Linda Duncan

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the previous question, I would appreciate more elaboration from the hon. member.

Clearly, the legislation brought forward deals with, to a small extent, the concerns of the sector that needs and wants to ship equipment, supplies and products by rail, including for export. Properly maintained and inspected rail lines are important also to those who are shipping their goods, because if there is a series of derailments, communities get very nervous about the shipping. As was mentioned, in the case of the spill at Lake Wabamun, which was the largest freshwater spill of bunker C seen in the history of North America, a number of things became very evident. One was that there simply was not proper response equipment along the line to immediately address the spill. That would then delay the startup of a train and so forth and create a further backlog.

Could the member talk about the need for bringing these matters together, about the proper maintenance of the rail and the increasing number of shipments of dangerous substances? I find it very interesting that there is wide public dialogue about the potential risk of shipping bitumen by pipeline, yet apparently a higher risk of--

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I mentioned earlier that troubles me is that, almost to the letter, on every single question we have put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the House, the same response has come back. The member across the way who put the question to me seems to be alluding to the same thing: it is all about money. It is not all about money. That is not what I have been told by indigenous peoples from Canada. It is about respect, about obeying the law and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I do not have time, but if I did, I would read the letters that have been provided to me and forwarded to the Prime Minister from the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 chiefs and councillors. Every one of them says the same thing. They feel they have been silenced by the parliamentary process. They are calling on the government to rescind the laws that were passed, which impact their lands, waters and peoples, without due consultation and without a hearing on their constitutional and legal obligations.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put forward by the hon. member. It is not for me to respond. The individuals and communities that the Conservatives are accountable to are the first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. We are simply standing up for and being a voice for the very peoples who are not being given a voice. It is those peoples who are taking to the streets, holding round dances, calling for meetings, asking how they can persuade the government to change its closed door process and excluding them from consultations. It is not for me, as an individual member, or for colleagues on this side of the House to respond. It is for the government to ask the first nations, Inuit and Métis whether it has done enough and whether it is taking the right path.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to share this time with the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I share his passion for this topic.

I also share the passion of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who has tabled this motion. On behalf of the first nations who I am in consultation with, I wish to thank her for bringing forward this matter to the House.

I absolutely stand in support of this motion that calls for greater action and the improvement of the economic outlook for first nations Inuit and Métis, particularly in the coming budget, to commit action to treaty implementation and full and meaningful consultation.

The proof will be in the pudding when the next budget is tabled. We have heard lots of promises from across the floor. I can assure members that it will not just be the official opposition or other opposition parties will be watching that document carefully, but also all of the indigenous peoples of our country.

On treaty implementation, which I will get to in a minute, certainly the government has been falling down. Even though some mechanisms were put in place to resolve specific claims, the actions by the government have in fact not resolved the matter and have made things worse.

First, I want to reiterate the call by my colleague, the MP for Timmins—James Bay, who called for Parliament to step up and finally take serious action on the economic, social and moral deficit in respect for and taking action to lift our aboriginal peoples from a century of discrimination and poverty. It is very important we reiterate that we should not just talk about economic strategies and the implementation of treaties, but that we should talk about the basic issue of why it is critical to move forward on those matters.

Second, he reminded us that we were all treaty people. There is one thing I have heard over and over again over the last year, including when I had the honour of being the critic for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is the reminder which has come from the elders, the chiefs and council members, the aboriginal youth and National Chief Shawn Atleo, which treaties were entered into by both sides. We have responsibilities under the treaty in the same way as the first nations. We are treaty people.

Third, concrete action is needed to restore a good faith relationship. We have heard that over and over again today.

The government claims that the real issue is real engagement in the economy and jobs. Engagement in the economy requires equitable access to education. How does one get a well-paying job unless he or she has access to advanced education, or even to get through grammar school with a 35% graduation rate as National Chief Shawn Atleo has frequently pointed out? He is a great advocate for greater support for indigenous education. He has said that there is a higher rate of incarceration of aboriginal youth than graduation from high school. Clearly, they cannot get a job that is well paying and contribute to the economy unless they have equitable access.

With respect to safe living conditions, how will those youth study if their houses or schools are s full of mould and they do not have a steady supply of electricity, heat or safe drinking water?

These are simple facts that we Canadians take for granted.

We should concentrate actions to provide jobs to the hardest hit. We hear lots of examples, as my colleagues have pointed out, of the success cases. When I was a critic and I participated in the committee review of the initiatives, the changes to the land management regime, many of the first nation leaders came in and said that it was not the same for all of them, that they did not all have the fortune of having a reserve immediately adjacent to a major industrial centre or municipality. It is very hard for the isolated communities. Frankly, their particular concern was with respect to a fair benefit agreement on the traditional lands, not necessarily developing their reserve lands.

