Denise Savoie

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate on air safety. There is reason, though, to wonder why the government wants to rush this bill through despite its many flaws. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned. They should be seriously concerned about this bill.

It seems that people can say anything these days and get anything passed so long as it will reduce government involvement, as if that were a good thing in itself, without any care for the consequences. In this case, the consequences are very serious because public safety is at stake. That is something the government has apparently forgotten. It would rather worry about the profits of the big corporations than the safety of the general public. We should wonder, though, what the effects will be on public safety.

Canada has often been recognized—as other hon. members have said—as a leader in the field of public safety. There is an expression that when something is finally perfect, people often want to start changing it. In this case too, I have the feeling that the changes are for the worse.

This morning, my hon. colleague, our transport critic, who has done a lot of work on this, compared what happened in the railway system with what could happen in the airline industry if the government’s proposed amendments are passed.

In British Columbia where I come from, there have been many accidents, sometimes virtually weekly, on the railways. We know that these accidents started to increase after the safety system was simply handed over to the companies. The government more or less just offloaded its responsibilities.

The law that is proposed in Bill C-6 contains many flaws. The policy issue that is important to note is that this will have impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada, WestJet and others have been preferred and that is going to be the factor in setting safety levels in the sky.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as a general overseer of safety management systems. That is why I asked, with the government saying it is going to reduce government intervention, is that in itself a good thing when public security is being sidelined for commercial interests?

Let us talk a bit about the impacts of Bill C-6. It seems to enshrine the safety management systems which allow industries to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept, tolerable levels of risk in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety established by the minister acting in the public interest. Safety management systems allow the government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards.

The government seems to think that because it says something it makes it true. We have seen that all too often in the way the government has acted on accountability and in the way it has acted on Bill C-30 in tackling environmental issues. The government takes half measures and proclaims it has acted in the interest of public. Canadians are not fooled by this kind of talk.

The bill does not exempt whistleblowers. A worker who identifies a problem, for example, a loose wing nut, and I will not talk about the kinds of wing nuts, reports it and no action is taken, he or she will be silenced. That is a problem with what the government has proposed.

Furthermore, the government would like us to think that companies will automatically report any problems to the public. Any of us who have negotiated with the private sector knows there are many financial interests to protect. The private sector is very guarded in anything that will affect its financial bottom line. I fear very much for transparency, for what Canadians will find out about some of the problems that can occur.

While the NDP agreed to an amendment in the transportation committee, which emphasizes reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than tolerating risk, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations. Acting in the public interest is still, as I see it, the responsibility of the government. It is not the responsibility of corporations. Their responsibility is to make money. By giving that responsibility over to corporations, the government is abdicating its own responsibilities.

Adequate safety costs money. Safety management systems will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked with high fuel prices. What will happen to safety when the need to make a profit and save money is paramount? I do not think the bill adds to that and it does not answer that question adequately.

I will close by asking one last question. What happened to the government's responsibility to protect public interest?

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech. He made an excellent comparison between what is currently going on with the railway system and what is going to happen with the airline industry. Everyone knows that there are a growing number of accidents in Canada's railway system because of decisions made by the Liberal government in past years and because of the refusal to take employee recommendations into account.

I would like my colleague to speak more about the ideology that underlies the amendments he spoke about, an ideology that would leave the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague raised this question. Throughout our study on employability, it became obvious that we could not leave segments of the population behind. The social and economic costs are too high. It is time to pay attention to all of these.

First nations really appreciate the apprenticeship model. Without categorizing or profiling, it seems to respect their way of learning. Finding ways of both encouraging apprenticeships and ensuring completion of apprenticeships on reserves would really be a big first step toward solving the problem.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I remember well one of the ministers of the Conservative government talking about adult literacy programs and about cutting the fat. We are all aware that there is a pattern in families. If we look at the cause of illiteracy in children, we often find parents who have really difficult issues.

Raising the issue of mismanagement was just simply out of order, when we consider the growth in the young population, the increased costs of administering the programs and the need for culturally appropriate post-secondary education. I talked about the excellent post-secondary program that exists in our area, which is managed very efficiently. Aboriginal students are graduating from that program.

Those are the kinds of programs that would turn things around if more funding was available.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on aboriginal post-secondary education in Canada. As the NDP critic for post-secondary education, I am aware of many problems in Canada's post-secondary education system and also the solutions that many of us have proposed since this session began.

Tonight I would like to talk specifically about the problem facing Canada's first nations.

I should mention that in 10 minutes I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

We know, for example, that 70% of jobs in Canada require post-secondary education. We know that among the general population, 30% of Canadian students say that financial considerations are crucial to them in their decisions not to acquire post-secondary education. I can only imagine what it is among first nations people.

As the speaker before me has said, first nations have the largest growing population in Canada, the largest number of young people in Canada and largest unemployment level in Canada. We know that completion of high school is very low and there are undoubtedly many historic and present social conditions that are the cause of it.

I was very disappointed in reading the response of the government to this report. In the letter the minister mentions doing more studies. It seems discouraging at this point from what we have heard from colleagues opposite and my colleague, whom I thank for raising this issue, which is such an essential debate in Canada. Responding to the problem and to the facts that we already have by proposing yet more studies is a very discouraging response indeed.

