Linda Duncan

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 25th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of generalities, but what I am still looking for are the specifics. The specifics are becoming increasingly apparent, as laid forth by the Minister of Natural Resources mostly in speaking to industry and in response to questions that we raise in the House.

It has now been revealed by the government of the day that it intends to reduce down federal assessment of major projects to just three agencies. While previously agencies such as aboriginal affairs had been invisible in reviews of major projects, including resource projects in Alberta, it is now apparent that they will not be involved at all.

Who then in the federal government will actually stand up and speak for the rights of aboriginal peoples to have a voice in decisions which directly impact them, their lands, their waters and their future interests?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 25th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have come here this evening to raise this matter in greater detail and look forward to the response from the government. This is a matter that touches every aboriginal community in our country.

When I put my question to the government, in his wisdom, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development rose and spoke to it. However, I intended it to be directed to either the current Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources, who appears to be speaking on behalf of the Minister of the Environment these days. My question raised concerns about the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency reducing to less than a quarter the funds available to consult with aboriginal peoples in the review of major resource projects.

I followed up with a question to the government about how it could defend against not only the cutbacks in the resources available to aboriginal communities to participate in these reviews, but there was very clear decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to throw unfounded assertions and name-calling of aboriginal communities about their motives for being involved in the review of major projects, such as the northern gateway pipeline.

It is important for the government to understand that when cases are brought before our courts and rulings are made by the courts, the government errs in law by not considering important information. It is incumbent upon it to respond according to the direction of the courts.

There was a very important recent Federal Court ruling a year ago--last summer--which held that the then Minister of the Environment had erred in law by deciding that he did not have to consider the impacts of his decisions related to threats to endangered species. He did not have to consider any potential impacts to aboriginal treaty and rights. The court further ordered the minister to go back and reconsider his decision.

In that case the government still has not fully delivered in that responsibility and has been taken to court again. It is my understanding that the ruling has not yet come down.

Why do I raise this important matter? Nobody makes it more clear how important it is that the government deliver on its responsibility for advanced, thorough, direct consultation with aboriginal peoples and to consider and accommodate their interests than the current National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

I will share with the House the recent words by the National Chief. He said:

Currently, First Nations are often the last to know about major resource development. This relegates our communities to few options, usually resulting in confrontation. So we end up with protests and legal battles that frustrate opportunities for everyone and deepen tensions...We are not opposed to development, but we must be involved at the outset...about exploration, ownership, participation in production, and long-term sustainability of our environment, our communities and our futures.

He said that economic partnership and direct consultation should be the cornerstone of the true reconciliation promised by the government.

I look forward to the response of the government to these serious concerns being raised by our aboriginal peoples.

[New Democratic Party of Alberta, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Alberta's New Democrats on their excellent showing in last night's election.

New Democrats placed second in Edmonton, earning over 22% of the total vote. Brian Mason and Rachel Notley are returning to the legislature to continue the principled, progressive opposition on behalf of Albertans. They will be joined by two more Edmontonians, public health advocate David Eggen and education advocate Deron Bilous.

The NDP increased its share of the popular vote and had strong showings in well-known NDP hotbeds like Lethbridge.

The results of the election will disappoint social conservatives, including those across the way who publicly endorsed the Wildrose Party. Albertans roundly rejected the Wildrose climate change deniers who wished to build a firewall around our province.

I am confident that this strengthened New Democratic Party caucus will hold the premier elect accountable to deliver on her promises to improve environmental protection and access to public health care.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our party is moving in favour of this particular bill because there has been some movement toward improving the bill. However, what concerns me as a former environmental enforcer is that when we come forward with new laws, it is important that the government also come forward with a compliance strategy. That may be particularly important in this case.