The parliamentary secretary pointed out Fort McKay. Fort McKay First Nation in northern Alberta, right in the centre of the oil sands development, by necessity has forged agreements with industry so it can benefit, and it has had a number of contracts. However, it is important to recognize that even Fort McKay is drawing a line in the sand. The last of its important lands, which are specifically designated for traditional practices, are about to be hurt. They are about to be completely circled by oil sands development.

They, like all the other first nations that have come forward, want not just a piece of the pie, not just a job. They want a say in the decision making about the resource development in their territories and in areas next door to their territories where they might be impacted.

The engagement process in the economy also means that they need to have equitable benefit agreements. We hear time after time where some isolated first nations, on their own, are left to try to negotiate fair agreements with major corporations. In some cases, they do well. In other cases, they do not. Where is the federal government's responsibility to ensure they are supported in those endeavours?

What is the starting point for measuring progress?

We hear all the time from the government about all the money it spends. Any question that is asked, whether it is with regard to education, safe drinking water, the right to be consulted, or the right to a job, the government replies with, “Look at all the money we have spent”.

What is the starting point for measuring progress? Is it the date of the signing of the treaties? Is it over 100 years back, with the historic and the numbered treaties? Is it the date of the signing of the modern treaties?

We have been hearing ongoing concerns in committee and in delegations meeting with members of Parliament about the failure of the government to live up to and implement the treaties.

Is it the date of the addition of section 35 to the Constitution? Is it the repeat calls by the Auditor General to take action on better protections for first nations?

In the last audit issued by then Auditor General Sheila Fraser singled out the conditions on first nation reserves and said that the federal government had taken some action but simply not enough. In her words:

It's no secret that their living conditions are worse than elsewhere in Canada. For example, only 41 percent of students on reserves graduate from high school, compared with 77 percent of students in the rest of the country. And more than half of the drinking water systems on reserves still pose a health threat.

As has been pointed, there are still more than 100 boil water advisories in the 21st century.

Sheila Fraser then said:

What’s truly shocking, however, is the lack of improvement. Last year, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada reported that between 2001 and 2006 there was little or no progress in the well-being of First Nations communities. In a wealthy country like Canada, this gap is simply unacceptable.

My colleagues on the other side were saying that it was the Liberals. It is important to note that the succeeding two auditor generals after Sheila Fraser raised exactly the same issue, so still not a lot of progress.

Is it the date of the 2012 First Nation-Crown summit, where a lot of undertakings were made? Is it the unanimous vote for the Shannen's Dream motion, calling for equitable access to education? Is it the promise to expedite settlement of languishing specific claims? Is it the recommendations of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education?

There are many points of juncture where we could begin measuring progress. Sadly, we are still not seeing a lot of substantive progress across the board.

It is very important to point out that what first nations peoples, Métis and Inuit are calling for are substantive rights and procedural rights, both of which are guaranteed in the Constitution and legislation.

What is appalling is this continued reference by the government of the day to “willing partners, willing first nations”. The question has to be raised. We know fully its disregard for any first nation that resorts to the courts. They are being forced to resort to the courts because of the government's abject refusal to properly consult. There have been a number of actions filed just in the last month by first nations in northern Alberta and in Saskatchewan, lambasting the government for failure to consult on its budget.

The first nations people view the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as carrying that obligation even further, that they should have the right to consent.

I would like to share that I was profoundly impacted by the opportunity of participating in some of Idle No More gatherings, and I say gatherings. These were not protests. These were gatherings, led by elders, including youth, including chiefs in regalia. I had the opportunity to talk to many youth who desperately wanted to participate in the economy, who desperately wanted to have their voices heard. I have been approached by the treaty chiefs and councillors in my province, in Treaty 6, 7 and 8, asking for my advice on how they can get the government to open up the budget, to reverse its decisions on undermining the environmental laws which protect their traditional lands.

I look forward to the government supporting our motion, but more than that, actually moving to take action.

[Food Safety, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in response, it is with my regret that the parliamentary secretary continues the misinformation. At no point in time did members of our party ever say they were opposed to improved food safety legislation. We, the official opposition, voted en masse for the bill. What was regrettable was that the Conservatives refused to accept the proposed amendments, which would have further strengthened and modernized the food safety legislation toward effective enforcement.

It is disappointing and unlike previous Conservative governments. For example, the Mulroney government in the mid-1980s tabled innovative Canadian environmental protection legislation and it simultaneously tabled an enforcement and compliance policy. It was an historic moment and the statement was made that a law is of no value and is vacuous unless there is effective enforcement compliance.

We have continued to ask: What is the problem? Why would the Conservatives not open up to the public, inspectors and food safety workers to a review of the enforcement compliance regime to make sure it is as sound as they say?

