House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

You are too kind, Mr. Speaker.

The paradox lies in the fact that the federal government wants to enforce a law while not having any expertise in how to deliver the services in the field.

When I was health critic, I read a report every year that the member for Québec will now make a point of reading to obtain up-to-date information. In this report, Quebec or other provinces are criticized for not providing some service that ought to be provided, as if the federal government should have a say in the delivery method for health services.

We will not be duped by this series of events, this escalation that the government is preparing. We will not accept that the federal, Conservative government engage in nation building, as did the Liberals, with the health file. We will be the jealous, scrappy and uncompromising guardians of the prerogatives of the Government of Quebec. Fortunately, in this House, the Bloc Québécois is there to make the voice of Quebec heard. We will continue to do so under any circumstance.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, part of being a nation is ensuring that all its citizens have security, good order, good government, peace and good public health. This is a machinery bill that will allow the Government of Canada to do that. In fact, there is no change in power or jurisdictional issues. This is all within the powers that already exist with the federal government.

The member talked about jurisdictional issues. There is an explicit federal rule in controlling infectious diseases at our borders, something with which the Chief Public Health Officer would deal. There is no expansion in any way, shape or form of the federal role in provincial jurisdictions.

The member talks about an independent Quebec. However, there are synergies in working with all Canadians. Another example of that is the virology lab in Winnipeg. The virology lab provides many services for people across Canada, including Quebeckers. If we carry the member's logic to its natural conclusion, he would expect each province to have its own lab, which is hugely expensive, and there are not enough human resources to staff such labs.

Would the member admit that synergies are to be gained by working together and that all Canadians, including Canadians who live in Quebec, benefit from having a coordinated and deliberate strategy?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Like him, I was present at the committee when Dr. Butler-Jones presented the agency's role. I am sure my colleague will agree that this is not an administrative reorganization. If it is indeed an administrative reorganization with a $650 million budget, then we have a problem with the appropriate use of public funds.

This agency was the product of a report the federal government received following the unfortunate SARS crisis. From a humanitarian perspective, we must work together under all circumstances, particularly in cases of natural or public health disasters. I think Quebeckers support that.

What we are saying is that we do not need this agency. The European Union, for example, wants to share information, but the fact that Great Britain has a virology lab or a lab to study certain diseases does not mean that Belgium or other European Union countries cannot have one too.

My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, is arguing from a false premise. If the premise is false, the conclusion will be too. We want to be involved in this issue. We are saying that, except for its responsibility for quarantines, the federal government has no business developing service delivery plans. That is what the new agency plans to do, it will get $650 million to do it, and its budget will grow over the next few years.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree more with the parliamentary secretary. We are really talking about the public health of Canadians.

Does the member feel, notwithstanding there will be an agency established, that this agency should not have such a free reign to try to do all things at the same time, but rather should establish a critical list of priorities and assure Canadians that the most important priorities will be dealt with by the agency in its early days?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian agency is taking over an administrative branch that existed at Health Canada. Moreover, it is taking over programs that are managed by Health Canada, a number of which are related to diseases that are already known.

The Bloc is not questioning the relevancy of working together. We believe that the centre of decision making, coordination and of policy should not fall to Health Canada, and certainly not on the federal government.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak to such an important bill with such an import role.

As my colleague from Winnipeg stated, there are many aspects to health that we need to confront directly and if we do not do it from a national perspective, then the health of all Canadians will suffer.

I want to touch on a number of issues in Bill C-5 and the role of the Chief Public Health Officer. If we take a look at what Canadians suffer from in terms of health concerns, we need to a lot more in the area of prevention.

My colleague already referenced the importance of what we put into our environment. We must ensure that what we put into our environment does not make us ill and later on requires us to use health services that are costly and scarce. It makes no sense if in the end those illnesses could be prevented.

Pesticides is an area that my colleague talked about and one which I have been active on in my own community. When we look at the pesticides that are put into our environment without any concern for the health of our children and those who are most vulnerable, it seems to me that we have a lot of work to do. As the member mentioned, there presently is a model in the province of Quebec where the cosmetic use of pesticides will no longer be allowed. I think that is something all provinces should be looking at. I am hopeful that when the bill is passed that the Public Health Agency will look at the Quebec model.

