Linda Duncan

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very thoughtful presentation on what is a very critical bill. I may have missed it, but she may have specifically spoken to the precautionary principle, which is supposed to be the underlying principle of all our environmental health laws in Canada. It is a principle that we have signed on to through the United Nations.

It is incumbent upon the government to take intervening action and not wait. As an environmental lawyer, after waiting many years and giving the power to recall, I would like the member comment on two things.

First, should the government perhaps give more attention to asserting its powers to intervene and preclude the sale or use of certain products in Canada to prevent the introduction?

Second, as I understand with a lot of these products, while a lot of them can harm humans who are intended to use them, there is a sidebar further impact when these substances enter into the environment and previously unthought of or perhaps not assessed impacts occur to our ecosystems.

Could she comment on those two issues and does she think the bill has adequately addressed those matters?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our party is pleased the bill has come forward, particularly with the number of amendments we put forward, as well as amendments by other parties, which we thought were useful and also supported.

I hold the concerns of my members on that committee with the delay in moving on a comprehensive system of labelling. Increasingly, day by day, we find that a lot of the products used by Canadians contain very harmful substances.

Could the member advise us on what the government is doing to expedite moving on this? Could he tell us who will be represented on the advisory panel that will be established to look into expediting a comprehensive system of labelling?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very thoughtful comments.

Similar to his background, although I do not have his extensive medical background, I was one of the founders of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton. I am fully aware that with sexual assaults it is not really the bogeyman in the bush, but in many cases, it is actually within the family or among neighbours. So there is a lot of sensitivity in the issue and we need the sensitivity of the police when they are investigating and following up.

I wonder, though, if the member could speak to a couple of issues. I raised a similar question to one of the member's colleagues. While I think it is laudable that we are trying to beef up the ability to follow up police activity, particularly to intervene in terms of prevention, that raises the question, when it comes to committee, does the member think it would be important to look at resourcing?

We know our police officers are already stretched to the limit. They are now dealing with major gang incidents. We are dealing with Internet pornography and the molestation of children on the Internet. We have extremely complex cases to deal with now and the police are already pressed.

There is also the issue of intelligence sharing. I have worked in the area of international environmental law enforcement and I know how critical it is to get co-operation not just between countries but between the police forces within our country, so between the RCMP and the provincial police officers.

I wonder if the member could comment about the resourcing and whether that would be an important matter to look at when we are approving this bill, or are we simply loading more onto the police without providing the adequate resources? Should there be a commitment by the government at the same time?

Also there is the issue of where it is going to be necessary to report sexual offences occurring outside Canada. As I mentioned previously, in some countries, simply holding hands in public is considered a sexual offence. What kind of system are we putting forward for the intelligence sharing and to validate?

In some cases, new Canadians come here who may have been charged with an offence. Where are we going to draw the line on what has to be reported?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly disappointed to hear about the problems the members have had in the committee with ample opportunity not being provided for both the members and affected, concerned members of the public to comment on the bill. It goes against the promise of the government for openness and transparency.

I have a couple of questions for comment by the member. I understand that one of the measures this bill proposed was that the registry be expanded to include sexual offences committed outside Canada.

There can be occasions where, in some countries, simply holding hands in public is considered a sexual offence. I wonder if the member could comment on some of the inherent dangers in having a mandatory reporting of sexual offences committed outside the country.

As well, has there been attention to including consultation with sexual assault centres in Canada, who probably have a lot to contribute to the deliberations of the committee?

[The Environment, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government just does not get it.

The budget killed the eco-energy renewable power program at a loss of thousands of jobs in Alberta alone. By this September, zero federal funds will be available to a sector that was attracting billion dollar investments.

Why has the government abandoned Canada's renewable energy sector, when even the International Energy Agency says investing in green power is the path to economic recovery?

[Infrastructure, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to the motion tabled by the member for Labrador. It is a motion of great interest to me due to my long history of work with first nations and other communities in northern Alberta. The motion perhaps raises more questions than answers, and I think it raises a good point for discussion in the House.

What is the north of Canada? What about the communities that are squeezed between the more highly populated developed areas along the southern edge of Canada and our far north, which is getting a lot of attention of late? I think the motion raises a lot of good issues, particularly about the failure of successive federal governments to give enough attention to the infrastructure needs of our northern communities, including those on the northern edge of Nunavut and other first nations communities within Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

There are two issues here. I think the hon. member from the Bloc raised a very good point. What is meant by “cooperatively”? If it means joint funding, that perhaps raises a serious issue. I know that certainly in northern Alberta the municipalities are already extremely stretched financially in trying to deliver their infrastructure needs, particularly the community of Fort McMurray. Certainly the first nations and Métis communities of northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are stressed with trying to deliver education, health care, road construction, housing, wastewater treatment and water treatment. We need to be giving more attention to those issues.

That raises the issue of whether there is synchronicity between the budget, which talks about allocation of infrastructure dollars, and other legislative initiatives going on in the House. One legislative matter of particular significance is the announced federal initiative for new safe drinking water legislation for aboriginal communities. By coincidence, I have been researching a book on the legal aspects of providing safe drinking water to Métis and first nations peoples. There are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of big issues about whether or not we are adequately delivering on the constitutional and Supreme Court approved decision that there is a duty to better consult, consider and accommodate the interests and needs of first nations peoples.

