Debates of Nov. 26th, 2012

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about various success stories in programs but not about Kanesatake. This question is about Kanesatake itself and a specific program, NCBR. He did not answer the question at all.

I understand that last Tuesday maybe the minister did not have the answer prepared despite the fact the community and I had sent letters and tried to work with him. However, I would have expected that by now they would have the answer.

The letter announcing the cuts to the people of Kanesatake indicated that the cuts were because of the “increasing needs for income assistance”. Let me get this straight: the needs increase and the government cuts programs.

Can the member please explain the specific decision and the basis for the cancellation of NCBR funding in Kanesatake?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has and continues to take concrete steps to improve the lives of first nation children on reserve. This government has increased the resources and levels of funding for child and family services and education. We work with our stakeholders to make decisions and identify priorities for program service delivery on reserve. That member would be well served to try to understand just how that dynamic works. We will continue to support their priorities and to walk in lockstep in delivering programs and services in both child and family services and education.

To date, Aboriginal Affairs has reached tripartite agreements to implement things like the enhanced prevention focused approach for first nation children and family services, as well as in education. We made additional commitments in the last budget to ensure that, moving forward, first nation communities have the kind of administrative capacity and support to be able to enhance the programs and services they deliver and prioritize and choose in their communities.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to elaborate on a question I raised in September. At that time, the deadline for residential school survivors to apply for compensation for the abuse they suffered was at hand. The date marked an important point in the process but a number of questions remained unanswered.

At the same time, the government cut core funding to first nation groups that could assist with determining community needs and how best to address them. It was emblematic of the Conservative government's withering commitment to first nations and a clear sign that the ground was shifting under those communities. One only has to look at the content of government and Senate bills aimed at first nations to get a sense of where the Conservatives intend to focus when it comes to this critical relationship.

Bills that abandon responsibilities, devolve power and saddle first nations with INAC mistakes have been accompanied by cuts to core budgets of important groups such as the tribal councils. The duty to consult has been skewed to the point where consultation is minimal and often ignored.

Let me read into the record a letter sent to the minister from Whitefish River First Nation. It says:

The September 4th, 2012 announcement of your department focused changes to Aboriginal Representative Organization and Tribal Council funding structures is troubling as it places great financial challenges on an already stressed funding mechanism.

In your announcement, you indicate that these changes will “...create the conditions for healthier more self-sufficient Aboriginal Communities” and that it will sustain progress. Whitefish River First Nation believes that these cuts will not sustain progress for First Nations. The UCCMM Tribal Council will have financial cuts applied that are in excess of the proposed 10% indicated by your office. These cuts really will bring into question whether the UCCMM can deliver the core services identified in the Tribal Council funding mechanisms designed decades ago.

Equally troubling is that your Ministry made no prior efforts to assess the funding structure changes as a net liability to First Nations that rely on the Tribal Councils for advisory services.

The Auditor General made many recommendations over many years on cutting excessive over-reporting requirements by INAC of First Nations and that the problems have not been about reporting but lack of sustainable resources to meet the needs of First Nations in Canada. These proposed cuts will do nothing to improve the relationship between the Crown...and First Nations across our lands. Unfortunately, the results of further cuts by your department will only impact the most vulnerable of Canadian Society the First Nation people.

We strongly urge you and your Department to seriously reconsider these funding cuts as they have been proposed by the Crown.

They are very disappointed about this.

In many ways, the hope that came out of the historic residential schools apology has faded. For people on the outside looking in, as well as for those still waiting for their claim to be settled, this process is not over. Yet, for the government it would seem it is. At the time of the deadline, many survivors for a multitude of reasons had not yet made claims. In the three months leading up to the cut-off, there was a huge increase in the number of claimants.

The nature of the harassment can be embarrassing. There is no end to the barriers for victims. Even with significant societal support, some victims will never be able to come forward. What is important is that we remain supportive and open to victims. A cut-off to a healing process does not respect the reality of these individual struggles. For a government whose members so often say they concern themselves with victims' rights, here is an opportunity to get the job done.

When will the government commit to victims' rights and re-establish core funding to organizations such as tribal councils, which can really make a difference for residential school survivors at the community level?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's kitchen-sink question and hearing her stand in this place and start talking about victims. I appreciate also this important question given today, the day that we celebrated the hope and inspiration of our Indian residential school stained glass window here. As said by the elders, it is about looking forward and moving forward, and we appreciate that opportunity to celebrate today on an otherwise dark chapter in Canada's history.