I would also like to look at the additives that we put into our food source. Today I spoke in the House about the importance of recognizing those persons who work in the public service and who have blown the whistle, not because they were trying to rock the boat but because they were looking out for the public good.

We recently had the mad cow or BSE crisis. Canadians should know that there were men and women working in the veterinary branch of Health Canada who cited the concerns around BSE two years before the crisis hit. We know the costs that were borne by those in the agricultural community. Many people lost their livelihood and many went through incredible turmoil in their own lives.

We also have a concern around the health of Canadians in general. Why? It is because our food source was contaminated. Our own officials within Health Canada, who blew the whistle on BSE, said that rendered beef cannot be fed to cattle. This is exactly what was happening.

We knew this information and had this information but there was no coordinated effort to deal with it. In fact, the recommendations that came forward were the recommendations that the premier of Alberta cited. What did the premier say? He said that we should be testing more of our cows, that we should not be feeding rendered feed to cattle and that there should be more money put into this jurisdiction.

In fact, the same thing happens presently and had been happening in Japan and Europe. Why? It is because those countries had gone through this crisis.

I think the role of having someone looking over the national concerns of public health is absolutely critical for the reasons I have mentioned when we look at the mad cow crisis. This could have been avoided. We could have responded to that crisis more quickly and more sensibly. The health and welfare of Canadians would have been put first and foremost.

Other areas in terms of prevention where I think we have failed and need to do more is on how we prevent persons who are living at the lowest margins from becoming ill. We know the key indicators of health when we take a look at where people live, what kind of housing they have, what access they have to health care, what kind of nutrition they have and what kind of food sources are available to them. We know that access to recreation facilities is important. People must be allowed to participate fully and not, with all due respect, the little bit that was given in the budget. We need to go much further than that so all our citizens can participate in a healthy, vibrant, active life.

Those are the things we need to be put on the table. This kind of purview by the Public Health Officer would allow for health promotion to take place so that we could truly get into preventing some of the ailments Canadians suffer from.

My background is that of a school teacher and I have seen, exponentially, the rise in asthma. At the school where I taught, only one or two students had asthma. If I were to go into any classroom in Canada today and asked how many kids had asthma, I would find that at least three or four students would put up their hands. Why is that? It has to do with the quality of our air, along with some other concerns.

What have we done to prevent the poor quality of our air and deal with pollution? We obviously have not done enough. This needs to be looked at through a national lens. I hope the Public Health Agency can look at this kind of thing and, in doing so, will offer some recommendations that will have some teeth. We do not want to see a report that just gathers dust like the Romanow report sadly did. We want to see a report that has efficacy, that will be heard, not just something that is tabled.

When the bill goes through committee it will be interesting to look at other jurisdictions to see if there are ways in which this will not just be a reporting mechanism to the Minister of Health, but that the recommendations have some teeth so that they will have traction and efficacy and that the health of Canadians will benefit in the end.

We just have to turn to what has happened in the past with reports from auditor generals or other royal commissions when really good work was done but, sadly, not enacted. I hope the scope and the efficacy of the public health office will be something that is not just seen as symbolic but something that will be action oriented.

I want to touch on an area that is near and dear to me, and that is the area of mental health. This is Mental Health Awareness Week. I believe most Canadians are aware of the fact that it is an issue that has been stigmatized for far too long. I would like to see provisions put into the Canada Health Act so that we can take this issue seriously. Hopefully it will become one of the primary focuses of the Public Health Agency. This area has been stigmatized for far too long. It requires resources so that Canadians can have an active, healthy participation in their respective communities.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba

Conservative

Steven Fletcher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, early in his comments the member touched on what the Bloc member had to say. I would just like to get the member's view on the importance of working as a nation in the area of public health, while ensuring that we do not intrude into any areas that the federal government has no power, to ensure that people throughout Canada, including Quebeckers, have the access to public health that they deserve. The member may want to talk about the virology lab which is an excellent example of where the nation's resources were pooled together to create a better good for everyone within the nation.

