Linda Duncan

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, he budget aims to remove the deficit created by the Conservative government through cuts totalling $5.2 billion over three years; cuts to services critical to Canadians, to the detriment of our environment and to future generations.

The budget purportedly is a western advantage budget. I am afraid that is not the view I am hearing expressed by my constituents and many other Albertans.

Alberta is bearing the brunt of the impacts and the costs associated with the reckless, fast-tracked, so-called streamlined approvals for oil sands and pipelines. The government brags about how the oil sands are fuelling the national economy, so where are the associated benefits to Albertans?

While crime rates are generally reported down across the country, which is a good thing, violent crimes, unfortunately, seem to be on the rise in Edmonton. Many, including the police, have associated this is in a large way to a boom town having increased drug trade which attracts crime. Meanwhile, Alberta taxpayers are being downloaded with the bulk of the cost to build the government's desired new prisons.

Where are the benefits to Alberta of the impacts of the oil sands?

According to the Edmonton Social Planning Council and elder and disability advocates, John and Carol Wodack, particularly hard hit by the budget will be those living on low to moderate incomes in Alberta. The new OAS rules will hurt the poorest of seniors. On a phased-in basis to 2023, access to the OAS will be delayed until age 67. This will hurt those seniors struggling to meet their basic expenses, including rising electricity prices, thanks to deregulation.

We heard today a government member faulting the Government of Ontario for investing in clean renewable power as being the cause for rising electricity prices. I welcome any one of those members, including the Alberta members, to stand in the House and reveal what has been going on in Alberta with deregulated, major league, coal-fired power electricity and with expanded power lines to export coal-fired power to the United States.

There will be no new dollars for infrastructure. While Edmonton services the oil fields, bringing wealth to Canadians, the government has not seen fit to offer gratitude by providing dollars to repair crumbling infrastructure and expand the long awaited LRT in Edmonton to serve our growing population, which is being attracted to our province because of the booming oil and gas sector. What about money to build the passenger train between Edmonton and Calgary, which would be welcomed by all the residents of Edmonton and Calgary?

All federal housing programs, including CMHC, will be cut by $131 million, on top of deeper cuts in the last budget, despite the fact there has been a call in our city for increased investment in affordable housing, particularly for the growing aboriginal population moving to our capital city.

A once burgeoning energy efficient sector has been cut short by the abject refusal of the government, despite the demands and the calls by Canadians, to provide long-term support to homeowners and small businesses seeking assistance to employ local contractors to do energy retrofits. The nonsensical return of the money for one year was not enough of an incentive to re-establish the businesses that have shut down in my riding.

The narrow job strategy of the government remains, pulling youth out of high school and sending them to Fort McMurray. Many youth in my own community who had expressed a desire to get into the energy efficiency business gave up and left the province.

The cuts to the environment are absolutely reprehensible. I am proud to say that I come from one of the cities in Alberta where people support protecting the environment. They are absolutely astounded at the government's decision to further streamline reviews and to remove the most important trigger of assessment of major projects, which is the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act.

What is most reprehensible is the Conservatives' decision, as they did in the last two budgets, to put these kinds of measures through a budget, and we are anticipating measures in the budget implementation bill. It is completely undemocratic and counter to the solid foundation of environmental law in which I feel privileged to have participated over the last four years. However, in one fell swoop, in order to save a few dimes and short-circuit by a few weeks or maybe a few months some of these major projects, the Conservatives are throwing away one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation in this country.

In addition, one of the most important and previously growing employment sectors in this country was the environment sector. If the Conservatives had sought the advice of their own round table on environment, they would have determined that the market analyses showed that it was the single largest growing sector for employment, potentially, in this country.

What is in the budget for aboriginal Canadians? In her last report, the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, called for a radical fix to address the deep-seated structural impediments leading to inequities for first nations and for action to bring greater government accountability, not accountability by the first nation peoples and their government, but greater accountability by the federal government.

