Linda Duncan

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, chiefs and councils went before the Senate over and over again because the Conservative government chose to table that bill not before the elected representatives in the House but in the Senate. After many years of dragging out this process under this so-called urgency to finally provide first nations with the same level of services the rest of us have the privilege of appreciating, the government now wants to cut us off, the elected representatives, from honouring the input that first nations peoples have asked for both before the Senate and the House.

What I find extraordinary is the actual purpose and intent of the bill. The bill is only an umbrella enabling bill. It would provide absolutely no guarantee of safe drinking water to a single first nation in Canada. It requires decades of work, drafting regulations, training people. The bill would essentially in one fell blow transfer liability for providing safe drinking water from the federal government to first nations. First nations have all 100% said that the government might have fixed the bill up a bit but have asked where the money is. They have said that they do not want the legislation. The Auditor General said not to pass the law until the money was committed.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find this move for closure very rich coming on the heels of the decision by the government to refuse recommendations to ensure the estimates and spending process of the House, which we are constitutionally obligated to deliver, and throw that report back to the committee. The Conservative government is the very government that is also forcing its own appointed Parliamentary Budget Officer to go to court to find clarification of his mandate, so that he can deliver on his job to review spending and estimates, so that he can assist MPs to deliver on their function. That is incredibly rich.

There is an incredible level of discrimination here. The same kind of imposition on first nations is an insult to what is actually an order of government. I would like to know if the minister believes that, to be consistent, the government will start imposing exactly the same disclosure rules on the provinces to which it transfers dollars?

[Public Works, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Public Works pled guilty to three labour code violations in relation to the Fleet Street plant boiler explosion, which three years ago claimed the life of engineer and father of four, Peter Kennedy, and injured two others. Those losses may have been prevented had the department complied with the law requiring hazard training.

Will the minister, today, after taking three years to plead guilty, stand in this place and apologize to those workers and families for the harm and loss suffered because of her department's failure?

[Firefighters, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of Motion No. 388, tabled in October 2012 by the member for Wascana.

This three-pronged motion mirrors previous motions from New Democrats, a total of 11 over the last number of years, calling for pandemic protection for firefighters, for national building code amendments and the creation of a national public safety officer compensation benefit. These motions reflected repeated requests from our brave and dedicated Canadian firefighters, requests that are sound and reasonable, and deserve a long overdue response. The responses that have been offered in recent years are an appreciated first step.

In 2005, the NDP Motion No. 153 called for the creation of a monument to fallen firefighters. The new Canadian Firefighters Memorial is a fitting tribute to the courage and dedication of firefighters. This memorial is an important way to ensure that the names of the brave men and women who have lost their lives in the line of duty are forever remembered. Likewise, the yearly memorial ceremony is an opportunity for Canadians to pay respect to the fallen firefighters and to show our solidarity. In my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, our local firefighters are remembered with honour at an annual ceremony held at a monument paid for and preserved by the Edmonton Firefighters Memorial Society.

Our solidarity and appreciation for Canadian firefighters must go beyond mere symbols and tributes. This important motion promotes action to reduce the loss of firefighters' lives and to ensure that when, regrettably, a loss of life does occur, the family members left behind are adequately taken care of. This is the very least that we owe these brave men and women who put their lives at risk daily in the service of Canadians.

The first priority measure, identified by our firefighters for action by the federal government, is the creation of the national public safety officer compensation benefit. This would provide adequate compensation for firefighters killed or disabled in the line of duty. The awarding of compensation to survivors often depends upon municipalities, resulting in significant disparities across provinces and territories, and even among municipalities. For example, when Kevin Olson tragically lost his life in the 2005 fire in Yellowknife, his spouse received a mere $22,000 benefit.

In the tragic event of the loss of a firefighter's life, we can only imagine the grief of family members left to cope with such a heartbreaking loss. It is precisely at this time, at a time of mourning, when the financial pressures of bills and mortgages arise. Proper compensation for loss of life given to ensure public safety would allow families of fallen firefighters to be protected from the double hit of financial insecurity following their loss.

I am certain that Canadians would be surprised to hear that when firefighters are killed in the line of duty, their survivors are not eligible to receive the compensation available to RCMP officers and Canadian armed forces personnel. Yet they are men and women in uniform who are dedicated to protecting our public safety and security.

I had the privilege of doing the one-day firefighter work, all in uniform, wearing the tank and the hat, and going into a burning building. I have an even greater appreciation now for those firefighters. I proudly display my own personal fire hat in my office. What possible rationale is there for excluding firefighters from receiving this compensation?

The government frequently talks of its efforts for regulatory harmonization with our southern neighbour, yet in the United States a similar benefit for the families of fallen firefighters has been in existence since 1976. It is high time that this long called for compensation benefit be established in Canada. As a firefighter with the Edmonton Fire Fighters Union, Local 209, in my riding, advised me, “It is about the federal government recognizing the contribution of our nation's public safety officers, whether police, border guards or firefighters”.

Surely this is what the federal power of peace, order and good government is all about. In the view of Local 209 and all Canadian firefighters, it is the right thing to do. New Democrats agree it is the right thing to do. I encourage the government to support the motion and the creation of a universal compensation benefit similar to what is available to other public safety officers.