I wonder if the member could discuss the importance of working together as a people in the area of public health.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely critical that we share resources, in that we put our resources together to affect the health of all Canadians.

I must say that if I had had more time I would have spoken about disabilities and putting in a disabilities act, which is also important, but I will save that for another time.

When we look at what Quebec has done, we not only need to look at the fact that we should have national scope but we need to look at where things have been done right. I know my constitutions are envious of the community health centres in Quebec and to the extent it has been done in Quebec and in Ottawa Centre. We need to look at best practices and use those best practices in all provinces. I think the community health centre approach is the way to go. Quebec has done it, bar none. As I mentioned in my speech, we also need to look at best practices like the banning of cosmetic use of pesticides.

I quite agree with the member that we are better off when we put all of our resources together to positively affect all of our health services. When we see health issues that do not respect borders, we need to do that and the more we can the better.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a specific issue mentioned by the member in terms of the public health responsibility around access to clean air and clean water.

A first nations community on the shores of the St. Clair River in southern Ontario is surrounded by industry. The community has significant health problems as a result of water and air contamination.

I wonder if the member could speak specifically to how important it is to have the Public Health Agency oversee these kinds of impacts on our communities.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it really is critical that we look at the air we breath, the water we drink and the environment that surrounds us.

I would hope that this office and the officer would be able to, as I mentioned before, have some efficacy in terms of being able to go into a community and act on people's concerns about not having potable or drinkable water for decades. The fact is that they need something to be done right away. It would be similar to a local medical officer being able to file a report that commissions the local municipality to act directly.

It would be interesting to see if we can find a way to have that done at the national level, whether it is a national purview, but I am not talking about going over jurisdictions. However we need to ensure that access to drinking water is paramount.

To be honest, I do not think most Canadians are aware or maybe they are becoming aware of the water crisis in this country. Some of it came out of Walkerton and Kasechewan most recently, but I think Canadians are aghast and quite surprised at the fact that in Canada, where we have access to fresh water, we still have people who are not able to drink and access clean water.

I think it is an excellent point and I hope it is incorporated.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Public Health Agency of Canada ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

moved that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to be in the House today to open debate on Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

This act is all about Canadian safety in the air. It is going to add additional compliance tools and increase the penalties for people who do not follow the rules.

Just 50 years ago, air travel was reserved for a few people in Canada. It is now, however, the standard for most travellers throughout our country for both long and short distances.

Canada's air industry continues to make enormous contributions to the growth and prosperity we enjoy every day. Because of our country's vastness, the industry is an absolutely essential contribution and an instrument that connects Canadians to each other and to the rest of the world. This is our future. In fact, this works toward unifying our great country.

Our country is vast and it is spread out. The air industry provides links to communities throughout the north, east and west, links to remote communities that have no other transportation methods.

For example, in my own riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca in northern Alberta, 150,000 people went through our airport two years ago, while this year we expect more than 450,000 people to do so, a tremendous increase in people going to work in northern Alberta. Indeed, some 20,000 to 30,000 people who work in northern Alberta have no other way but air travel to get places quickly or to go home to loved ones. These people do travel and they come from all over Canada: Winnipeg, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia. We need to have better transportation, better security and better safety for these people.

Most people would not know this, but on the whole, Canadians travel some 25% more than people in other countries. Over the years, Transport Canada and the Canadian airline industry have been recognized worldwide for the tremendous safety record we have. This government, under this Prime Minister, will continue to make Canada's safety number one. It will continue to keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-6 will provide for a modern and flexible ability to do that, a legislative framework to further enhance aviation safety and, through safety management systems, to have a system in place that will actually allow a continuous method of keeping Canadians safe. Australia and the United Kingdom have had great results from this system. Quality assurance, performance measurements and penalty increases, all of these things are in the act to do one thing: keep Canadians safe.

The proposed changes aim to increase aviation safety while responding to the changes in the operating environment. After this act is in place, with consent from my friends across the floor, we are going to have better air safety standards than the United States. One mistake on a plane while it is in the air is sometimes the last mistake. We need to make sure if those mistakes do happen, they do not happen again.