She stated that there was a lack of clarity about service levels to ensure comparability of services, a lack of legislative base and a lack of timely delivery. She stated, “What is truly shocking is the lack of improvement over the last decade”. She also stated, “In a wealthy country like Canada, this gap is simply unacceptable”.

She called for a legislative base for delivery of key services, not just education , but also for housing, for health and for child and family services for aboriginal communities. She called for greater accountability and delivery of federal responsibilities. It was not only the former auditor general but it was also a series of panels struck by the government that called for major investments right now in all of these needs.

To its credit, the government did listen to one of those needs and has come forward with some dollars to improve access to education. What is not clear is whether the dollars being delivered will actually accord to aboriginal children equal access to education as all other Canadian children receive.

The government has committed to begin drafting legislation to provide a legislative framework for education with willing partners. It is not sure what that kind of language is supposed to mean.

The first nations have been very clear. They totally oppose a one size fits all. Therefore, it will be absolutely incumbent on the government to directly consult with all of the first nations in this country to ensure they are on side with the legislation that is being developed and that it actually meets their needs, including their cultural needs.

The commitment of $275 million spread over the next three years to support education and build schools has been welcomed. It is not clear if this is additional to the moneys committed in the main or if this is the replacement. Given the Assembly of First Nations' estimate that $500 million are needed just to provide equal education, this may fall short of what its own panel recommended. As 40 new schools are needed at a cost of $12 million each, this dollar figure falls far short.

Sadly, there is no new money for housing for first nations despite the need for 85,000 more housing units. The First Nations Statistical Institute was killed. Why would the Conservatives kill this institute? It was actually formed to provide data and to help inform economic development on first nations communities, which is what the government is saying that it supports.

The most important thing the government can do is, first, to finally commit to the expeditious finalization of the negotiations of specific claims and comprehensive claims, and second, to deliver on the honour of the Crown and deliver its duties and responsibilities and the dollars necessary for the first nations to begin to have self-government and participate in the economy.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Natural Resources insulted aboriginal communities, calling some of them “socially dysfunctional”. Remarkably, he then defended the insult as supportive of economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples. I invite the minister to extend an apology in this place now.

Could the minister also explain how killing the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program offers hope that his government's touted commitment that those very aboriginal communities most impacted by major industry will also benefit?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to the concerns I have with a couple of provisions in the bill.

The first is the provision of the discretionary power to the minister to singularly designate the name of safe countries. Generally speaking, when dealing with a sensitive area like this, it is important to keep out “political factors”. That is in no way pointing fingers at any particular party that may have its preferences, but making sure that we have very clear criteria when making an important decision on the fate of somebody's life and liberty.

My second concern goes to the clause that would prohibit refugee claimants who had been incarcerated in their home country for more than 10 years. We are well aware of certain situations in some regimes where people are being incarcerated for rather inappropriate reasons and would not be incarcerated in our country through a proper open judicial review process. I wonder if the member thinks that is perhaps a little too hard-edged and that there should be some exceptions to the rule.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House in support of the motion tabled by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Vancouver East. I commend her for bringing forward this motion, the only action that has come forward in response to the complete inaction by the government. I also commend her for bringing forward the emergency debate in the House, which gave elected members an opportunity to express their concerns and propose constructive action.

The supply of drugs is indeed a critical issue. I found it profoundly disturbing during the emergency debate to have our federal Minister of Health continually refer to “clients”. This is not an issue of pharmaceutical companies and supply to clients and continuing the supply and profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. This is an issue of patient care. I found the whole approach taken by the senior official in the Government of Canada, who is supposed to be upholding the protection of health care for Canadians, absolutely astounding.

The Conservative government desires to be government but it denies or ignores its duty to govern. We have seen this in environment and we now see it in health care. Canadians have been clear that it has long been the number one issue for Canadians. People are concerned about the continuance of quality public health care. Now we have, yet again, another crisis.