Second, the motion calls on the government to extend recognition to firefighters under the category of first responders under the Canada influenza pandemic plan. I would concur with the hon. member that firefighters certainly fall within the plan's parameters, including under critical infrastructure and as health care workers.

If properly applied, this designation would entitle firefighters to priority access to vaccines and other drugs in the event of a pandemic or other public health emergency. Firefighters rush to the assistance of Canadians at great personal risk daily, and it is only right and proper that every possible measure be implemented to protect the well-being of firefighters. In turn, this will protect Canadians.

Third, reduction of firefighter injury and death must be made a priority. This motion calls for critical amendments to the national building code to specify firefighter safety as an objective. Upgrades to the national building code should be made in direct consultation with firefighters. This would ensure that safety issues impacting firefighters would be identified and addressed.

I fully support this call, but frankly, many of the critical amendments have been long identified and could be expedited. Changes to the national building code will pave the way for parallel changes to provincial and territorial codes. In Edmonton, we saw, in the MacEwan fire disaster, an example of the impact when fire prevention measures are ignored. Closely built homes of flammable, vinyl materials and absent fire barriers resulted in a massive number of residences being destroyed by fire. Recommendations by fire safety experts had been ignored. Firefighters were put at risk combatting this major fire.

The recommended reforms to the national building code related to improving fire prevention and the safety of firefighters could prevent death and injury, and I point out that we, on this side of the House, are speaking about preventing victims. The Edmonton Fire Fighters Union, Local 209, has also wisely recommended a national database to register and track types of fires and incidence of injuries. Such a resource, if made accessible to all firefighters, would provide highly valuable information to prevent fires, injuries and deaths.

In summary, the time is long overdue for acting on these motions that have been brought forward over the past decade. Our firefighters deserve our support.

[Government Accountability, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates worked diligently to identify key reforms to improve the capacity of MPs to deliver their constitutional duty to scrutinize government spending, reforms based on the advice of renowned parliamentary experts. Despite two similar reports over the last decade, the government voted to throw these reforms in the dustbin.

Why is the government refusing to make the very reforms needed to usher in the once-promised open, transparent, participatory democracy?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure serving on the committee with the hon. member and I have always appreciated his contribution.

We did a lot of work over an intensive six-month period. The committee determined at the outset that past governments had abjectly failed to take any action on the previous 75 recommendations to improve the capacity of members of Parliament to be informed in their voting on budgets. The Conservatives have now decided that they are simply rejecting our report, apart from a number of matters they say they will look into and report back on. There is no real promise of action, but we will wait until next March to see whether they are really committed.

Has the member received marching orders from his government that, when the report comes back to the committee, if that is what the end result of the vote will be, the Conservative members reverse their decision on a good number of the recommendations of the committee?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened diligently to the speech and I am still waiting for the hon. parliamentary secretary to address the matter before us, which is the estimates report.

I hear him talking about the government's economic action plan. I am just wondering, will he, in his speech, be addressing the matter before the House at this moment?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Louis-Hébert. It is a privilege to serve on the committee with him. As is clear from his presentation today, he lives and breathes this subject area. He is very educated and informed on the subject area, and we were grateful to have him as part of the discussion.

The member alludes to what I think is missing here and has been missing for quite some time in this place, which is the political will to actually reform this place so that we, the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Canada, can actually watchdog the spending of their tax dollars.

One of the kingpins of the current government of the day in ousting the Liberals was that it was going to be this new, open, transparent, accountable government. The Conservatives promised, during the election, that they would create a Parliamentary Budget Officer who would be an independent officer who reported to Parliament. However, when they were elected, they created the office, but they did not create it as an independent officer of Parliament.

It has been commonly stated, and stated by a number of the experts before our committee, that essentially, the government is leaving members of Parliament blindfolded when they are making these critical decisions the Constitution imposes on us. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

The government is now suggesting that the matter simply go back to committee again. That will be the fourth review by committee in a decade. Does the member think that is a responsible and credible response to the hard work of this committee and the sage advice we provided?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am sitting in the House a little stunned. I listened to the comments by the hon. member, who is a member of my committee that submitted the report. I appreciate her helpful contribution to that review.

I am at this moment a little stunned. It was a consensus report, not in any way revealing how anyone voted. Everyone knows it was a consensus report. I am troubled. In many ways it makes me question what the point is of working hard as a member of Parliament in the committee, listening to myriad experts and representatives of government and then coming to conclusions and recommending very concise measures necessary for us to do our jobs as constitutionally required.

My question for the member is this: Does she no longer stand by the report?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very cogent observation and for the compliment. It is an extremely complex area. It is an area of responsibility for members of the House, which we all take seriously, yet many of us come to the House without those very skills. That is why the review is so important.

The whole reason for this review was to take former recommendations and try to pare them down to a clear action plan to actually enable us, the duly elected representatives of Canadians, to make sound decisions on spending their tax dollars.

Frankly, I find it reprehensible. First the government's response was that it liked some of our recommendations and would work on them, and for other ones it was that it is the responsibility of the House. Now it is saying it is not the responsibility of the House and to send it back to committee again. That is absolutely reprehensible.

I think we did a stellar job of reviewing an extremely complex area. We brought in the best of the best witnesses and experts. We brought in officials of the government of the day and completed what I think is a very useful plan of action to improve our ability to do our jobs here, as we are mandated by the Constitution.