Sadia Groguhé

[First Nations Elections Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to call the members to order?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out to the House that this will be this government's 44th time allocation motion.

Since May 27, just over two weeks now, the Conservatives have moved 12 time allocation motions. Each time allocation motion costs us about one hour of debate on the bill in the House, when we ask questions to the minister and vote. This means we have lost 12 hours as a result of the stubborn approach taken by this government, which refuses to work with the opposition. We only got a few minutes, on a Wednesday night, around midnight, to talk about this bill. Only two people were able to speak.

How can the government justify imposing a time allocation motion on this bill? This is unfortunately yet another example of their undemocratic attitude.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6 regarding the election and terms of office for chiefs and councils of certain first nations, as well as the composition of their respective councils.

Aboriginal issues deserve special attention and concerted action. Parliamentarians in the House must work with everyone involved to develop long-term solutions for these communities. That was unfortunately not done with this bill.

In recent years, hundreds of aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered, yet no public inquiries have been conducted. The unemployment rate in many of these communities remains twice as high as in the general population, yet we have not seen any plans put forward. Many social problems and infrastructure deficiencies remain, but the government is not addressing the situation.

That is the reality for many aboriginal peoples, and the Conservatives will certainly not solve these problems by imposing their unilateral vision. They will also not achieve this by adopting a confrontational attitude or by forcing the communities to accept their vision. We must work with first nations to come to a consensus that will bring about sustainable solutions.

In a letter to Gerry St. Germain, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Chief Nepinak accused the government of acting in bad faith and ignoring the discussions it had with first nations and the promises it made to them and instead unilaterally imposing legislation containing many unacceptable provisions. He said that the government basically included only one of the first nations recommendations and rejected all the others.

If we want to find sustainable solutions for first nations, we must conduct consultations and, most importantly, we must take into account what was said when it comes time to implement policies. It is simply irresponsible to reject out of hand the suggestions made by the most important stakeholders in the process.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague for her speech and the passion she brings to the debate on this bill.

As you pointed out, it is almost midnight and tempers are flaring a bit. All the passion and energy she invested in her speech seem to be reflected in her last words.

My question concerns the settlement of appeals by the courts. This is still a very long and cumbersome process, which forces first nations to grapple with a justice system that knows very little about aboriginal cultural and political traditions.

Some witnesses called for the creation of an independent court for first nations, similar to those in place at the federal and provincial levels in Canada.

What can our colleague tell us about that?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that one of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN, was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism.

Could he tell us why the Conservatives ignored this recommendation in Bill S-6?

Will they commit to working with first nations on establishing an independent first nations election tribunal?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that our colleague alluded to an ideal world and how it remains an impossible dream. However, I would say that we can create that ideal world. We can also improve things, even if it is just those that destroy lives. I think that Canada has a role to play in improving this world.

This bill is not an attempt to ratify the convention. It is an attempt to undermine it. It also undermines Canada's leadership in the world and our commitment to banning this terrible weapon.

My question is the following: since more than half of victims of cluster munitions are children—who are particularly attracted to unexploded cluster munitions, as my colleague pointed out in his speech—does the government agree that we must fully ban this weapon and that we must stop talking and start taking meaningful action?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. Of course, she spoke of the fact that 98% of civilian victims are casualties of these cluster bombs. She pointed out that these munitions lack any precision as to their targets. Because of that, casualties occur even after the conflict has ended.

I would like to ask my colleague for her comments on this state of affairs. She touched on it in her speech, but I would like her to give us more details about her opposition to the bill.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, whether the minister admits it or not, hospitals and the provinces are bearing the financial burden of the changes to the refugee health care program. If the minister really believes that sick children are abusing the system, he is either completely heartless or completely blinded by his ideology. Medical expenses will not magically disappear simply because his government wants to balance the budget.

When will the Conservatives stop making the provinces pay for costs associated with refugee health care?

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her speech.

As she pointed out, the Conservatives' logic is ridiculous, given that they made $29 million in cuts and eliminated 600 jobs at Parks Canada. At the same time, they would like us to believe that they are in touch with what is going on with the environment and our ecosystems.

They are clearly not doing enough with respect to the environment. There are also concerns, which is why it is important that this bill be referred to committee for further study, particularly with regard to matters related to oil companies and any potentially related activities.