Was it earlier this week or last week that we had the crisis of OxyContin? Again, the federal government said it was nothing to do with the federal government and there was nothing the federal government had to do. As my colleague in the House stated, we continually hear denial from the federal government, that it is a provincial issue. We had one of the representatives of the Conservative Party again remonstrating, suggesting that it is absolutely not an area of federal jurisdiction.

I concur with my colleague who spoke before me that one of the most obvious sources is the Canada Health Act. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that it is not the only federal statute which prescribes a duty and a power for the federal government to intervene in the protection of Canadians' health. As the hon. member mentioned, section 3 of the Canada Health Act very clearly states:

It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

Clearly, this is exactly the situation we have come into. We have a one-source supply. Regardless of whose fault it was or who signed up to provide the drugs, this is the scenario. The Government of Canada's mandate under the statute is to ensure this law is abided by and enforced. So if there is a scenario where provinces are inappropriately relying on unreliable suppliers of drugs, it is the federal government's obligation to intervene and work co-operatively with the provinces.

There is a second statute that lays out the responsibilities and mandate of the Minister of Health. As a lawyer, the first thing I do in determining whether there is a federal mandate is go to the law. I would encourage the government to actually looking at the mandate for the portfolios it delivers. In this case, that is the Department of Health Act. This is similar to the Minister of the Environment whose mandate is under the Department of the Environment Act and so on. What does the Department of Health Act say? It very clearly states:

The Minister’s powers, duties and functions relating to health include the following matters:... the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada... the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases... cooperation with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for reserving and improving public health.

Very clearly, additional power is given to intervene. Section 11 of that act states:

The Governor in Council may make regulations to give effect to and carry out the objects of this Act.

There are very clear regulatory powers to ensure that Canadians across this country have equal, fair access to quality health care for an affordable cost.

I have heard from constituents. I have also heard from constituents who are oncologists and they are gravely concerned at the inaction of the government in this crisis. These oncologists have to make a choice between reducing their patients' pain or conserving medicines that might be more critically needed. It is an absolutely reprehensible scenario and the government should be stepping in.

I give full credit to the Alberta minister of health who has stepped up to the plate and said that he will lead the charge and try to find the drugs that are necessary for Canadians. Kudos for him stepping in and doing that. He has admitted that he is looking far afield and it may be difficult. He is projecting a long-term shortage and has stated that we are in a critical scenario. This is all the more reason for the government to step up to the plate and take the action specifically laid out in the motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver East.

I would like to close with some of the statements from the doctors in my riding, who are calling on the government to take action on ensuring that the approval of alternative drugs is expedited. The Auditor General of Canada has indicated there is a problem in this area. That is a measure that is included in our motion. We call on the government to step up to the plate and take action on what the Auditor General has recommended.

On behalf of the people of Canada, could the government please be seized of its mandated responsibilities and take action on this critical matter facing the people of Canada?

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax is a hundred per cent right. I did quote from the 2011 report by the environment commissioner. He did note that the Transport Safety Board had identified deficiencies in all of the emergency procedures manuals that it had reviewed. There was no identification of hazards, no assessment of the risks posed by the hazards, no list of residents in the potential area, no map of nearby residences or evacuation routes, and no description or location of emergency response equipment. These are very significant problems.

Therefore, the government, in spite of bringing forward good legislation, has a big task ahead of it. We look forward to a substantive response on the proper investments to make sure that the public is kept safe.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her cogent question. I know she is a great defender of the environment as well.

