Linda Duncan

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Attawapiskat is not alone. Today two reserves in northern Quebec declared a state of emergency.

Capital and maintenance costs on reserves are underfunded by $200 million a year. Third party management will not solve these problems. The Alberta Lubicon are under third party management, yet mould still creeps throughout their school. The government's own evaluation concluded third party management was not effective and certainly did not solve the critical problems facing communities like Attawapiskat.

Why are the Conservatives applying this same failed policy for first nations communities in crisis?

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the policy that this party stands by. That is the policy that the other side pretends to stand by but puts absolutely no heart in the environment side of that agenda.

There is no reason why we cannot have a strong Canadian economy and also a clean environment. There have been proposals put forward. The technologies are there. There have been two evaluations, to give some concrete examples, of how we could green electricity. The government promised that it would provide 90% clean electricity, I think it was by 2020, and has done nothing in that direction except go the opposite way.

Two reports by the Pembina Institute of Ontario and Alberta have shown that by 2020 we could have completely clean electricity without reverting to nuclear. The technologies are there. We just do not have the regulatory drivers because the government does not believe in that.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer that question. I would like to give an elaborate answer.

Of course, I have been to the oil sands. I have been working for 40 years trying to clean up that sector. I recommend that the hon. member go to my website and read the report that I issued wherein are listed the recommendations by the deputy premier of the Northwest Territories, first nations leaders, scientists, all calling for the government to issue clear regulations and standards so that in fact we control that sector.

One thing I would point out to the hon. member is the hypocrisy of the government. The government says it will not take any action and will not require major reduction of greenhouse gases in this country because China is not acting. This is the very government that is encouraging the shipping of raw bitumen to China so that it will be upgrading and refining, and increasing its greenhouse gases.

I do not need to take any lectures from that side of the House about what is needed to actually address greenhouse gases. We need to work together with other countries, but first and foremost we need to act here. I think that if regulations were passed, then the taxpayers of Canada would not have to bear the burden that is going to be placed on them and the next generations.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and the answer is, absolutely, yes.

I participated in committee hearings over a two year period and issued my own report. Why was that important? We heard testimony from many parties, including major researchers in this country.

I also attended an oil sands fair, and I went around to all of these new technologies and asked what the key barrier was to their not selling their technologies. They said that it was the lack of regulation. The government is not requiring anybody to clean up this sector, and therefore nobody is investing in cleaner technologies.

The technologies are there. We need to get them out of the lab and into the field. What is missing is federal regulation.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to the motion but, frankly, I find it really sad that the hon. member for Halifax has to, again, bring this matter before the House because nothing is happening.

Over the last year, the religious leaders of this country have been meeting on Parliament Hill because they are so frustrated with the lack of action by the government on what they see as a matter that will greatly impact the planet.

Mardi Tindal, the moderator of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church, has called on us to consider climate change a crisis of conscience. She has urged Canadians to choose hope and action over despair and paralysis in addressing what she calls one of the most urgent, moral challenges in human history.

The government has, only at the 11th hour, after being in power for six years, revealed that it intends to pull out of Kyoto. It could have revealed that six years ago and been honest. But instead, it has held this country out for potential penalties because of its complete inaction. It is absolutely reprehensible.

The government has failed to deliver even on its own commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. It has failed to deliver on the commitments that the Government of Canada made at the conference of the parties in Bali, Copenhagen, and Cancun.

What have some of those commitments been?

In Copenhagen, it actually committed to reduce greenhouse gases. What has it done, instead? Nothing. It has allowed our emissions to rise continuously.

At Cancun, it committed, and I know this because I was in the room when it signed and sealed on this, that it would issue a national low carbon energy strategy. Where is that low carbon energy strategy?

We have a government that likes to accuse previous governments. It likes to pick on the Liberals, who did not take a lot of action either. It has been in power for six years, it has gone to many international conferences on this important matter, and it has delivered nothing on its commitments.

Now we are hearing that the government is appearing at the conference and, shamefully, suggesting it may not even provide the funding to lesser developed countries that are already suffering the impacts of climate change.