Things change. Instrumentation has changed dramatically in the airline industry. Plane mechanics have changed dramatically, even in the last 10 years. Traffic control rules and security issues such as 9/11 were not even thought about 10 or 20 years ago, but today they are a reality and we need to make changes for those realities.

We must constantly update our rules to ensure Canadians' safety. We have consulted with industry on this and the members of the industry agree. They want this legislation. Who would know better than the industry as far as safety and consistency and travel for Canadians are concerned?

As I have said, this government has the safety of the Canadian public as priority number one. We will ensure, through our legislative agenda, that we keep Canadians safe.

These further amendments that are proposed today relate mainly to aviation safety and the aviation safety program that we are proposing in these amendments. The scope is broad enough, though, to apply to all matters regulated under the Aeronautics Act. These are simply safety amendments.

I must emphasize, however, that the amendments in this bill only relate to enabling authorities. That means, in essence, that for regulatory requirements more specifics will be necessary to implement, but this will only be done through discussions with stakeholders through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council.

We are going to have stakeholders' input because we believe they want to keep themselves as safe as we want to make sure they are. These stakeholders include large major organizations and associations within Canada.

For instance, they include: the Air Transport Association of Canada; the Canadian Airports Council; Nav Canada; the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the people who fly the planes; the Air Line Pilots Association; and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the airline division of CUPE. All of these stakeholders are going to have input into these regulations and are going to provide the very basis and framework that we need to keep Canadians safe.

We listen. This government listens and cooperates. We are going to get those things done.

We even have international cooperation. For instance, academics and leading safety experts from around the world and international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization all advocate that greater attention be paid to managing safety through the organizational level. That is what this approach is doing. As I mentioned, Australia and New Zealand have had great results from this kind of legislation and we want great results for Canada.

An example of our government's cooperation with its stakeholders is that in low risk parts of the aviation industry, for instance, such as business aircraft operations, we intend to actually authorize industry to establish their own operational standards. They are going to be self-governed, but we are going to make sure that we audit those standards and audit the management systems to ensure that in operational standards a minimum is kept and met.

The activities of the industry body, the standards its publishes and its audit activities would all be subject to regulation authority and regulation oversight by Transport Canada. We are going to keep Canadians safe.

A key amendment would be to establish voluntary non-punitive reporting programs. Some people ask, “How can you have voluntary non-punitive reporting programs?” In this case, we have to, and I will go into this in more detail.

This program would actually allow individuals and operators to file a report that would be confidential. It would be done on a voluntary basis in relation to certain regulatory violations. The aviation community wants to work with us to identify these safety risks and they want options for how to address them.

We want results for Canadians. We do not just want rules. We want what is best for Canadians, not just more bureaucracy.

We would use this data provided by operators to make safety improvements. They would provide the information on a non-disclosure basis and we would take that information, disseminate it and implement programs and policies that are going to be good for Canadians. The data, without identifying any specific information from stakeholders, would be used to share with others internationally and nationally to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Do members see a theme in this? As government, we are going to ensure the safety of Canadians.

A new safety data reporting system would be established, including integrated management systems: systems in place that would protect Canadians and set standards. Individuals, operators and industry bodies have expressed very strong support for this implementation and for such systems.

With sufficient information data, Transport Canada will be better off. It will be able to better manage and regulate safety and security issues. It will be better able to apply risk management techniques to ensure minimum risk. It will be better able to create an environment for continuous improvement. We want to continue to learn. This is an industry that continues to evolve. Things continue to happen. That means we have to make changes as time goes on and, most important, we need to make those changes on an informed and justifiable basis for Canadians.

Let me now turn to the penalty provisions of the act.

Quite frankly, current penalties are insufficient. The last time any amendments were made in relation to the penalties themselves was in 1984. Now in 1984 dollars, in some cases that is not even sufficient given what has happened today. The maximum penalties before this were $5,000 for individuals and actually only $25,000 for corporations. Quite frankly, sometimes corporations would consider the penalties to be a cost of doing business, which of course in turn would infringe upon Canadians' right to privacy in some cases, for noise and other things like that, and also it would not keep Canadians to a minimum standard of safety. As a government, we are going to do that.