The Conservative government takes the health and self-sufficiency of aboriginal communities in this country very seriously. We have consistently shown our commitment to aboriginal people through significant investments to enable them to participate in and benefit from Canada’s prosperity.

On September 4, 2012, the Conservative government announced a new funding model for aboriginal representative organizations, tribal councils and band advisory services. To sustain the progress we have made towards healthier and more self-sufficient aboriginal communities across the country, we are taking steps to ensure that government funding will be more clearly focused on shared priorities.

We are aiming to direct our funding where it matters most: education, economic development, community infrastructure, and other initiatives that promote greater self-sufficiency in aboriginal communities. The new funding model seeks to make funding more equitable among aboriginal organizations across Canada.

While this is a time of transition and change for aboriginal representative organizations, tribal councils and band advisory services, this change takes focuses on the shared priorities identified together with first nation leaders. We are taking concrete action on education, housing, child and family services, safe drinking water and other important and pressing issues in first nation communities.

At the historic Crown-First Nations Gathering, the Government of Canada committed to creating conditions to accelerate economic development opportunities and maximize benefits for all Canadians. These changes are one more way we are making this happen.

This is the first change made to tribal council funding since its launch nearly 30 years ago. For tribal councils, funding will be based on several considerations, including the size of the populations they serve, the number of first nations in their membership, and the range of major programs they deliver. The new approach includes a simplified application and reporting process which will reduce the reporting burden on organizations.

These changes have been put in place to ensure the delivery of essential services and programs where it matters most.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the fact that he mentioned the stained glass window commemorating the legacy of Indian residential schools today, which is by an artist from Espanola, Christi Belcourt, who is from my riding.

When we look at the positive steps we thought the government was taking—the apology, the signing of the UNDRIP, the comments at the Crown-first nations gathering and then today the stained glass—first nations, Métis and Inuit people are correct to continue to question the sincerity of the government. It is clear that the Conservatives are refusing to take rebuilding a constructive relationship with first nations seriously. The minister made ill-considered cuts to first nations organizations across the country and now residential school survivors have to wait while the government processes a backlog.

Let us look at what is in the Gazette today about the 100 academics and the comment from National Chief Shawn Atleo, who talks about the 60% cut to core funding to Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. He comments:

There are only two conclusions to draw... Either [the Prime Minister] understands and doesn't care and so is allowing and supporting the behaviour to occur, or maybe he doesn't understand....

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has consistently shown its commitment to aboriginal people through significant investments to enable them to participate in, contribute to and benefit from Canada's prosperity.

With these new funding models, our government will continue to improve the quality of life of aboriginal people. These changes have been put in place to move forward on our commitment to ensure that funding is directed at the delivery of essential programs and services for aboriginal people, to ensure that funding supports the programs and services that matter most to aboriginal communities in Canada. Our realigned funding will continue to improve the lives of aboriginal people by improving their living conditions.

We will continue to deliver tangible and lasting results.

National Defence

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence several questions during the adjournment debate. I have an opportunity to come back to the same issue today because I have not yet received an answer to the question I posed some time ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence again talked about the government's seven-point plan. This plan has made no difference whatsoever. In fact, the government is not even following its own plan. It is a smokescreen or the government is treating people like idiots. As you wish. The talking points from the Prime Minister's Office are read over and over because there is not much else they can say to save face.

Last week, the parliamentary secretary suggested that I consult the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat's website, which I did. It says:

--the Secretariat is committed to coordinating timely, open and transparent communications through: regular reporting to Parliament; ongoing briefings with stakeholders; a dedicated website to post and share information; regular updates on the status of implementing the action plan.

With regard to the regular reporting to Parliament, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced on June 13 that the secretariat was operational. Yet, over six months later, we still have not received any reports from the secretariat.

With regard to the ongoing briefings with stakeholders, even the Chief of the Air Staff did not seem to be aware of the work the secretariat is doing regarding the fighter jets. With regard to the regular updates on the status of implementing the action plan, there have been no updates aside from the endless talking points during question period. It is important to note that talking points and updates are not the same thing; there is a big difference. Updates give new information on how the work is progressing. Talking points allow the government to buy time in order to figure out how it is going to get out of this mess.

What is more, the website states that the secretariat is exercising the required due diligence, oversight and transparency. However, it also states that a DM-level governance committee is overseeing the secretariat's work. These are the same DMs who, a few months ago, had not demonstrated any of the required due diligence, oversight or transparency.