The Commissioner for Sustainable Development, who works in the Office of the Auditor General, has done a series of audit reports. The Auditor General issued a report just this year, castigating the government for the absolute failure to deliver on its promised reductions. Instead of requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it has significant lowered its targets by 90%.

Apparently, according to the Commissioner for Sustainable Development, who did an audit, between the years 2007 and 2010, Canadian emissions rose by 31% above the 2006 committed targets. He reported there was inconsistent reporting on climate measures and no clear measurable way to measure its programs, despite allocating over $9.2 billion. Where did that $9.2 billion go? We will get to that in a moment.

The commissioner also said that there was a stop and start pattern, and that it sent an inconsistent message to industry, to other levels of government, and to Canadians. Even the fossil fuel industry, we have noticed over the last year, is fed up. It is expressing concern that there is no legal certainty and that in order to move forward in its sector, it needs clear and legally binding targets.

The government then accused the Commissioner for Sustainable Development for not being up to date and so, its own department issued a report. That report found even more problems, that it was missing meeting even its own meagre targets.

The government ran on a platform of openness and transparency. Whatever happened to that party?

These government members, every one of them, voted against the New Democrat bill which was tabled twice in this House, passed twice in this House, simply calling for accountability on actions on climate change. It was not enough that the Conservatives could not win because the majority of elected officials were in favour of this bill, they called upon the Senate to kill that bill. We now have before us absolutely no real binding measure to control greenhouse gases.

To make matters worse, the government has been clear that it will oppose any binding treaty out of the meetings that are going on now in the conference of the parties. Why not just be honest? Why do the Conservatives not just tell us that they will not agree to any binding treaty? They have lobbied against every binding treaty that has been proposed in the last six years of the conference of the parties.

Where are we at now? What does the International Energy Agency, to which Canada belongs and which consists of the major fossil fuel industries of the world, have to say:

Every further delay comes with costs. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that any delay in coming to a global agreement will lead to significant “lock-in” of carbon intensive infrastructure...Thus, “every year of delay of introduction of a global framework with the sufficiently powerful economic incentives to direct investment to follow the path of the [2°C scenario] has two consequences: It increases the amount of capital stock that will need to be retired early, mostly in the power and industry sectors; [and] it limits dramatically the amount of more carbon-intensive infrastructure that can be added in the future.” Delaying action to 2015 will increase the costs of action by $4.3 for every $1 saved--

The Conservatives are the party that supposedly believes in a strong economy. It does not sound like it.

We need simply look to Alberta. The government intentionally issued regulations for the coal-fired sector which will exempt coal-fired power plants that have not even started being built. The government has taken no action on the single largest source of greenhouse gases being emitted in Canada right now and no regulations at all for the oil sands sector.

In the meantime, Alberta taxpayers are being called upon to pay the costs of massive transmission lines from our expanding coal-fired sector to the United States. How is that for a good economic plan?

The majority of Canadian greenhouse gases, as reported by Environment Canada, are in the energy sector, 82%; transport, 28%. In the last decade, fossil fuels have represented 54% of the growth in greenhouse gases and transport 45%.

The key issue is cost. The national round table that was appointed by the government and reports to the government reported that the imminent costs to Canada for climate warming will be in the order of $20 to $40 billion a year by 2050. That is 5% to 25% of the GDP and this is the government that claims it is fiscally responsible.

The sad thing is there are a myriad of solutions that will save Canadians money. The technologies already exist. We have heard it in many committees. We have university researchers and technology is being tested in the field, but absent are the regulatory triggers that nobody wants to invest in. We need action, but we are waiting for federal leadership.

We are waiting for federal leadership on revising the national building code. The government of Alberta has been clear that it will not upgrade its building code until the federal government upgrades its building code to ensure that we have more energy efficient buildings.

We are waiting for leadership on energy retrofits. After a massive campaign by Canadians, the government finally relented to return the program for one year yet we had a burgeoning energy efficiency sector, including in my riding. Many young people want to get into the sector but they have essentially given up on this area of work.

Where is the leadership on training? There are incredible opportunities for youth, aboriginal communities, and immigrants, to be trained in the new energy economy. Where is the leadership?

