous and it was. There were very few regulations and safety requirements, much like it was getting into an automobile when they were first invented, but there was an evolution. We saw an evolution in regulations, unfortunately often driven by accidents.

When an air accident would occur, the transportation and safety review board, or whatever incarnation there was at the time, would come on to the scene, review what had happened and then make recommendations to the government, which it could enshrine either in legislation or regulations, but something that would then protect the public. This would then give greater assurance to future travellers that they and their families would be safe.

There has been a natural tension and while potentially healthy, it also has the potential for great harm. That tension is between the air carriers, the companies involved, particularly the two major national ones, and their interests. Generally speaking, if we speak of fiduciary responsibilities, it is the maximization of profit for their shareholders. That is what their board and corporate governance structure is meant to do. It is meant to allow the greatest benefit derived for all those who have invested in their companies. This is matched off against the need for proper regulations and safety requirements. Lo and behold, sometimes safety actually costs money and time.

To ensure that something is safe and it is something we can all live by, it has to be done right. It has to be fixed right. It has to be of the highest quality and standards.

Many members of Parliament, as this session ends, will be considering their travel plans. Many of us have to board an airplane. In all the confusion in trying to get onboard that airplane, one thing we do not often think about. We assume our travel experience, while it will be potentially long and annoying, because we are on these things all the time, will be safe. That is something that goes without saying because there have been relatively few accidents in the Canadian airline industry.

The tension that exists and that is not properly balanced within Bill C-6 is between the role of government and the role of the private sector. Government has no right and no business telling the airline industry how to run a maximizing profit industry. That is the responsibility of the airline executives, management and consulting crews.

(1615)

The government's responsibility is to balance those interests with the interests and safety of Canadians. Canadians trust our ability and our tenacity to ensure we never pass laws that would put them in any jeopardy.

Lo and behold, this bill moves toward a self-monitoring, a self-regulating and a self-inspecting regime. This would allow the industry to make up rules and decide what level of risk and safety would be permissible. The industry's sole and primary interest is not only making a profit. The industry's interests are mixed. Ours is to allow a healthy industry to exist while at the same time balance the public benefit.

There are two analogies that I would like to mention to members and they work best for my region in northern British Columbia. One is in the forestry sector and the other is in the train sector.

Many of the rail systems in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, for convenience sake or just by fate of history often run beside many of our major waterways. Over the last number of years, we have seen an increasing rate of serious train accidents, which have caused us grave concern. Many of these trains pass right through our towns and our communities, sometimes within 100 feet of people's homes. The buffer between having a safe and reliable train system and having one that causes great harm is not great. There is not a lot of space.

As the industry has moved toward self-regulation, self-monitoring, deciding within its own confines what is safe and not safe, exactly what the airline industry is asking for, the accident rate goes up.

I speak with rail workers every day when I am in my constituency of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. They privately talk to me about what is going on within their industry. They tell me that the drive toward the bottom line has become intense. The basic safety mechanisms that have been developed over time, often based upon accidents, have not been made out of thin area. Inspectors go on site after a major accident and they design a safety protocol after they realize what went wrong. That is meant to happen. That is the reason we go about these things.

When an industry is moved toward deregulation and self-monitoring, all those regulations come into question. All those safety mechanisms potentially go off the books. If an industry feels it is cutting too much into its bottom line, it can decide that a particular safety clause designed back in 1985 no longer pertains and it costs $1 million a year, and it will let that clause slide.

With no transparency at all existing within the bill for the airline industry, Canadians will not know what safety regulations have been taken out. In the future imagined by this bill, there will be no way of knowing whether all the safety procedures were taken or not. It was not up to any regulator to decide; it was up to the industry to decide. While we all hope that safety is important to the industry, with this conflict of interest built within the bill, it is not a risk that we can take.

The other sector that is important in our region is the forestry sector. Whenever there was a fatality within the forestry sector, inspectors would go to the accident site to find out what went wrong. They decided that certain safety measures had to be put in place to prevent the future loss of life. It was shown that rules and protocols were necessary.

When we moved to a deregulated forestry sector, when we moved to a place where health and safety requirements were placed in the hands of the company with a profit motive, there was a huge spike in the number of forestry fatalities in British Columbia. There were 50 last year. Those 50 lives could have been saved.

(1620)

What we need to do at this moment is to reconsider the bill from top to bottom, move the amendments that the NDP has called for and then build something that we can all be proud of. It should not be to the rush of some limit of time but something that we know will keep Canadians safe.