Lastly, it says this:

Parliament and the Canadian public need to have confidence in the open and transparent acquisition process that will be used to replace the CF-18 fleet.

Why, exactly, do Canadians and Parliament need to have confidence?

As we have just seen, none of the secretariat's promises were kept even though it has been up and running for six months and the Auditor General's report was released nine months ago. The government talks about taking immediate measures, but nothing has changed in the past six months.

We know that this secretariat is made up of the same deputy ministers and that they are using the same numbers and the same data provided by National Defence that the Auditor General deemed inadequate. So why should Canadians have confidence in this secretariat?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I welcome the fact that she asked for an adjournment debate on this question.

As the member is aware, on April 3, 2012, the Auditor General tabled his spring report. In chapter 2, entitled, “Replacing Canada's Fighter Jets”, he recommended that the government refine its estimates for the full life cycle costs of the F-35 and make those estimates public.

I am glad to have this opportunity to explain that, by introducing the government's seven point plan, the government will fulfill and exceed the Auditor General's recommendation. To be clear, this plan effectively pushed restart on the replacement of the CF-18s. No decision on replacement fighter aircraft will be made until that seven point plan is complete.

As part of the seven point plan, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat was established and is housed under Public Works and Government Services Canada. The secretariat has the lead coordinating role as the government moves to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet and will ensure that due diligence, oversight and transparency are applied.

A deputy minister governance committee, which includes two independent members, Mr. Denis Desautels and Dr. Kenneth Norrie, has been established and is meeting regularly. The secretariat is making great progress in implementing the seven point plan. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to consult the secretariat's website to learn more about all of the work that is being done.

Again, the evaluation of options to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability well into the 21st century is under way and will involve a full evaluation of choices. This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could meet the needs of our men and women in uniform.

The secretariat will commission an independent review of the acquisition process. A request for proposal was issued on October 26, 2012, to select a company to conduct this review. The third party will provide us with lessons learned so that we can look to improve the way we conduct similar acquisitions in the future.

I want to be clear on the objectives of the independent acquisition process review. We are not questioning the work of the Auditor General. I will repeat that the government has accepted his findings and recommendations. Rather, this review will allow us to address the Auditor General's concerns with the acquisition process.

The government's seven point plant is a comprehensive response to the Auditor General's recommendation and conclusions in chapter 2 of his spring 2012 report. Progress continues to be made on its implementation. Our objective is to give Canadians and parliamentarians confidence in the open and transparent acquisition process that will be used to replace the CF-18 fleet.

I would like to reiterate that this government has effectively pushed restart on the replacement of the CF-18s. The funding envelope allocated for the acquisition of the F-35 has been frozen and we are looking at all options. All elements of the seven point plan will be completed before this government makes a decision.

We remain committed to ensuring the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces have the right equipment they need to do their job while securing best value for Canadian taxpayers.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government is bragging about making progress and moving forward on this issue, but it is still leaving parliamentarians and Canadians in the dark.

In March 2012, before the Auditor General's report came out, the Associate Minister of National Defence said, “We remain committed to the joint strike fighter program along with our partners. We will continue to act responsibly on all of these matters.”

A month later, we learned that that was far from being the case. Today, the government is telling us that the secretariat will ensure that due diligence is applied, but we have yet to see any proof of that.

Will the Auditor General have to produce another report before the government admits that it has not done anything? Why should we believe that the government is doing work and making progress, when it has nothing tangible to show for it?

A website is far from being enough, and I think I have proven that.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the additional costs that a carbon tax would have on any supply chain management issue, whether we are talking about fighter jets or the northern nutrition program, anything we want to talk about, I want to take this opportunity to talk about this seven point plan so that the member completely understands that it was introduced by the government defining how due diligence is to be applied as we move forward with replacing Canada's fighter jet.

On June 13, 2012, the Government of Canada announced that the secretariat was operational within Public Works. The secretariat has the lead coordinating role as the government moves to replace Canada's CF-18 fleet and is ensuring that due diligence, oversight and transparency are being applied.

The government has effectively pushed restart on the replacement of the CF-18s. I wish the NDP would press restart on its whole notion of a carbon tax. That said, no decision will be made until the seven point plan is complete.

The evaluation of options is under way and will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could meet the needs of our men and women in uniform.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:36 p.m.)