Where is the leadership on the smart grid? The government lauded the agreement that it signed, the U.S.-Canada energy dialogue. Where is the leadership? Where is the smart grid?

The government yanked all of the money for renewables. Meanwhile around the world, other countries are profiting and soon we will have to buy their technologies. Where is the level playing field?

Billions of dollars have been spent to merely test carbon capture sequestration for the coal industry and the oil sands, and mere millions for the renewable sector.

As my time is running out, I will speak of other matters during questions.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I find Bill C-293 both puzzling and troubling. Contrary to what the previous member suggested, the bill does not right a wrong. If enacted, it will pave the way potentially for far greater wrongs. I need only quote from the renowned Justice Louise Arbour, who said, in dealing with previous concerns regarding the treatment of prisoners:

One must resist the temptation to trivialize the infringement of prisoners' rights as either an insignificant infringement of rights, or as an infringement of the rights of people who do not deserve any better. When a right has been granted by law, it is no less important that such right be respected because the person entitled to it is a prisoner.

One would presume that these amendments came forward in response to the recommendations of the federal Correctional Investigator. The federal Correctional Investigator came forward with strong recommendations as a result of the very tragic case of Ashley Smith.

What were the facts in the case of Ashley Smith? Fourteen-year-old Ashley Smith was put in prison because she threw crab apples at a postman and she was shunted from institution to institution. Because it appeared she was under stress and had some mental health problems, she was violating certain rules in the prison. As a result, she went from solitary confinement, then to prison and to another prison. In the end, the sad case of Ashley Smith was that the prison officer sat and watched her die from self-strangulation. As a result of the tragic death of this young women and the failure of the prison guards to protect her interests, there were a number of investigations.

One of the investigations was by the federal Correctional Investigator. One thing he found was that her final grievance remained in the prison grievance box two and a half months after her death. Today we hear that there are inappropriate administrative duties on prison officers. There actually are corrections officer rules that require that box be emptied every day.

What was the nature of Ashley's complaints filed as grievances? The Correctional Investigator quoted a number of them, which I do not have time to go into. However, in his report the investigator found that there was improper designation of her grievances. They were found to be insignificant when he found that they were in fact serious. There was a failure to provide written responses as required by the prison directives. There was a failure to discuss her complaints with her and the responses were prepared well after she was transferred to other institutions. All of her complaints were responded to in an inappropriate way and not compliant with corrections policy.

Despite the heightened duty of vigilance due to her condition of confinement, there was a failure to observe her basic human rights. This was a tragic and avoidable death and the investigator made a number of recommendations. He recommended, contrary to what the hon. member has tabled, the following:

I recommend that all grievances related to the conditions of confinement or treatment in segregation be referred as a priority to the institutional head and be immediately addressed.

I recommend, once again, that the Correctional Service immediately commission an external review of its operations and policies in the area of inmate grievances to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of offenders' complaints and grievances at all levels of the process.

What do we find in the bill here? How does this bill respond to what the Correctional Investigator found? He found that corrections institutions were failing immeasurably in honouring the basic right of considering the grievances. This bill has the opposite effect.

This bill, contrary to due process, gives complete discretion to the regional deputy commissioner or the commissioner or any delegate. In other words, it could be totally within the discretion of any corrections officer to designate somebody as a vexatious prisoner. There are no criteria, there is no process, and in fact the commissioner, or the person making the designation, does not even have to inform the prisoner in writing until after the designation is made.

There is some reference to having a conversation with the prisoner about the process. This is a complete violation of due process. We live in a country of due process. That is how we are made. That is why we are honoured to be a member of the United Nations: we operate by the rule of law and due process. That means we follow basic principles.

This bill violates all of those principles.

Then the prisoner is going to be denied, potentially for a whole year, even the opportunity to raise any kind of grievance. Again, let us remember that we are including the rising numbers of prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues, as documented by the corrections investigator and a number of officials. As a result, there is a high probability that in this process, anybody in the prison could designate somebody with a significant mental health issue, and they will be silenced.