There have been a number of questions raised by members in the House about exactly how people would determine what reasonable force is and about how reasonably close to the incident they are in intervening in order to seize and detain the person. When it is made known that this new measure will be in place, does the member think it might be useful for the government to come forward with an enforcement and compliance strategy to inform shop owners or property owners of the limited extent to which they may detain persons, as well as to inform school children, youth and so forth that there may be the potential for a shop owner or some property owner to move to detain?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his, as ever, cogent speech on this matter.

He raised the issue of the education of the public on this provision. Most of the examples that have been given on this bill have related to incidents where people are coming into someone's shop, or stealing things from someone's shop, or perhaps entering someone's farm property and stealing equipment. However, in the province I come from, Alberta, there have been a number of incidents where there could arise difficulties with the interpretation of these provisions. Those include where leases are issued for oil and gas activity in the wild land areas of Alberta. Gates are put up, thereby leaseholders think they can prohibit public who simply want to go hike, look at wildlife and birds, and so forth. Also, there are areas where there are grazing leases. There have been a lot of confrontations between people who want to make recreational use of the land and those who think they have much broader entitlements because they have a lease for a specific purpose.

I wonder if the member could speak to that? With the changing of these provisions, it will be all the more important that we clarify to the leaseholders of lands the limitation of their rights to stop people, or take any kind of action when people enter those lands.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate. I have looked at the provisions and I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the kinds of issues I see.

The first one would be how the government will convey these new provisions to the public. If we look at the recent sad incident in the United States, where a youth was killed and late in the day, only because of public pressure, charges were brought against the person, presumably on reasonable grounds, for attacking somebody for going on the person's property. It will be very important to convey this to the public. Would the member agree with me that this is not a provision that would now specifically empowers ordinary citizens to intervene? It simply would provide additional defences for people who were charged for supposedly using inappropriate undue force and for detaining someone too long.

I also wonder what implications these provisions might have for good Samaritans. There was an incident in my riding recently where one of my constituents was attacked by a man. She went into a shop and the shop owner and others then managed to remove the man and called the police. The police did not come until several days later. She does not know if the guy is still at large and is suffering psychologically. Both may have implications for potential civil actions against others who do not detain or intervene.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, students in Attawapiskat are yet again being forced to plead with the government to release the allowances due to them. It is humiliating. The Conservatives' third-party manager is not even returning their calls. Instead of preparing for their final exams like other Canadian students, they are being forced to try to scramble for money to buy food and simply buy bus fare.

What happened to the government's commitment to quality education for aboriginal students? Why are these students being subjected to this mistreatment?

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is truly a strong advocate for moving in the direction of renewable energy, particularly for the far north. I appreciate his contributions. I only wish the government would listen to his sage advice.

Indeed we did hear the Prime Minister say during the election in 2008 that he would under no circumstances allow the export of raw bitumen to a nation that has lesser standards than Canada. We heard the Prime Minister many times stand and remonstrate against China and say, “Why would we take action on climate change when we have China, the bad actor?” However, here the Conservatives are spending our public resources, taxpayer dollars, to fast-track a system that will send our raw bitumen and our jobs down a pipeline to China.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's support for trying to bring attention to the desecration by the government of 40 years of development of environmental law and policy in this country. Absolutely, it is reprehensible.

However, we cannot just look at the round table. We need to look at it through successive budgets. First the Conservatives killed the Canadian environmental network which provided support to all the small local organizations, including hunters and fishermen, so they could have a voice in Ottawa. Obviously, they want to get rid of the round table because it does credible, scientific, well-founded analysis, which they are not interested in.

What can we say? One by one, the Conservatives are destroying the very foundations upon which a credible regulatory process in this country was established and which I was proud to take overseas and market. Now we will not have that credible system.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to have more of a cheering squad on this side because there is such a resounding cheering squad on that side of the House for one sector of our entire Canadian economy. What I would like to hear from that side is just a tiny semblance of an appreciation that the rest of the world, including our major trading partner, the United States, is moving in the direction of a cleaner energy economy. Jobs can also be created in other sectors.