Whether the penalty results from an administrative or a summary conviction penalty, Bill C-6 would raise both maximums and would allow a more severe penalty so industry would know that if it violated the act, it would pay price. It would be deterred from doing anything illegal or against the act.

For administrative proceedings, for instance, we will increase the maximum from $5,000 to $50,000 for individuals, 10 times the amount that was in the act under the previous government. For corporations, we will change that to $250,000, 10 times more than what was provided under the previous government.

They could also be applied for contraventions with serious actual or potential impacts for flight safety, and that is the most important issue here. The act looks at fatigue management for controllers and mechanics. We cannot have these people not operating as number one on the basis of safety.

In summary conviction offences and proceedings, for instance, the proposed amendments will take it up to $100,000 for individuals and $1 million for corporations. They are not going to be taking the legislation for granted anymore and they are not going to take it as a cost of doing business. They will stop doing it. This behaviour will change.

The new maximum penalty levels could be assessed for serious, wilful contraventions of the act. We are not trying to penalize those people who have the intention of doing right and accidentally do something that could be a violation of the act. We are going to catch those people, especially for the maximum amount of penalty, who are doing this wilfully and who must be stopped.

The adoption of the bill will update the act to make it more consistent. Let us bring it into this century. Let us recognize that things change in the airline industry and that one mistake in the air could cost a the lives of many people. We must bring it into consistency with other transportation acts.

A new section, part II, would provide the Canadian Forces the airworthiness investigative authority with the legal authority to investigate accidents where both the civilian and military personnel are involved, something they do not have currently. These new powers would be comparable to those of the Transportation Safety Board when it investigates civilian aircraft accidents. This will give military personnel the teeth to find out what happened in those accidents that involve both sectors.

I would now like to focus on a particular aspect of Bill C-6 by providing background information on something so important that people hear about on the news and read about in the newspaper, and that is flight data recorders.

The regulations made under the bill require large aircraft, which transport passengers or large amounts of cargo, to have flight data recorders onboard. Accident investigators regularly use these to determine why an accident took place. In fact, it tells us more than the last few minutes of what happens in a cockpit. It tells us a lot about how to help enhance the safety in the future to prevent accidents from ever taking place again. They monitor a very wide variety of aircraft systems during a flight, from engine start up to landing and even taxiing after they land to drop off cargo or people.

The black box analyzes the data. The fact that we have multiple data from flights, it does not have to be an accident. We can see what went wrong and fix the problems so we keep Canadians safe. That is what the government will do. We want to protect Canadians before the accident happens, not just afterwards. The data can be used to enhance aircraft maintenance schedules so we have preventative maintenance onboard of a more serious nature, and monitor even flight crew performance.

The flight data monitoring programs have been implemented in many countries throughout the world and are widely recognized as very cost effective methods and tools for improving flight safety. In Europe and the United States these are pretty much the standard on flight operational quality assurance. Most carriers have had the program for years.

We are currently working with Canadian air carriers that are interested in establishing voluntary flight data monitoring to do so. We have initiated agreements with four carriers to do so. We will provide funding and support for the exchange of information, so industry can exchange information, which will give us a bigger base to draw from to ensure that accidents do not happen.

Two important elements of this program relate to the confidentiality of the data. We have to ensure the data is confidential, otherwise people will not share it with us. For this program to work, it is most important we keep confidential reports and once they do report, it is on the basis they will not be penalized for the information they provided. Aircraft operators have indicated they are not prepared to provide this information unless those two criteria are met. We listened to stakeholders and we will implement what is best for Canadians. This is best to provide impunity and confidentiality.

We will share those results, analyze the data and protect identity and any punishment that would take place. There are currently evidentiary issues under the Aeronautics Act and we will ensure that we honour those commitments.

The key for our government is not to blame people, not to penalize people, but to keep Canadians safe. However we can do that, we are going to do that. We are going to prevent deaths and accidents.