What is the solution? What is the redress for this prisoner? Well, the prisoner can go to court--this from the very government that criticizes us all the time over the possibility that we might table bills that might be litigious. This is the very government that castigated me for daring to table an environmental bill of rights that would simply have allowed Canadians the right to go to court if the government failed to be transparent, open and participatory.

As for the right to go to court, these are prisoners who have been denied the ability to even file a grievance, and we are supposed to believe that they are going to be given access to the courts. As my colleague on this side of the House suggested after the bill was first presented, why is there not a more reasonable mechanism? Why is there not an independent mediator within the prison system, who could come in the same way that many independent people do to make sure prisoners are being treated appropriately? Why not consider some other kind of mechanism?

I hope the member who tabled this bill will give serious consideration, if her bill proceeds, to sending it to committee to be measurably amended, so that at least the government, if it sides with this bill, will show that it is siding with due process of law and human rights.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very thorough and clearly knowledgeable and grounded presentation.

I have been going through the bill and trying to compare it with the previous legislation. I have to say, as a former legislative drafter in the office of the attorney general of Alberta, I am finding some rather peculiar things in this bill. I think the hon. member is making a good call that this go to committee. I share his views. I am sure the government means the best. It is trying to follow up and table a bill to fill a gap that our party had previously suggested be remedied.

However, if we look at section 35, unlike the previous provision, it simply says “a person who is not guilty of an offence”. An offence of doing what? The current Criminal Code says “an offence of assault or an offence using force”. So someone could do any offence and be absolved of liability.

There is also the issue of proximity and it does not seem to be clarified in these amendments. If we look at subclause 35(1)(b)(i) and (ii), they read, “has entered the property” and “or has just done so”, and (c)(ii) reads, “or retaking the property”. That could be a month later, five years later or anywhere. There do not seem to be any boundaries in this provision. It sounds like it merits a discussion in committee.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the presentations by the hon. member from my grandfather's homeland.

The hon. member made reference to a clause, which I cannot find in the bill. He may have been simply describing a situation. He referenced “escaping from”, that the property owner is able to intervene and arrest or take some action against the person who the owner has reasonable grounds to believe is illegally doing something and that the action is allowed if that person is “escaping from”.

Could the member clarify that. If those words are in the bill, they may be a bit of a problem because someone could be caught in the act, but not actually escape from the scene? Could he elaborate on that?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite willing to share his previous experience at the provincial level on dealing with justice issues.

I am of two minds on the bill. There are lots of occasions where we recognize it could be a scenario where a gang is running down the street and knocks down an elderly woman and grabs her purse. People intervene and hold that person until the police arrive. It is done expeditiously and the police are immediately alerted and the people only hang on to the perpetrator until the police arrive.

There might be some concerns with the bill and perhaps at committee we should look at whether it needs to be constrained somewhat. Let me give a couple of examples.

In Summer Village where I have a cottage, we have been unable to have any RCMP or regular police surveillance. The communities do their own surveillance. There have been many occasions when there has been a break-in with some violence. Those are occasions where if the property owner intervened, there might be harm to both parties. Should we be encouraging direct intervention?

There have been a lot of circumstances in Alberta where there has been some level of violence between farmers and land men who are surveying for oil and gas activity. I am wondering if perhaps we should be exploring potential constraints in these scenarios where there may be encouragement to take some level of violence against people who come onto someone's property.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question basically sums up the concerns that have been raised on this side of the House.

Canada has been renowned for having a justice system that tries to balance the scales. What is more important is that if the government is, as it professes to be, concerned about the victims of crime, then surely our focus should be on the prevention of crime and the prevention of victimization of youth.

One part of the bill that members on this side of the House fought very hard to have separated out of it and expedited in the last Parliament is the sexual exploitation of children. I notice that Senator Patrick Brazeau has authored a piece talking about the fact that nowhere is the devastation of sexual exploitation more pervasive than among aboriginal children and that they represent as much as 90% of those being exploited. Senator Brazeau is calling for programs to deal with this and to prevent the sexual exploitation.

Surely that makes sense. Surely we need to pool our resources and move towards addressing this critical discrimination of the victims being aboriginal children.