Debates of Feb. 4th, 2013

Aviation Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question of October 17, 2012, regarding the Montreal airport documents that were found, because this gives me the opportunity to talk about the safety of Canada's aviation system.

The safety and security of Canada's transportation network is extremely important to our government. We were very concerned about this situation, which was clearly communicated to the airport authority in Montreal during a call between the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the CEO, James Cherry.

Even though the documents in question did not contain any sensitive information on airport security, this government absolutely wants to maintain the safest aviation networks in the world.

Transport Canada, Canada's aviation industry and other safety partners have worked hard to promote a culture of safety awareness across the country, since such tragedies as Air India flight 182 and, obviously, the September 11 terrorist attack.

Security awareness is a culture in which security is everybody's business. If you see something suspicious, you report it to the appropriate authorities. The fact that this happened gives us an opportunity to learn and to improve our security system in the airport industry.

The member's question gives me an opportunity to discuss what is in place to manage security at airports, including how sensitive documents are handled.

In January 2012, the government modernized our aviation security regulations, including new requirements to better manage security at airports. For instance, the regulations prohibit airport operators from divulging sensitive information. The regulations also require them to have procedures in place for the receiving, retaining and disposing of security-related documents.

Transport Canada security inspectors examine those documents. This includes preparing procedures, knowing who is responsible for sensitive information, how the documents should be stored and the process for sharing and destroying information on security.

The modernization of the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 also requires airport operators to designate an individual to be responsible for managing security and to clearly define the roles and responsibilities related to security for people at the airport.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to talk about security.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that the minster took the time to speak with the president of ADM. However, when I spoke with ADM, I was told that there was no security protocol for all airport blueprints and that there was a security protocol for some security contracts but that others were granted without a competitive bidding process.

When I heard that, I made a written access to information request in accordance with parliamentary procedure. I asked what relationship existed between ADM and Construction Gastier. I wanted to know if they rented them any space and if so, how much. I wanted to know whether there were contracts between Construction Gastier and ADM and whether a competitive bidding process had been held for certain contracts.

I therefore submitted a series of written questions. Unfortunately, the minister responded to me by saying that Transport Canada does not interfere in the management of ADM's day-to-day business, that ADM had full responsibility for managing this, that the company was completely independent and could do what it wanted, and that parliamentarians have no oversight.

That is dangerous, especially when we see what is happening right now at the Charbonneau commission.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to hear that Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world. This government understands the importance of ensuring that everyone working in the system—from security personnel to those working the concessions—understands the part they play in the airport's security.

In that vein, in 2012 Transport Canada introduced regulatory requirements for airport security programs. Airport operators—and this includes Montreal's airport—must now prepare and maintain detailed, integrated and coordinated aviation security programs. Airport operators must, at all times, protect confidential security information and demonstrate that they have a process in place to protect this information from all unauthorized access or publication.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again and speak to the important issue at the heart of my question in October, the gap in funding for welfare services for on-reserve children in Canada and the incredible length the government has gone to discredit the work of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and its spokesperson, Cindy Blackstock.

In October, it had just been announced that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would decide whether the government was retaliating against Ms. Blackstock as it investigates the society's complaint of unequal funding for welfare services in Canada's first nation communities. It is well known that millions of dollars in government resources were wasted on surveillance of Ms. Blackstock to discredit her. That is in keeping with the government's propensity to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the issue. However, the issue is bigger than any individual and is proving to be the government's biggest test.

The scourge of poverty in Canada's aboriginal community leads to any number of negative outcomes. Much of the discontent we are seeing in Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis communities has roots in the inequity and the challenges that arise from it. In fact, in 2008, the Auditor General confirmed that substantial shortfalls in federal child welfare funding on reserves are jeopardizing children's safety.

The money the government wasted spying on Ms. Blackstock would have been better used addressing any number of pressing issues that would actually make a difference.

When coupled with frozen and inadequate budgets for education, the penny-pinching on welfare services entrenches a cycle of dependence that must be addressed if we are going to help create the conditions that will allow this generation to lift itself out of poverty.

It is well known that education in Canada's aboriginal communities is chronically under-funded and contributes significantly to the low number of high school graduates. For every ten children on reserve, only four will graduate high school. That limits employment opportunities, which in turn limits incomes and contributes to the cycle of poverty. With poverty comes health challenges and these same communities face inordinate rates of diabetes, suicide and the fastest growing rate of HIV infection in Canada.