(1625)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see that the Conservatives are refusing to stand and defend their position on this bill. We are supposed to have a democratic debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have put something together that, at the very least, one can say is dangerously reckless and yet they are refusing to defend their actions. They are absolutely refusing to stand and say why they want to be dangerously reckless. It may be to increase CEO's bonuses, who knows, but they could at least give some reason for their recklessness, their irresponsibility and their complete disregard for the families of ordinary Canadians who will be getting on flights soon of airlines that will no longer be regulated or, if they are regulated and there are internal problems, we will never know about them.

I want to come back to the presentation by the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who is certainly one of the most active MPs in the House. He works extremely diligently on behalf of his constituency here in Ottawa and then he goes back to Skeena—Bulkley Valley and flies regularly throughout that vast riding, about a quarter of British Columbia. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is extremely diligent about getting out to his riding so he flies a great deal, not just to Ottawa but around his riding on the weekends when he goes back to it.

We have a comment from Ken Rubin, who is a public interest researcher, who said the following before the transport committee:

[The] Transport Minister...cannot claim that he and his officials, as they said in front of the committee, are simply adding, via an industry-government confidential non-punitive SMS reporting system, just another protective layer to improve air safety and are implementing a system far removed from airline self-regulation. Rather, they are attempting to circumvent public scrutiny and abdicating their public regulatory--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I have to cut the member off so I can allow the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to respond to the question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts that was brought forward, and this I believe happened at committee in testimony, was the balance between what the industry was calling for, which was some sort of notion of streamlining and some cost effectiveness measures. To most Canadians, if we were able to propose to them, if this bill were to pass, that there would be some marginal savings on an airline tickets, most Canadians would say that should be considered but the cost of that small savings would be in some order of safety, some magnitude of Canadians' safety in getting on the airplane.

What is safety worth to people? What is safety worth to parliamentarians when we are deciding what bills should go forward and what bills should not and which concepts should go forward and which ones should not? Clearly, it is very difficult.

We had people from the health department in front of us at the environment committee some time ago and I did not know this but the government uses a formula to decide the value of a Canadian life. Apparently, in Health Canada anyway, it is $5 million. That is what the life of a Canadian is worth when the government is trying to estimate how many lives are lost or saved. This was in the area of pollution prevention.

It would be fascinating if some of the Conservatives would stand and defend their position.

We have a government advocating for some measure which, I suspect, is an ideology toward a deregulated form of business where there is little or no oversight for regulations and restrictions are made up by the industry themselves, some laissez-faire free hand, the invisible hand of the marketplace stepping into an issue like health and safety, to passenger safety.

This seems so ridiculous, particularly when it is presented in the light of the day. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has been working diligently to ascertain the qualities of any of the motions that are being considered within the bill, to improve them and to try to work with other members of Parliament on the committee, within government and within the opposition parties and has found few partnerships that were willing.

The member from Eglinton—Lawrence, I believe, has some further and future ambitions and can only see in his starry eyes the executives within the biggest corporations that run our airline industry but cannot see for a moment that the trade-off between the security of individual people, who I suppose he represents, cannot be seen for this other ambition.

Clearly, we need to rebalance the scales and design a bill that we can all be proud of, not one that plays to some selected audiences.

(1630)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We are at report stage in this debate, which is a very crucial phase of the debate where we are considering the amendments that were made at the transport committee to this important bill.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his work on this important legislation. He has toiled long and hard to ensure that the House pays due attention to the safety concerns of Canadians when we are travelling by air. He has worked to see improvements made to the proposed legislation.

We still believe it is a very flawed bill but the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has certainly ensured that it is a better bill than it was and the amendments that he has brought forward are very important toward that.

It remains a deeply problematic bill, however, because all of the amendments that were necessary did not get passed.

We debated that process in the House yesterday and we are debating it again today. It is, as I said, a very crucial piece of legislation. I believe all Canadians want to know that they are safe when they are travelling by air. They want to know that the airline industry is safe for the people who work in it. They want to be sure that someone is paying attention to the safety of our air transportation system.

I am not convinced that Bill C-6 would act in the interest of Canadians when it comes to ensuring our safety as we travel by air or as we transport goods by air.

The proposed legislation would enshrine safety management systems to allow the industry to decide the level of risk that it is willing to accept in its operations, rather than abide by a level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest. It would allow government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements.

That is of great concern to me and to members of the New Democratic Party. The basic premise of the bill to allow the transfer of responsibility from government to the corporate sector for something as important as ensuring safety just is not an acceptable way to go.