Absolutely, I have witnessed first hand the devastation that can occur when we do not properly regulate, inspect, and enforce our rail laws. This is harm that should not happen to the environment. It is preventable. This is the disgrace of it. It is absolutely incumbent on the government to reverse its policy of turning over more and more of the responsibilities for inspection and the monitoring of critical laws like rail safety. I am looking forward to the government stepping up to the plate and saying that it realizes this law is important and showing good faith and actually bringing forward some cases, putting more inspectors out there and making sure that these lines are inspected more sufficiently, and also putting in place the proper technology so that it can actually detect the rail line errors.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very astute question. In fact, it is now the case that with most of these kinds of offences where there may be harm to public safety or to the environment, most statutes, including federal and environmental statutes, now provide a lot of innovative order powers for the courts. As we have seen in the courts, the latter actually give preference to those alternative remedies. Those would include, in addition to any monetary penalty, that the convicted party would have to invest many more millions of dollars in improving their rail safety, training, and in providing cleanup equipment along the rail line, and so forth. Therefore, it does not matter what the monetary penalty is, unless of course the rail lines are inspected and they are in force. In fact a million dollars seems pretty small in the case of a major incident.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand in support of the legislation, but as will become clear in my presentation to this House, I have some reservations on the commitment of the government to actually deliver on the legislation.

As the parliamentary secretary said in his comments on Bill S-4, the government should do what only governments can do and he noted that one of those things was to ensure public safety. However, he then added that it was important to move toward greater privatization and less government control, including over the rail industry.

I would suggest these are rather contradictory statements. It is that very contradictory approach to governance, frankly, by the current government that has caused increasing risks to public health and safety.

Nonetheless, the government can be commended for including many of the recommendations made over the many years of review of the legislation to improve it, including the introduction of administrative penalties and the stricter or higher penalties for serious infractions.

The introduction of administrative penalties is long overdue. I in fact participated in an initiative by Treasury Board and the Department of Justice in 1989. I was then chief of enforcement for Environment Canada and one of the few officials in the government who was actually supportive of this measure. We had a very productive measure. We travelled in the United States and examined some European jurisdictions for more innovative approaches to ensuring compliance with federal statutes. One of those measures was administrative penalties, which have only recently been put into environmental laws. It is encouraging to see them put into this law.

However, what causes me great concern is another comment by the parliamentary secretary. He may have misspoken. He may not understand fully what is included in enforcement of compliance policy and the criteria that are normally put in place in determining what kind of penalty should be exercised.The parliamentary secretary suggested that the value of administrative penalties was in a case of persistent non-compliance. I would like to assure the House that certainly in the case of environmental statutes, a case of persistent non-compliance is generally a trigger for a serious investigation and, in all likelihood, a prosecution.

The very purpose of legislation and the very purpose of an enforcement compliance system is to show to the regulated industry that there is a threat of detection and, in turn, enforcement.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that I was splitting my time with the member for Drummond. If you could let me know when my time is up so I do not speak over it, I would appreciate that.

It is very important when tabling an important piece of legislation like this to make it clear within the agency that is going to be responsible for ensuring compliance that a very clear and consistent enforcement and compliance strategy has been put forward.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House, including to the government of the day, the fact that a predecessors of theirs, a former environment minister, Tom McMillan, of the Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney, actually took that measure and had a very commendable approach to regulating at the federal level. On the day he tabled his bill, the now Canadian Environmental Protection Act, he simultaneously tabled an enforcement and compliance policy. Why did he do that? He said that a law without effective enforcement was a hollow measure.

I think that would make sense to everyone in this House. In other words, we can have the strictest penalties in the world, we can showcase the law and say that it is the best one in the western world, as we often say about our Canadian environmental statutes, but it is of little value if there is not equal commitment to effectively enforce that law and to ensure compliance.

Hearing the responses today from the government members to questions asked in this area, I am not reassured. I look forward in the future, perhaps in further discussions of the bill, for that matter to be clarified.

Why am I raising this? One of the most serious problems with rail safety in this country, in some cases, has been the failure to regulate and the failure of successive governments actually to enact the necessary regulations to give credibility to the Railway Safety Act. We have had review after review, including by the rail safety board, identifying regulatory gaps. However, the most significant problem with rail safety that has been identified by independent review bodies has been the failure of the government to effectively enforce that legislation.

I will refer to a report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled in the House in December 2011, very recently. What did the commissioner find? He and his review found:

Transport Canada lacks a consistent approach to planning and implementing compliance activities [in transportation]. As a consequence, it cannot ensure that sites are inspected according to the highest risk.