What is discouraging is how the government has shown an incredible lack of concern on these issues. Last week, the House debated a New Democrat motion to recognize the broad based demand for action and the need for improvement of the economic outcomes of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. New Democrats believe these challenges should be a central focus for budget 2013.

The government has to commit to action on treaty implementation and engage in full and meaningful consultation on legislation that affects the rights of aboriginal Canadians. This is not something we pulled out of thin air. Canada is required by domestic and international law to engage in these consultations and it is the only path forward that has any hope of truly changing outcomes for many of these communities.

In terms of unilateral action, there are avenues open to the government. It is entirely within the government's abilities to increase the budget for on-reserve welfare services. It could also lift the funding cap on education that all but ensures there will be no progress on the low number of aboriginal high school graduates.

Let me remind the government that the House unanimously voted a year ago this month in support of a motion to provide equitable funding for all first nation schools, based on Shannen's Dream. These motions are not meant to be passed and then forgotten; they are marching orders for the government. It is a shame the government ignores these motions. One year later the country has become electrified with the grassroots campaign that is based on both the inaction of the government on pressing issues, like education, funding and unequal welfare services, and the incredible liberties it has taken with legislation that directly affects first nations, Inuit and Métis without proper consultation.

Will the government take action on the cycle of poverty that grips far too many of Canada's aboriginal communities and increase the budgets for welfare services in those communities?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this government knows that our children are our future. That is why our government is taking concrete steps to ensure that first nation children have the same opportunities as all Canadians.

All children are protected by provincial and territorial child welfare legislation. Provincial and territorial governments can delegate authority for child and family services to first nation service providers on reserve and are responsible for ensuring that they comply with provincial and territorial legislation and standards.

Over the last 20 years, provincial welfare authorities have delegated program delivery on reserve to a growing number of first nation child and family service agencies. Currently, there are 105 first nations with this authority. In areas where first nation child and family service agencies do not exist, the government funds services by provincial and territorial organizations or departments. Our government provides funding to support the implementation of these programs on reserve.

Since 2006, we have increased funding for child and family services by 25%. However, our government knows that money is not the solution. While progress has been made, it will take the continued and coordinated efforts of governments at all levels as well as first nations to make long-term progress. That is why we have launched prevention models working with provincial and first nation partners on a province-by-province basis. This new approach enhances the ability of child and family service providers to offer culturally appropriate services, such as kinship care, and to ensure that best practices and prevention are brought to reserves.

The new approach was welcomed immediately by service providers in making programming choices for first nation children, youth and families on reserve. We will continue to work with our partners in the first nation community to ensure proved outcomes.

I would remind the member that first nations want to have opportunities to improve their own lives. That is why we are creating a stronger economy with greater economic opportunity for all the people of our land to pursue their dreams, take responsibility for their lives and own their destinies. That includes improving accountability and transparency in the way that dollars are spent so that they achieve the maximum result. We will continue to implement policies that are favourable to that objective. We encourage the hon. member across to join us in that enterprise.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member talks about accountability and transparency, I think he better look at his own side of the House and get that house in order.

We understand that nobody likes to be told that they are discriminating against children, however the Conservative government certainly is discriminating. Discrimination is clearly happening and it must be eliminated immediately with sufficient funding.

I can say that the first nations I visited in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing have become even more politicized in the last year. Increasingly, I am speaking to young people in these communities who are asking why so little has happened. They see a government that saddles their communities with drinking water regulations and accounting procedures and interferes with the way those communities make decisions, but pays nothing more than lip service to education deficits, health crises and housing challenges. How are those young people supposed to believe that their own country is on their side when it has spent millions of dollars trying to discredit people, such as Ms. Blackstock, who consistently fights for their interests?

Instead of digging up dirt on people, should the government not be dealing with the funding gap for welfare services in Canada's aboriginal communities? The Conservatives should look at their side of the House and make sure that they reduce the inequities on first nation communities.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the righteous indignation of the NDP will do absolutely nothing to improve conditions on first nation reserves. Rather, concrete action is required to achieve that.

Concrete action is precisely what we have delivered, building new schools, enhancing access to safe drinking water, improving accountability and removing red tape so that it is possible for first nations, should they so choose, to develop commercial enterprises on their own lands. It is through economic opportunity and economic freedom that our aboriginal friends and neighbours will have the ability to build for themselves the future that they want and to have the kind of independence that they deserve. That will only be achieved with a strong economic action plan such as the one we are delivering.

We encourage the NDP to abandon its old way of thinking and come forward into the future with us to build that brighter tomorrow for our aboriginal partners.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 6:50 p.m.)