Dr. Weatherill's report raised serious concerns with the enforcement regime. However, the government has not acted on that report.

We remain hopeful that the government will finally admit that the big problem was with the enforcement of the regime. To ensure that we do not have future problems, let us open it up, take a look and take a look at some of the amendments we have proposed, so that it is a modern, effective enforcement regime.

[Food Safety, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while the food safety legislation has been before the House for debate and has passed, it has not taken away the interest and concern of Canadians in food safety.

I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to follow up with a question that I put to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to which I got a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. That question was put on October 2 last year.

The essence of my question was the same as a series of questions I had put to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Those related to the fact that while the minister was bringing forward legislation ostensibly to increase and protect food safety for Canadians, there was very little attention being given to the improved enforcement of that legislation.

Obviously, we were raising a lot of questions in the House because of the fallout of the food recalls from XL Foods in Alberta and the impact that had on Canadians who were concerned about what they could serve their families for lunch and dinner, and also the impact on the beef industry in Canada. We are deeply concerned that we move expeditiously to strengthen the food safety regime to protect the industry.

One of the stalwarts of Alberta historically is the cattle industry. Because I have a long-standing experience in the field of environmental enforcement, I have followed very closely activities at the federal and provincial and territorial levels, including some first nations governments, in moving toward more effective enforcement and compliance policies to make sure that their laws and bylaws are effectively inspected and enforced.

I and my colleagues had a deep concern, which we shared with the House on a number of occasions, that the government did not seem to be admitting to the problems we were experiencing with respect to effective enforcement of the food safety laws. While the government was attempting to bring forward strengthened laws, there was no admission that the government also needed to strengthen food safety enforcement.

We were a little concerned when I raised this question on October 2 that the response by the parliamentary secretary was to suggest to the House and in turn to the public that our party intended to oppose the improved food safety law. That, in fact, was complete misinformation. Indeed, when the bill finally came forward, we all voted for it.

Our concern was that our party had put forward a series of amendments, 11 in fact, most of which were directed at ensuring effective enforcement of the act. Regrettably, the vast majority of those amendments were refused.

We continue to have the concern that while improved legislation has come forward, there are a number of significant measures that would have improved and enhanced the food safety regime in this country. One of those was whistle blower protection.

Obviously, given the situation in some of the plants, it is very important that the workers feel free to bring to the attention of authorities problems they see on the floor that might affect food safety, particularly when they suspect there might be a violation. The government rejected that amendment.

Other amendments included improved labelling of food, requiring that there be specified training for the officers designated for complaints verification. We also wanted to include a provision that is common in most regulatory laws, laws that specify that peace officers have to assist inspectors where requested. We tabled a whole series of provisions that would have simply modernized the food safety regime in Canada. Regrettably, the government rejected them.

I am hoping in the response I get today that the government will indicate it has finally decided to open up a discussion with the public, with inspectors, with those who work in the food safety industry, to talk about a more effective enforcement compliance regime for food safety.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Mount Royal is on the committee and would have heard the testimony by Dr. Irvin Waller, president, International Organization for Victim Assistance. Dr. Waller pointed out something that I took a look at when I was a chief of enforcement and worked in the environmental enforcement field.

In 1984 the United States passed an act called the Victims of Crime Act that allowed the government to go after the major corporations that violated the law in a bigger way. I wonder if the member could speak to whether he thinks it is an adequate remedy to impose $200 on a company that might bilk investors out of millions of dollars or billions of dollars, or other major corporate crimes that may cause major harm to the health and safety of Canadians.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I failed to hear any logical rationale for this proposed change, except for the fact that it is another example of the Conservatives trying to remove judicial discretion. We have seen that time after time in all fields.

If the rationale is that perhaps a woman who is raped would seek to have psychological counselling, $200 would be probably one appointment. There does not seem to be any logical reason for this except for some kind of heavy-handed punishment of those who disobey the law.

Why can there not be some degree of judicial discretion, particularly when we hear that there are so many incarcerated people who are suffering from mental troubles? Surely the logical place for this compensation is: first, for the government to finally put in enough money for victim compensation; second, to assist the court in ordering restorative justice, actual work in the community or whatever is appropriate; and third, providing assistance for victims to go to civil courts.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member can actually expect me to answer the question when it is a rhetorical question. However, the answer is that no Canadian can properly assess whether this was a good deal or not because no Canadian had access to the information on which the government made the decision. That is precisely what our motion is about. That is precisely what our motion was about two years ago. It is precisely what the Calgary Chamber of Commerce had called for.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working on committee with the member as well.

I will tell the member exactly what I would do, which is what all of my colleagues on this side of the House would do. We would take that provision to the public and to the industry sector for their opinions on how we would determine those factors. The government should be doing the same thing with all of the legislation it is tabling with respect to first nations.