It is absolutely clear that this bill needs to be referred to committee for further review because a number of issues are very worrisome.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is very serious for this government to withdraw from Kyoto, and we denounced this action. If the government claims to want to protect the environment, it cannot turn around and do the opposite. Obviously, since my colleague acknowledged that emission levels have remained steady and even increased, we cannot disregard our environmental responsibilities. It is more urgent and necessary than ever to focus on the environment and protect our ecosystem.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Bill S-15.

I first want to stress the fact that despite the importance of the debate and the exchanges on the subject, the Conservative government has again imposed a limit on debate. Consequently, there is once again an undemocratic short-circuiting of the customary parliamentary process.

That said, as stated, Bill S-15 amends the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and makes consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

In more concrete terms, this initiative from the Senate would designate Sable Island as Canada’s 43rd national park. Quite obviously, we are delighted at the move to protect this unique place, which has stirred our imaginations with its beauty, its history and the ecological heritage it represents.

The bill includes a number of measures. First, drilling less than one nautical mile from the island, or on the surface of the island, would be strictly prohibited. This would make it possible to protect the visible areas from any petroleum development. Of course, this would be an important step in preserving the integrity of the area and the ecosystem that is part of it.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that exploration activities would be tolerated, provided they had little impact on the ecosystem of the island. Moreover, this partial prohibition would not include seismic testing, which can have an environmental impact on the area.

In that connection, we note that unfortunately, the concept of impact is not formally defined in the bill. This will be one of the factors to be explored in committee. However, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board should consult Parks Canada on the conduct of such exploration activities. This is important, because it would ensure collegial management of the space occupied by Sable Island and maximize its protection.

In the same vein, while surface drilling will be prohibited, underground drilling would be allowed. This would clearly constitute a first for a national park. Consequently, we shall have to know exactly how this significant aspect of the bill will be overseen. While the technology is not fully developed in this area, the fact remains that we will be confronting that aspect sooner or later.

Another element found in Bill S-15 is the installation of landing platforms for helicopters used to evacuate offshore workers. We applaud this inclusion, as we value the safety and security of all our people. The spirit that guides these measures takes us one step in the right direction in order to protect that jewel, Sable Island.

Let us remember that this ecosystem harbours many unusual species of flora and fauna, some of them unique to Sable Island. They include the 250 wild horses, the seals that reproduce there and the many bird colonies.

In 1977 the government had already recognized the ecological importance of Sable Island and designated it a migratory bird sanctuary. As a result, the unique ecological heritage of this area is well known and our duty as parliamentarians is to work to protect it.

Naturally, like many environmentalists, the NDP agrees with the principles expressed in Bill S-15. We are in favour of protecting Sable Island in all its facets and establishing boundaries for the human activities that take place there.

Certainly, there are several aspects of this legislation that should be studied in committee. It will be essential to consider the concepts of exploration and impact we find in the bill. What will be considered a low impact? How much petroleum exploration activity will we allow on the island? What will the relationship be between the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and Parks Canada? What will we do if a petroleum deposit is discovered beneath Sable Island?

It will also be important to consider the possibility of exploration using seismic testing. These are questions that must be asked by the parliamentarians who are members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

In short, the work done in the committee will determine the future success and survival of this national park. Moreover, we believe that we must be in constant contact with the various stakeholders involved in the current legislative process. They include the Nova Scotia provincial government, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Ecology Action Centre, the Green Horse Society and the Friends of Sable Island Society.

This is a serious matter. We must ensure that all stakeholders work together with parliamentarians to complete this project and set up a national park that will meet ecological and environmental objectives.

That said, the Conservatives are trying to present Bill S-15 as environmental good news. It was true, although certain reservations have been expressed about the creation of this national park. However, that does not diminish the fact that ever since it came to power the government has done all it could to eliminate, weaken and stall environmental measures.

The fact that Canada withdrew from Kyoto clearly showed that the Conservatives had abdicated their environmental responsibilities. Then they cut back considerably on environmental assessments, which must be done for companies' projects and routine activities. This is clearly having a significant impact on various practices, and it will have serious effects on our ecosystem. What is worse, the Conservatives deny that there is a problem with the environment or that climate change exists, which seriously taints the creation of Sable Island national park.

The NDP, on the other hand, has done everything it can to promote environmental values. We remain the only credible political party the public can trust to protect ecosystems and ensure that sustainable development is at the heart of everything we do.

That will be the basis for our work on Bill S-15. We will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be sent to committee. However, we will do everything we can to limit potential and foreseeable environmental abuses. We will be listening to stakeholders and will do what we can to develop the best bill possible for the creation of Sable Island national park.

I am now prepared to take questions from my colleagues.