As someone from British Columbia, I have watched the increasing number of railway accidents in recent years that have caused deaths and environmental problems in British Columbia and across the country due to safety concerns. We have also heard concerns from some of the workers whose colleagues have been killed in these accidents and from workers who have made that a key component of their bargaining in recent collective agreement negotiations with the major rail companies in Canada. They have tried to highlight their concerns for ongoing safety because we know that the railway industry has a similar system to what is being proposed in Bill C-6 for the airline industry. We have seen the failures of that by the large number of railway accidents in recent years.

As someone from British Columbia, I am also concerned about the major derailments on the former BC Rail line which have caused many deaths. There have been many fairly dramatic accidents. One accident in particular was the Cheakamus Canyon derailment which caused the death of that river and will require probably decades of remediation work to bring the river back to even some semblance of what it once was. The derailment caused the dumping of hazardous materials into the river which killed a huge number of fish and other creatures that live in that river system.

It is a very important concern to me, to the people in my riding and to the people of British Columbia when we see a safety record in the railway industry that causes those kinds of concerns and has led to those kinds of accidents and has not improved the safety record of railways. It has done nothing to improve it, to make it better, to prevent accidents, to prevent the deaths of workers and to prevent environmental problems that result from those accidents.

(1635)

I think we want to be absolutely certain that any legislation that goes forward from this place does not contribute to a similar circumstance in yet another transportation industry. Our concern is that Bill C-6, which deals with the aeronautics industry, would lead to similar circumstances in the management of safety concerns and the attention to safety details.

It is always a concern to us when we turn safety monitoring, safety enforcement and enforcement measures over to the corporate sector to follow because we know that in the corporate sector the bottom line is the financial ledger. It often does not pay the attention needed to safety because of its concerns about profits. I suppose that is a reasonable circumstance if one were in the corporate sector, but I do not think it is a reasonable assumption or a reasonable premise for Canadians who use the airline industry.

I remember where this was first driven home for me years ago. It was at the Miners Museum in Cape Breton. I do not know if the museum is still there because it has been some decades since I was there. However, off the main lobby of that terrific museum on Cape Breton Island was what looked like a side chapel and there was a glass case that had a number of objects in it. One of the two key components in that display was the company ledger showing the profits that the company was making. The other component was a list of the workers who had died in that particular mine because the museum was built on the site of a former coal mine on Cape Breton Island. There was no explanation as to why the company ledger was sitting there beside the list of workers who had died but it made a very powerful statement and a very deliberate statement about how those two things were not combined naturally to pay attention to the safety of the people who worked there and to ensure their safety and well-being as they worked there.

For me, that was a very dramatic example of the kinds of concerns that arise when we allow the corporate sector a free rein over issues like worker safety and the safety of the travelling public, which is why I am very skeptical about the direction of Bill C-6 and what it hopes to accomplish as a piece of legislation in this House.

Safety should never be subject to the rise and fall of a company's profit margin. I think that is particularly true in the airline industry where we know that often airline companies have had a difficult go of it in Canada, where we have seen airlines come and go in recent years because of the difficulties of making a reasonable profit, of making a go of it as a business in that industry. That kind of circumstance, I think, is ripe for the kinds of concerns to arise over cutting corners when it comes to dealing with questions of safety.

I know there are many concerns that we have in this corner about Bill C-6 but we do not think the amendments at report stage go nearly far enough to addressing all of them.

Our three major concerns are around the safety management systems. As I have already noted, the airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define the safety level of its operations. I think all of us would see some flaw in allowing that to happen. We are concerned that there would be no spokesperson for the travelling public to ensure that there is another standard applied to those operations.

We also know that heightened secrecy would be allowed because of this legislation. It would restrict access to information on the safety performances of airlines. Certainly, in a situation where we are turning that over to airlines, that is of great concern. Any more secrecy is not appropriate.

We also know that the whistleblower protection included in this legislation for employees would not be strong enough to allow an employee who sees a serious concern about safety to make that public and seek a resolution to that where it has not been given appropriate attention by the company, and that is not acceptable either.

We also see that there is a lack of accountability overall for airlines in this because it would give them, I think, far too many chances to voluntarily correct problems, that it would set deadlines in a timely fashion rather than on an immediate or urgent or—

(1640)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order. Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his hard work on this file and for keeping it alive, and also my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his remarks that he just made.

However, I also want to touch on some things that my other colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned. He talked about the north coast and the air taxi industry where loggers, miners and fishermen have to use air taxis to get back and forth to work. That is something that is very common in the riding of Vancouver Island North.

Several years ago in 2005, a small airplane crashed into the ocean and all five of the loggers who were on their way to work lost their lives, but a very brave woman, one of the spouses of the men who were killed, has continued to raise awareness about air traffic safety and what is happening in this industry. She has tried to come to the committee and make a presentation, but has so far not been successful.

