Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from the hon. member across the way. It is good to hear that there might be new funding coming to the first nations of Canada, particularly in the area of safe drinking water.

However, I would ask the member if he could perhaps clarify. It is one thing to keep promising more money to resolve a problem attested to by hundreds of boil-water advisories; it is another thing to come forward with the actual legislation that was promised last year. In addition, it is my understanding that when these moneys are passed over for safe drinking water and waste water facilities, by a contribution agreement the liability passes to the first nations.

I understand that is a concern for the first nations. Could the member please address those matters?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the hon. member is coming from. My grandfather emigrated from his province at the turn of the century to Canada.

I support the opinions the member has put forward but I would put forward that it is equally important that the larger municipalities gain the benefit of this gas tax mechanism as well as the smaller communities.

In my province, both small and large communities have borne the brunt of the boom from the tar sands, which both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are apparently supporting to be expedited even further than it has been in the past. As a result of that, we have burgeoning populations in both the larger municipalities and in the smaller municipalities stretching between my city and the town of Fort McMurray.

I am wondering if the member will speak to whether or not, when we have a booming economy, we should be putting pressure on the municipalities to come up with half the money.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the Northwest Territories for his very cogent comments on the motion, which the NDP supports. What is regrettable, as the member has mentioned, is it was not in the original budget or brought forward by the Liberals as an amendment.

Would the member from the Northwest Territories talk a bit more about any problems the municipalities in Canada have faced in receiving the funds under the building Canada fund and how having it through the gas tax might enable municipalities to access money?

Would he also speak to the issue of it being fine to provide the money to municipalities to repair roads and crumbling sidewalks, but what about money for energy conservation?

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent, cogent and clear remarks on the bill. It is an important bill and I commend the government for bringing it forward. We need to extend the ambit of our responsibilities over the Arctic and extend those protections.

What is unfortunate is that the government did not bring forward at the same time measures to protect the coastal regions. Those who work in the area of marine law and marine protection fully understand that it is not enough to simply protect the ocean as it is. What is even more important is to protect the areas of land that are on the edge of those waters because there may be deleterious substances and a lot of activities, erosion and so forth, that can affect the fishery, the wildlife and the clarity of the water.

It is one thing to table a strong law but it is another thing to have the leadership to actually bring forward the resources and the strategy to enforce it. The commissioner for sustainable development, when he tabled his report in the last couple of weeks, raised a litany of problems and failures of the government to actually enforce the law.

The former minister of the environment, in the mid-1980s when the government first tabled the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, said, “A law is hollow without an enforcement strategy”.

Does the hon. member think it is important to also bring forward a strategy on enforcing this law and actually putting it into effect?

[Petitions, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am filing this petition with the House on behalf of more than 370 residents of Edmonton and area.

The petitioners are appealing to the House of Commons and the Government of Canada on behalf of Christians of Iraq. They are petitioning the House to protect the lives and security of Christians in Iraq. They are seeking peacekeeping forces as well as aid, food, clothing, medicine and refuge in Canada for refugees.

[February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his reply. In fact, my question had very clearly been for the minister on matters arising from the Commission on Sustainable Development report which dealt with greenhouse gases and toxins. I look forward to a reply in an early and timely manner to my questions on toxins.

Returning again to the issue of climate change, does the hon. member not support the principle of polluter pays? And does he not agree that the most effective trigger for private investment in technologies, including carbon capture and sequestration, would be to issue binding regulations on the sectors that are emitting the greenhouse gases?

[February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to suggest anything. I am looking forward to the answers to my questions from the government side.

In my follow-up questions I had asked a question regarding the government's reaction to the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I have some questions on which I would like further elaboration, and I look forward to a reply.

The minister had replied that he is acting on the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I am wondering if the minister could please advise the House of the specific measures being taken in that regard, more specifically measures on reducing smog-producing air emissions, action long promised and overdue. Is the minister directing his department to expedite the new framework, in particular for coal-fired power plants?

Is the minister intent to again allow direct engagement of federal environment officials in provincial air emission reduction processes, and reverse the pull back by his predecessors? Previously there was very active participation by federal officials in provincial review processes in my jurisdiction.

Given that the minister has raised concerns about United States-based coal-fired power emissions, has the minister directed work on the promulgation of a CEPA regulation to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, mirroring the Alberta law now in place?

The minister replied that the solution to reduce emissions of toxins in greenhouse gases is investment in technology. Does the minister support adherence to the polluter pays principle? Is the minister aware of the significance of regulation as the prime trigger for private investment and deployment of improved pollution control technologies? Does the minister intend to impose legally binding requirements on large final emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if so, when?

The federal government had an oversubscribed eco-energy program to incent the development and deployment of renewable technologies. If Canada intends to parallel American clean energy initiatives while the U.S. has increased its support for renewables, can the minister advise why the government cut funding?

My last two questions are in reply to the minister's reply to me. Is the minister planning to expedite federal action on the long overdue management plans required under SARA for species at risk?

Finally, the commissioner identified numerous instances of failure of his department to monitor and enforce compliance with federal laws, and in a number of instances laws regulating significant toxins. Can the parliamentary secretary advise what specific measures the minister intends to deploy to ensure that these laws are enforced?

[February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question some time ago and this is my opportunity to seek further embellishment to the response provided. I note that the minister is absent from the House, and I am looking forward to hearing from his parliamentary secretary.

[National Hockey Day Act, February 23rd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, An Act respecting a National Hockey Day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for seconding my bill.

This bill is being brought forward at this point in time when people are suffering across Canada, community to community, during the economic downturn. The intention of the bill is to honour Canada's historic sport, hockey. There is some controversy within my own party about what is the best sport in Canada. I stand proudly and say hockey is Canada's historic sport. It is enjoyed by all ages, all genders, all communities, and all cultural backgrounds across our country.

This past hockey weekend was celebrated. The CBC sponsors the competition in a community. There were regional challenges. There were outdoor hockey reunions. There are historic community run rinks. Every day after school my brother and his school friends would go out and play hockey in the local rink. We need to bring back that historic community practice. We need to support our communities and get people out having fun.

In my own riding of Edmonton—Strathcona Vimy Ridge School sponsors a hockey school. Last Friday I was able to join the game which included a female goalie. The school is very supportive of the bill.

I am happy to bring this bill forward and look forward to receiving the support of the House for this initiative for Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a wonderful part of Alberta, for bringing forward the bill. It sounds very laudatory.

When I was the first chief of enforcement for Environment Canada, I was involved in major sting operations, involving fuel cocktails where shipments for disposal were brought into Canada. That was the first alert that we needed to work more closely with our American neighbours. Then when I worked at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, I initiated a project with Mexico, the United States, and Canada to get a better handle on the tracking enforcement of these shipments.

Sadly, the past few governments have intervened and put the priority on fast-tracking the movement of these dangerous goods for the purpose of NAFTA.

I welcome the changes coming forward. There seems to be far more interest. Is this coming from our American neighbours? Instead of concentrating on the issue of hazard goods moving into our country and putting us at risk, the issue, I am presuming, is coming from the United States asking for security checks on our truckers.

Has the member consulted with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation enforcement working group that has an initiative on dealing with transborder shipments of hazardous waste, including working on shared intelligence.