House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, in a general sense, there is approval of the park project.
However, in a more broad context, if I may just broaden it out, the government has a terrible record in terms of its process of engaging and consulting with first nations across the country on a number of projects. This is a park where we want to see comprehensive conservation, as well as engagement and involvement with all the first nation and Métis communities there.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard a question, but I will imagine one and answer it.
How is this for a fact? There were 1,600 written comments, and of those 1,600 only 2 selected the boundary configuration that the government chose; 63 selected otherwise.
The fact of the matter is that a minuscule percentage of those who offered an opinion about the boundary selected the one the government chose, and an even smaller percentage of the overall deputees in this process chose this boundary.
It is fair to say that a park of this magnitude is widely appreciated, but what we are doing here right now is urging the government to get it right.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I want to underline some of the problems in this bill in terms of the process, and how the problems in this bill are indicative of the way the government chooses to operate and get around the strong current of public opinion vis-à-vis the bills it puts forward in this place.
Referencing a nuclear fuel facility in my riding is hardly not germane to the conversation because we are talking about public engagement. In this particular instance, of those who had input into issues relating to this national park, there was a 93% buy-in on one boundary configuration and the government choosing a boundary configuration that was much smaller and more amenable to mining interests. However, it was not a decision that was shared by those who provided their opinions. That is why we are making a connection. Whether it is a nuclear fuel facility, the Line 9 pipeline, northern gateway, or a national park, we need to do the hard work of engaging the public, finding the balance, and actually listening to what the public has to say.
The other issue I would like to connect between this park plan and other issues that haunt the government's approach is on deferred backlogs in infrastructure. There is a $3-billion deferred backlog in Parks Canada. That is what it has identified. People in places like Toronto understand what this is about. There is a massive deferred backlog in the maintenance of public housing units. The government continually reneges on its responsibility to work with other levels of government to fix a national crisis in affordable housing.
Some members might ask what this has to do with a national park. I would stress that we are talking about a trend that we see with the government making flashy announcements. It has certainly made some flashy announcements with regard to housing, and there is still no affordable housing. It made a splashy announcement about a big national park in Scarborough. It made a flashy announcement about Syrian refugees. However, it does not deliver the goods. It does not provide the money or simply reneges on its promises.
The question is not so much on whether New Democrats support the creation of this park, because we do. We have concerns about the decision by the government to go with a much smaller boundary, thus diminishing the environmental protection and conservation that underpins the whole idea of a national park. There are also questions of trust. This is a government that slid in an omnibus bill, a bill that essentially chipped away at the protection of lakes, streams, and rivers. The government has an issue around social licence, around the trust of Canadians.
We urge the government to start to take its role more seriously vis-à-vis public engagement, transparency, listening to Canadians, and putting legislation on the table that does not play games with the facts, that does not avoid the deep desires of Canadians, especially when it comes to something as important as a national park.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place, especially on this day, on behalf of and representing the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.
I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.
Some might wonder what a guy from Toronto is doing speaking on a bill about a national park in the Northwest Territories. What I would like to talk about today is how the issues that this bill underlines should concern all of us, whether we live in big urban centres like Toronto or aboriginal communities in the north. I am talking about the issues around public engagement, ribbon-cutting policies that do not have the backing of budgets, and the promises that the Conservatives make and do not fulfill.
This park is one that we want to see created, but the proposal on the table underlines some of the deep concerns we have on this side of the aisle around how the government does its business. I would like to enumerate some of the connections and the systemic issues that this bill underlines.
Right now in this country, we have a crisis around social access and public engagement. In my city, we saw the public literally shut out of the consultation process around the reversal of the Line 9 pipeline. If the government had the full confidence that this was a fine idea, it should have allowed for a full debate and access to public consultation. As it stands now, many people in my community do not support the decision to reverse the flow of Line 9, and I present petitions in the House almost daily on that subject.
The issue is the same, when, for example, we talk about a nuclear fuel facility in my riding which operated for 50 years, and as part of its licence had an obligation to inform and engage the public about the work it had been doing. It was discovered, because no one knew about it for 50 years, that the facility had not been doing the job that its licence required of it, and the government seemed to be nonplussed by the whole affair.
We have other—
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the issue she was just alluding to around the government announcing projects but not backing that up with enough resources to maintain these projects. It is not good enough to make a ribbon-cutting announcement. These parks, this infrastructure, require ongoing maintenance.
My colleague has spoken to the arrears in maintenance and upkeep in these national parks. This seems to be part of a trend with the government, and I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his good work in the House and in his riding.
I would like to get back to the issue of public engagement, which my hon. colleague referenced in part. We have a government that, when it can, will skirt public engagement or tilt the results in its favour in order to get what it is after. We have seen this time and time again. We are seeing it in this case too.
I wonder if my colleague would comment on this as part of a larger story of the way the government tries to not listen to the concerns and the wishes of Canadians.
Petitions October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, a number of residents in my community are still very concerned about the process of the Line 9 pipeline. The petitioners want the government to reverse its decision on the Line 9 pipeline on an urgent basis.
Petitions October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition calling on the government to look at ways to extend employment insurance to the self-employed while maintaining the strength and surety of the employment insurance system today.
Petitions October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Davenport and the great city of Toronto on a number of different issues.
About 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot access permanent full-time jobs. They do not have access to pension benefits or job security. The many people who have signed this petition call upon the government to support a national urban worker strategy.
Business of Supply October 21st, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the work she has done on this issue. She underlines the fact that in many instances the government will make grand announcements and then either not follow through or else be incredibly slow under dire circumstances. Its commitments around Syrian refugees is another example.
I want to double back to the letter that my hon. colleague sent to the government, because Canadians watching this debate want to know parliamentarians' level of engagement on this issue and the importance we place on moving these issues forward in a non-partisan way to get the job done and fulfill our commitments internationally.
One of the questions that was asked in the letter was as follows:
Is there a plan to rapidly increase production of the vaccine in the unfortunate advent of worst case scenarios as outlined by the World Health Organization?
I wonder when we might expect an answer on this issue. There are a number of very detailed questions, but they are very clear and they are questions Canadians want answers to. Could the hon. member enlighten us as to when we are expecting a response?