I have said that we know what some of the solutions are. In my riding a story was written up in the local newspaper of a woman who had a young child and was lucky enough to win the battle against illiteracy. She began with very low levels of literacy and decided she would not to pass on those same problems to her child. She approached Project Literacy Victoria to help her overcome some of the reading and writing problems she was facing. That was six years ago. She is now reading novels and looking forward to continuing her post-secondary education.

When I say we know what some of the solutions are and when I look at the response of the government earlier this year in cutting important programs for literacy, this is beyond understanding.

Project Literacy Victoria is one of the groups that has offered programs, which have helped hundreds and hundreds of people, aboriginal and white, to move on, take their lives back in their own hands and get further education. I know this does not address the issue of post-secondary education, but we talked about some of the causes around post-secondary education, and they begin with basic literacy programs. By cutting these programs, the Conservative government has done a large disservice not only to aboriginal people but to the general population that faces these issues.

We know also that one of the recommendations is to remove the 2% funding cap. By itself, this 2% funding cap has prevented thousands of aboriginal people from moving on to post-secondary education. Yet the government responds by talking about more studies. It is as simple as removing this cap to allow many of the students who are now struggling to get through school to do so.

Recently I had the pleasure of attending a graduation of students who had completed a bridging program. They were aboriginal students who had left school for one reason or another and who had now completed a bridging program, allowing them to continue on to university.

Many of these students were facing huge debts. These programs have proven themselves to be very successful. I look at the first nations program, which is offered at Camosun College in Victoria, that offers services and programs for first nations, Métis, Inuit and native American students.

This program offers cultural support to students who are outside their community. It also offers academic support in programs such as family support workers, first nations home support or residential care attendant program or in health support as well. It also provides experience and dedicated first nations instructors.

Yet we know that since 1993, transfers for education to universities have been cut across Canada, not only programs through Indian and Northern Affairs but programs generally for post-secondary education. These cuts have affected the possibility of offering the kinds of programs that exist at Camosun College and that could exist in many other places.

For example, in 1997 only 6% of aboriginals in my province of British Columbia applied to university, compared to the non-aboriginal rate of 29%. Currently their university participation rate edged up to 9.1%. In contrast, the university participation rate among non-aboriginals rose to 34%. This speaks to a real gap in our system, that we are allowing our first nations to stay behind.

In the process of the employability study that we are presently doing, it has become clear that we cannot allow such a large segment of our population to simply fall by the wayside. We must take action.

It is past the time for studies. There are solutions. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, has proposed many of them specific to first nations and so have we in terms of the post-secondary education in general.

I urge the government to consider these, rather than spend more time with studies.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour of attending a graduation ceremony at the Friendship Centre in Victoria of aboriginal students and others who had completed a bridging program, since these were largely adults who had less schooling and found a way of coming back.

During the evening I spent a lot of time talking with many of them and I found out that they were saddled with huge debts. Does my colleague think that aboriginal people, adults and young people who want to go back to school, have the support they need?

The young people with whom I spoke that evening were interested in going up north to Alert Bay do a traditional trip as part of the completion of their program and to get a better understanding of their own culture.

Could the member talk a bit about what exists in terms of first nations post-secondary education, institutions and programs.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the United States coast guard is firing live ammunition in Canadian waters off the B.C. coast. These exercises have been recently conducted in the vicinity of the famous J pod of orcas, with whale watching boats of tourists and biologists nearby. Gun boats and whale boats do not belong in the same waters.

When will the government stand up for Canada and stop American live fire exercises that endanger our orcas, our visitors and our tourist industry? Will the Minister of Public Safety—

[Access Health Centre, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an innovative and valuable project in my riding, the Access Health Centre.

In partnership, AIDS Vancouver Island and the Victoria Cool Aid Society plan to create a comprehensive health centre providing care to the homeless and those affected by HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C, groups that typically face barriers to accessing mainstream medical care.

The centre is designed as part of a preventive health and drug strategy. It will provide effective services while reducing the costs to government and society.

Support for this project crosses all party lines. All MPs in south Vancouver Island recognize its value and its potential in assisting homeless people to rebuild their lives.

This much needed project requires the participation of all levels of government. I urge the Conservative government to collaborate and to commit financial support to make this a reality.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about content. I appreciated my colleague's comments. As he said, the committee did good work. I think that there are measures in this bill that would, for example, limit railway noise and reduce the cost to farmers. People would like these measures to come into effect.

Personally, I would have liked the bill on transportation and railways to offer a broader vision of the role that railways might play in Canada. But that is not mentioned. Nevertheless, we must be satisfied with this because it does contain some useful measures.

The amendments made by the Senate—which is not elected, as the member pointed out—avoid bringing clause 27 into force. This is one of the measures that would have protected travellers by providing complete information about costs. Would the member like to say a few words about the impact of these amendments on travellers?

[Canada Transportation Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak for 10 minutes and he mentioned at the outset that he was speechless. Some of us perhaps wish that he had been speechless.

Aside from talking about shaking people down to pay his leadership debt, I did not hear one substantive comment about such an important issue relating to the Railway Safety Act or the Canada Transportation Act. If he has not read the act and understand the content of it, then he might have been interested in talking about the need for a rail transportation act in Canada.

Perhaps everything that he could say in answering this question could be covered in 15 seconds. I wonder if he would enlighten the House by talking substantively about Bill C-11.