The proposed amendment will give a legal foundation to the agreements entered into by aircraft operators with Transport Canada, confirming that the collection of the data, the analysis and the use of it and the disclosure of the information derived from the flight data recorders will not be used against their wishes, but will be used in the best interests of Canadians.

The amendments will also provide the necessary confidentiality and enforcement protections to encourage aircraft operators to voluntarily implement flight data monitoring programs. Why would they report, why would they even put the equipment there, if they are going to be penalized? That is why we have to do it this way.

This is only one of the many proposed amendments found in Bill C-6. Other examples include the designation of industry bodies, the reporting programs and, as mentioned earlier, the broader authorities concerning integrated management systems, which is so effective in other countries. Let us face it, we have to learn from other people doing the same things we are doing to ensure it does not happen.

Stakeholders are absolutely enthusiastic. That is what makes me so happy to rise here today. All stakeholders have bought into this amendment to the Aeronautics Act. I look forward to the opportunity to answer my friends' questions from across the floor.

This Prime Minister and this government listens. We will protect Canadians.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to rise today in the House to introduce this act. I look forward to support from my colleagues from all sides of the House on it.

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the theme at the start was to continue to keep Canadians safe. All governments strive to do that.

He mentioned things change from time to time and we will end up with better standards. We truly hope that is the case. Change is necessary. My riding paid an extremely heavy price for changes in technology. More than a decade ago, global positioning systems were in place and a horrific accident happened because they were so accurate and so good. Change needs to happen.

The hon. member referred many times to stakeholders. How will the government get that valuable input? Will it put resources behind talks with the stakeholders or will it bring them in? How will it work so the government gets the proper information? Will there be the necessary resources for that?

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, the good news is we have already consulted with stakeholders. We already have their input into this bill. They have bought into it fully because it is a good bill. It will help them and Canadians.

It is unfortunate what took place in his riding especially. We need to be more diligent. We need to ensure that we do not wait 22 years to amend an act and that we change things for the time. So many things have happened over the last four or five years in the security and safety of Canadians and all people abroad. We have to ensure that we continue to monitor these things, especially in air and border security. We have to make changes before they are necessary and when they are necessary.

I would encourage the members opposite to support the bill because it will keep Canadians safer. I look forward to that support.

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

I can accept that a bill is presented to justify a safety management system. However, my colleague must understand that the system demanded by the industry is a self-administered safety system. That is the reality.

I want my colleague to assure me that Transport Canada will not take advantage of this to be more lax in its inspections. According to our sources, within the next five years 40% of Transport Canada's inspectors will retire. We have the impression the government wants to shirk its responsibility and entrust the industry with self-regulation in matters of safety. I have some concerns about national safety.

This legislation will apply not only to big businesses, but to all those with aircraft transport permits in Canada, whether they are small, medium or big businesses.

I want my colleague to assure me that Transport Canada will uphold the budgets and continue to do monitoring. I can accept, based on what we are being told, adding a second level of safety, which would be self-regulation by the industry. Nonetheless, I want to be sure that the budgets for monitoring and inspection will not be cut. I would not want Canada to go through what the U.S. experienced on September 11, 2001.

Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend that no part of Canada is more important than the people of Quebec. In fact, as he knows, the Prime Minister and most of my Quebec colleagues are in Quebec City today. As well, we met several days ago in my office and I assured him at that time that any information he wanted, any facts he wanted in relation to this act would be provided to him. We will ensure that it is provided in such a manner that he can make an informed decision as to what he believes is in everyone's best interest.

After his comments the other day, I did some brief analysis on how many investigators had been appointed over the last few years. To my surprise I found out that we had more appointed, although I have requested specific numbers on that to ensure that his questions are addressed.

As well, remember the government is going to require a minimum level for self-regulation. It works in other bodies. It works in law societies, hospital societies and all across Canada. There has to be a minimum level and the government will have a minimum level. I will answer all and any questions that my friend has to put to me before, now and any he may have in the future.

We want what is in the best interests of Canadians and we will get that, with his help.