Therefore, on behalf of her, her name is Kirsten Stevens, I bring this issue up in the House to talk about air safety. What she said to me was that the concerns are very real. There is a general feeling in the industry that the air taxi sector suffers from a considerable lack of effective oversight and enforcement.

Many concerns which were addressed by Transport Canada in the safety of air taxi operations task force's final report of 1998, which related to the problem of occupational health and safety as well as oversight in this sector, have never been corrected.

This sector suffers from a high accident rate. I find that appalling. My question for my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is this. When we see the amendments and this act which is asking for more oversight by the industry, and in this case the industry is not living up to the commitments now, what happens when they are in full control of it? Would he not think that we need more oversight and not less?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for her question and for representing Ms. Stevens and her family so well on this particular issue. They have gone through what no family should have to go through, losing a loved one in an airplane accident, and they know the difficulty of that.

They know the problems associated with that and to their credit, they have worked to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other families and other workers who depend on airplanes to get to and from work, to do their work, or who work on those planes themselves.

It is very commendable and admirable that despite their loss and their grief at the loss of their own family member, they take up the cause and seek a solution to this.

The member is absolutely right that we do not need fewer regulations, laxer regulations or looser regulations. We need to make sure that we have tough regulations and enforced regulations, and the inspectors to do the enforcement. Otherwise, we are letting people down. We are letting people down like Ms. Stevens and her family, and we are letting workers down who make their living on airlines or providing these kinds of services.

We cannot afford to do that and if government is not about ensuring some modicum of standards for Canadians and serving the Canadian public by ensuring that our safety is a priority, then what should government be about? It just seems so logical that this is a job for the Canadian government, to ensure that safety is a priority for the airline industry.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and I was moved by the whole discussion on what we have seen in terms of railway safety and the abysmal record that has developed in Canada over the last number of years with railway accidents.

We are surprised, given the incredible number of accidents, that we have not seen a greater level of tragedy, yet this seems to be a model that is being promoted for airlines, where there should be a zero level allowed for accidents because of what obviously would be entailed.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. How does he compare the situation that we have seen with rail transportation oversight with airline oversight?

(1645)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay:

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the example of the railway industry is the wrong example. We have seen far too many accidents and lives lost in recent years because of rail accidents. My concern is that the safety standards that we need are not in place, are not in force, and we do not want to see that happen in the airline industry.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster for all the work he did on Bill C-6, which is an important bill.

Bill C-6 has been around before. In the case of railways, the bill was amended to make companies responsible for ensuring railway safety and to remove this responsibility from the government's mandate.

Not long ago, the news reports and newspapers were saying that the railway linking Moncton to Campbellton was so damaged that a VIA Rail train was an hour late by the time it got to Bathurst. Imagine a whole hour late. Also, what would happen if a freight train carrying dangerous goods derailed, or if the goods spilled into the rivers? The government is no longer there to keep an eye on things. They leave it to the companies and big corporations.

As for the air industry, we should remember the difficulties Air Canada experienced. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. It practically declared bankruptcy. Without blaming Air Canada, we have the right to wonder whether corners will be cut. What does the government have to say about that? It could not care less. This is also what happened with the Coast Guard, which suffered cutbacks. There are no more fish in the sea, so there is no need for anyone to monitor the sea or the ocean. I do not think anyone can get hurt or lose their life because of that, but the air industry is another story.

The government just wants to turn around and say that in this case it is not responsible, the airline company is. It is up to the company to say when something is wrong. If it does not say anything, it is responsible. All it has to do is say something, write it in its logbook, and that is that.

I would like to go back to the railway between Moncton and Bathurst. I am thinking of all of the derailments that have happened across the country: in the west, in Ontario and in Quebec. The government is not fulfilling its responsibility. It has passed everything on to the companies. As everyone knows, these big companies were good friends with the Conservative and the Liberal governments, so the government wants to lighten their load and, at the same time, abdicate its responsibility so that it does not have to spend a lot of money.

Furthermore, Bill C-6 does not protect whistleblowers. For example, when I was working in the mines back in 1978, we made sure that a worker could refuse a job if he thought that it would endanger his health or safety. Workers also had the right to tell their co-workers that the work posed a health or safety threat. Bill C-6 offers no protection for whistleblowers. There is nothing to protect whistleblowers who might want to say that they think the plane that passengers are about to board is not safe, that something could happen to put people in danger. There is nothing to protect those people.