I have had the opportunity over the last several years to have discussions with the mayor for the town of Fort McMurray, Melissa Blake. On a recent trip there by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we had discussions on the potential impacts of the oil sands on water. The mayor clarified in the meeting that she still has serious concerns about meeting the infrastructure needs of her community. She welcomes the infusion of federal dollars to build the highways for the safety of the workers who go to and from the tar sands operations, but she is still waiting for money to provide the basic services of education, health and so forth.

The motion addresses the issue that we have certain communities that are under particular stress. With regard to the first nations communities and the Métis settlements, the Alberta government, to its credit, has constitutionally recognized the Métis, established settlements in northern Alberta and transferred certain money. However, as the laws improve and we have higher standards for providing safe drinking water and wastewater treatment, those settlements are stressed with meeting these regulatory standards and coming up with the resources to deliver that.

I know that the president of the Métis Settlements General Council was here last week, meeting with the ministers and seeking additional support to have better wastewater treatment in the community. It is noteworthy that constitutionally the federal government does have responsibility for both the Métis as well as the first nations peoples. However, thus far the federal government seems to be balking at that.

I think those matters need to be revisited. I think it would be worthwhile to have a good, thorough all-party discussion about whether or not the needs of those “northern communities”, particularly the first nations government communities and the Métis settlements in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where they do not yet have designated settlements, are also getting equal attention and priority.

I commend the member for bringing forward the motion. It raises a lot of very critical issues. We need clarity on whether the suggestion is that these very communities would actually have to cost share. In most cases, these communities' finances are already stretched and that probably would be impossible, unless of course they could get matched funding from the provinces.

It is a very important point. I do not think we should in any way underplay the needs of our far northern communities that are starting to develop and merit a lot of support to build their infrastructure.

I will close by adding one additional point. The House will have noticed last week with the swine flu situation in some of the first nation communities, particularly in the northern provinces, the problem that overcrowding of housing is having with the spreading of the swine flu.

As these issues collide, it becomes all the more important that we recognize that some communities in Canada merit even further attention from us and they should be given careful consideration.

[June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reply but, unfortunately, it seems to be more of the same.

Perhaps our Prime Minister could talk to the President of the United States who might be more willing to open up the dialogue consistent with the North American agreement. I would encourage the Government of Canada to do so, which is its obligation under that agreement.

There has been a lot of talk about green incentives and support for a green economy and yet the budget, which I was opposed to for this very reason, cut funding to renewable technology. While the rest of the world moves forward, including our neighbour, the United States, which is investing billions of dollars in building its renewable technology to meet its climate change targets, we have done the opposite. Even the International Energy Agency has said that it is time for the world to move away from reliance on the fossil fuel industry and endorse the green economy.

At what juncture will the government finally change course?

I have had a chance to look briefly at the latest climate change action plan, which, from my brief look, appears to completely repeat the previous climate change action plan that was decried roundly by the Commissioner for Sustainable Development. I am talking about initiatives such as reliance on the public transit tax credits and reliance on a fund that money is simply put into, but none of these measures seem to be delivering real reductions in greenhouse gases. The government tabled a report yesterday indicating that greenhouse gases would continue to rise for some time in Canada.

Where within these measures is the action?

[June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, previously in the House, I raised concerns with the minister regarding continued delays in government action on climate change and the rising rates of Canadian sources of greenhouse gases. I asked the minister if he would finally move to impose legally-binding, absolute reduction targets for major emitters.

In reply, I was told that I was well aware of the clean energy dialogue purportedly ongoing between the Prime Minister and President Obama and that it was getting done there. In fact, regrettably, neither I nor, so far as I am aware, any other member of Parliament or Canadian citizen can say with any level of certainty what, if anything, is occurring in this apparent dialogue.

Contrary to the provisions of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation signed almost two decades ago by Canada, the United States and Mexico, critical deliberations on environmental policy are proceeding behind closed doors. This is despite Canada's commitment, pursuant to this agreement, to ensure transparency and participation by concerned Canadians in any environmental policy proposals.

If this is in fact where decisions on Canadian climate change policy are being made, will the government finally open up this dialogue and provide a place at the table for effective and concerned citizens and business leaders; will the government respect the will of the House, expressed clearly by the majority vote today, and impose binding, science-based targets and issue the final federal regulations needed to implement the promised cap and trade regime for major greenhouse gas emitter; and, will the government expedite these actions so that Canada will have something concrete to contribute to the global effort in addressing climate change leading to Copenhagen this December?

[The Environment, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has tabled his empty 2009 climate change plan. Incredibly it is a plan to do nothing, no binding reduction targets and delayed action on coal-fired. He will repeat the last 15 years of consultations, more delay, more hot air.

On National Clean Air Day, where is the long promised action on clean electricity?

Last year the Canadian Medical Association reported air pollution hospitalized an estimated 92,000 Canadians with 21,000 deaths. In whose interest is the minister delaying action on clean air and climate change?

[June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the more fulsome reply. It is gratifying that the second time around we get a better reply on what has gone on.

Regrettably, the action taken by Health Canada was only expedited by the interventions of private doctors and first nations peoples themselves.

Now that the issue has come out in the open, now that it is before the parliamentary committee, now that we have heard testimony, and we will hear testimony from Dr. O'Connor in the next couple of weeks, I am hopeful that Health Canada will step up to the plate and actually come forward with a fulsome budget to support independent epidemiological work in the area in an expeditious manner before any more unfortunate impacts occur.