He further stated:

Transport Canada has not ensured that corrective action has been taken on instances of non-compliance.

In addition, he stated:

Transport Canada has given only temporary, interim approval for nearly half of the emergency response assistance plans put in place by regulated organizations. As a consequence, many of the most dangerous products regulated under the Act have been shipped for years without the Department having completed a detailed verification of plans for an immediate emergency response.

I have personal knowledge of these deficiencies. I happen to own property on Lake Wabumun, where in 2005 there was largest freshwater spill in the history of North America. Three-quarters of the spilled bunker C oil still lies at the bottom of Lake Wabumun. There was somewhat of an attempt to clean it up. I have to say that the Government of Canada, regrettably, did not appear on the scene until a week after the spill. Why is that critical? It is because there is a first nation located on that lake, which was monumentally impacted by that spill. The end result of the spill was a special commission by the Government of Alberta to ensure there would better emergency response measures in the future. I am sad to say there was no parallel review conducted by the Government of Canada.

It is not only the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who has identified problems with the regulations under the statute. By the way, the new statute does provide for additional regulations, but, regrettably, the government has not simultaneously tabled the listing of regulations and the timetable wherein these regulations will be put in place. The statute is fine insofar as it is an enabling legislative measure, but the substance of this act comes with the regulations. We do not have any knowledge of when the government plans to come forward with these regulations, what the timetable and consultation program will be. I would encourage the government to bring these forward because it would give a lot of assurance to the people in the communities who live and work along the rail lines.

I would also encourage the government to table an enforcement and compliance strategy. Why is that critical? It is because it has been determined in review after review by the rail safety board that the system that the present government and the government before it have put into place is simply to abandon enforcement. It has been turned over to a self-inspection and self-enforcement system by the rail lines. That would be fine if we were not dealing with an industry that is increasingly carrying heavier loads and more dangerous cargo.

By the way, this cargo runs along most of the waterways of this country. The rail lines were originally built along the waterways to cool the trains' coal-fired engines. A good deal of the Canadian environment is potentially at risk, hence, the reason for the amendments to ensure greater rail safety in Canada. However, that is all the more reason it is incumbent upon the government to ensure those provisions are actually effectively inspected and enforced.

I would bring to the attention of the House a report by Transport Canada following the Wabumun and Cheakamus spills. It stated:

The Railway Track Safety Rules do not provide any guidance on fatigue life, nor are there common industry standards for rail life based on accumulated tonnage and the properties of the steel.

...Neither the quality of steel nor the accumulated tonnage is factored into this decision.

It further stated:

Recognizing the limitations of existing inspection tools, there is a requirement for additional strategies to ensure that maintenance rails are not installed where they are likely to have a shorter fatigue life than the parent rail.

It made a number of recommendations on putting more specific binding criteria in place for the maintenance of rails. Again, as I mentioned at the outset, that is very critical because many Canadians live and work along these lines and we need to ensure the public safety of Canadians.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a very cogent presentation, in which he talked not only about what is in the bill on paper but also the needed commitment from the government to actually implement and enforce the bill, which is equally important.

I note that in his 2011 report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found profound problems with Transport Canada in its failure to effectively inspect and enforce, including following up and ensuring that emergency response assistance plans were effective and in place. I also note that the legislation allows for further exemptions. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we need not only good, strong, improved legislation, which New Democrats support, but also to have it effectively enforced.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a former environmental enforcer, I commend the government for increasing the penalties and its show of concern for public safety and toward strict enforcement of a potentially dangerous industry.

Past governments have tabled enforcement compliance policies at the same time that they have tabled a bill calling for stricter enforcement to show good faith that they intend to show clear criteria on how they will enforce. Could the parliamentary secretary advise if in the coming budget there will be an increase in dollars for railway inspection? Could he also inform the House if the government is also changing gears and going to move toward having the rail safety officers inspecting and enforcing, not the railway company itself?