How can the Conservative government, along with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, support a bill like Bill C-6? All three parties support this bill. With respect to the—

An hon. member: The Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Canadian Union of Public Employees is against the bill.

(1650)

One of these days, we will all be sitting at home and there will be an accident. We will then read in the papers that the airline did not fulfill its responsibilities in terms of safety. However, since it filled out the aircraft journey log, it will be protected. The government will not be able to hold the company responsible. We will not be able to hold it responsible, and families will have problems and will be left to deal with the tragedy.

This bill is important and should have been adopted a long time ago. This bill also aims to raise the awareness of the Conservative government, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. How can they accept the fact that the government is abdicating responsibility for corporations that should be under its supervision?

Take Air Canada for example. This example may seem rather banal, but in a country like ours, which is supposedly bilingual—French and English—on-board instructions were not even provided in French on Air Canada planes. Flight attendants did not give instructions in French. We had to fight for our official language rights. At long last, a manual now exists, and the flight crew is responsible for providing passengers with emergency landing instructions in both official languages.

This is an important bill, and it is unfortunate that it has come along at the last minute and without warning, and that it does not appear very important. Yet, workplace health and public safety are of prime importance. Once an accident happens, it is too late. The public should know what the government hopes to achieve with Bill C-6. It hopes to shift its governmental responsibilities for public safety and health onto the airlines. This is completely unacceptable and even worse than the Coast Guard situation.

If we put fewer Coast Guard members out there, people could be in danger. There are not enough people to help us in these situations. I remember the same thing happened in New Brunswick in the mining industry over 15 years ago. At the time, the government was responsible for the health and safety of below-ground workers. It was called the Mining Act. The inspector was responsible for various things. Then the government turned the tables and made the company responsible. They could have at least left the inspectors in place or added more inspectors so that work sites could be inspected. That is when they started reducing the number of inspectors.

That is really where it all began: the government started reducing the number of inspectors working in the airline industry, and that is sad. I do not want to see the day when, at home or elsewhere, we hear about an accident in which people lost their lives, or about a plane that crashed in a city or in the country, killing innocent bystanders.

I do not want to see that day because it will be Parliament's fault for passing the Conservative bill as it is currently worded because the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. They have not done their duty. The union of public employees was clear about not being in favour of this bill. We are therefore not the only ones.

(1655)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the various parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-6 report stage Motion No. 2 shall be withdrawn.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

(Motion No. 2 withdrawn)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 10.

[Translation]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

(1700)

The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau) In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

* * *

Before the taking of the vote:

* * *

(1740)

Peace Tower Carillon

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. Before I put the question to the House, I have a brief announcement that I forgot to make earlier.

This year marks an important anniversary in the story of Canada's Parliament Buildings. On July 1, 1927, the year of Canada's Diamond Jubilee, the carillon of the Peace Tower was inaugurated. Eighty years ago, the late Viscount Willingdon, former Governor General, presided over the ceremony, which, in the words of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King would make the carillon a part of our national life.

[Translation]

Fifty-three bells, weighing from 10 pounds to 22,000 pounds, were installed in the Peace Tower by the authority of Parliament, and the first notes played were those of our national anthem.

[English]

Today, thanks to the talents of our current Dominion Carillonneur, Gordon Slater, Canadians and foreign visitors alike can delight in the melodious and majestic sounds emanating from the carillon of Parliament's Peace Tower, a memorial to peace born of victory.

* * *

Aeronautics Act

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The question is on Motion No. 4. If Motion No. 4 is agreed to, the vote will also apply to Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 8.

* * *

(1750)

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 210)

YEAS

Members

Angus
Atamanenko
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bevington
Charlton
Christopherson
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Davies
Dewar
Godin
Julian
Layton
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Mathyssen
McDonough
Nash
Priddy
Savoie
Siksay
Stoffer
Wasylycia-Leis

Total: -- 24

NAYS

Members

Abbott
Albrecht
Alghabra
Allen
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
André
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Baird
Barbot
Batters
Bélanger
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Benoit
Bezan
Bigras
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boucher
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Bruinooge
Brunelle
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannis
Cardin
Carrie
Carrier
Casson
Chan
Chong
Clement
Coderre
Comuzzi
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Demers
Deschamps
Devolin
Dhaliwal
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Dykstra
Easter
Emerson
Epp
Faille
Fast
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Folco
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Galipeau
Gallant
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gourde
Gravel
Grewal
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harper
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Holland
Hubbard
Jaffer
Jean
Jennings
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kotto
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Laforest
Laframboise
Lake
Lauzon
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemieux
Lessard
Lévesque
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney