Linda Duncan

[The Environment, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been waiting two long years for the Liberals to deliver on their promise of a strengthened environmental assessment process. There are two adjectives we can apply to the proposed new regime: discretionary and uncertainty. Will a project require an assessment? We cannot know, for a myriad of reasons. The list of projects is eventually developed by regulation. Will the minister hold one if the public is concerned? We do not know. Will there be a joint federal-provincial review, or will the minister merely pass the whole thing to the provinces and let them deal with indigenous concerns? What is the answer?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response. Unfortunately, it still does not address or respond to the issues and concerns raised by this first nation community and, frankly, many first nation communities, including those in northern Alberta.

It is one thing to consult, as successive governments have for decades. It is another thing to actually put that standard in place to make legally-binding standards and then to go out to inspect and enforce.

Also, where is the demanded health study? The two ministers have responsibility under this legislation. There is a mandatory duty when this information comes to her attention. The government appears to be admitting these chemicals have been causing serious harm, which of course they do. Where is the next step of moving in and actually genuinely assessing the impacts and whether additional measures need to be taken more expeditiously?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on October 19 last year, I raised concerns with the Minister of Environment that Aamjiwnaang First Nation members living adjacent to the Sarnia industrial complex have suffered high incidences of cancer, rashes, and respiratory diseases, yet there has been minimal enforcement action by Conservative or Liberal governments on repeated spills and pollution incidents.

This first nation's call for a health impact study has long been ignored as has been the case for other first nations. Federal authorities have failed to act despite clear power and the duty to act, and despite constant flaring of acid gas and repeated spikes in sulphur dioxide releases.

The Minister of Environment responded that while the situation in Sarnia is very worrying she is encouraged by the steps taken by the Ontario government. She agreed on the need for strong regulations to ensure clean air and health protection, and shared that her government looks forward to strengthening CEPA. We are still waiting for those reforms.

The powers needed to address the concerns at Sarnia exist now. Quite simply there is a lack of political will to act. The environment minister is empowered to list and regulate toxins and has a mandatory duty to monitor environmental quality and to develop and deliver that system in consultation with aboriginal peoples. Many of the toxins emitted by Sarnia industries are federally regulated as toxins.

For decades, federal governments have consulted on strengthened standards for toxins with no action. They know Canadian emissions standards remain far weaker than those of other jurisdictions. The federal Minister of Health has a mandatory duty to investigate when information comes to her attention that toxins may be impacting health.

What is the government's excuse for failing to act to protect this suffering community?

The Prime Minister continues to espouse that there is no greater priority for him than delivering a nation-to-nation relationship and respecting the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, yet he sits by, forcing the first nation to seek intervention of the courts on information that should be readily available to the community, the cumulative impacts of all of the industrial emitters in Sarnia.

Why are they seeking this information? Studies finding abnormally low male birth rates in their community have suggested potential connections to their proximity to industrial emissions. The community members also report high rates of asthma and miscarriages, yet to date there has been no comprehensive study to assess the health effects of the emissions on this community.

Frankly, neither has there been a health study in response to calls by the indigenous communities of northern Alberta, a call that has been ignored by successive federal governments for decades despite the government's duty to act. There seems to be a common theme running through the responses by the environment minister, that regulating industrial emissions and environmental and health impacts of industry is a provincial responsibility. That view is not supported by either federal law or rulings of the courts.

Will the government finally step up and respond to the pleas of this indigenous community to address its concerns about the impacts of industrial emissions on its members' health?

[Canada Elections Act, February 7th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, in following what my other colleagues have said, yes, we will support the bill because there are some changes. However, the bill is missing the point. The Liberal Party ran on a platform that the last election, in which they got the majority government, would be the last election under first past the post, period. Then suddenly we changed ministers and mandates, and gosh darn, we do not need that anymore because we are a majority Liberal government.

Yes, there may be some changes here, but it is still not resolving the key issue, which is cash for access. The issue is that it is one thing for somebody to pay $10 and get entrance to the bar in Edmonton Strathcona to have a meeting with me, and usually we do not charge anything, but it is another thing to pay $1,500 in a private law firm, by invitation, and one simply has to reveal who was there and that the Minister of Justice was there but claim that she was just there as an MP and not as a minister of justice.

Can the member explain to me how this resolves that overriding issue of cash for access to the Prime Minister and ministers of the crown?

[The Environment, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, now in their third year in office, the Liberals have finally given notice that they will bring forward legislation for the assessment and approval of major energy projects. They promised to immediately review Canada's environment assessment processes and introduce new, fair processes, ensure decisions would be based on science, facts, evidence, and serve the public's interests.

After approving major energy projects using Harper's gutted assessment process, will these laws actually strengthen the rights of communities and indigenous peoples to have a voice in decision-making?

[United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to recognize the testimony of over 6,000 Canadians before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the many who have advocated for the enactment of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I particularly wish to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his dedication and persistence in both the creation of the UNDRIP and its affirmation in Canadian law.

It is truly an honour and a privilege to speak in support of Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill was tabled by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the NDP critic for reconciliation. It affirms the UNDRIP as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It requires that the government take all necessary measures to ensure that Canadian laws are consistent with the declaration and to do so in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples in Canada. It also requires, through that same inclusive process, an action plan to achieve those objectives.

As early as 2006, former NDP leader Jack Layton expressed our party's support for the UNDRIP, saying that it was our belief in social justice and equality that led us to support the declaration. Related bills and motions were introduced during past Parliaments by former NDP MP Denise Savoie and the member for London—Fanshawe. In the previous Parliament, a bill similar to Bill C-262 was tabled by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, but it was defeated at second reading by 17 votes.

This declaration was overwhelmingly adopted by the members of the UN General Assembly in September 2007, following more than 25 years of deliberation and debate. This process included decades of dedicated work by a number of esteemed Canadian indigenous leaders, among them the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, esteemed commissioner of the TRC.

As my colleague has shared, this milestone in the enshrining of human rights was the first time that rights-holder indigenous peoples had been given a central role in the creation of a global rights instrument. The declaration affirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination across every matter touching their lives. It underlines the prohibition against discrimination and genocide in international law.

Bill C-262 would enshrine the UNDRIP into Canadian law. It is important to note that voting in favour of a UN declaration is just the first step in showing commitment as a nation. A next critical step is the enactment of a law to affirm those principles in law, and then an action plan must be developed and delivered to actually implement the principles. By way of example, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was enshrined in Canadian law through the Species at Risk Act. However, the struggle continues to ensure that the rights and benefits accorded under separate treaties are also observed in implementing that law.

It may be noted that the Federal Court held that a previous federal minister of the environment had erred in law by failing to consider the rights accorded to indigenous peoples, under treaty, for the recovery of woodland caribou. Sadly, little has changed, necessitating continued intervention by the courts and UN agencies. Indigenous leaders will be closely examining the coming bills regulating environmental assessment, major energy projects, fisheries, and navigable waters to verify that they are made consistent with the UNDRIP.

We were encouraged that the current Liberal government has moved beyond the position of the previous Conservative government that the UNDRIP is merely “an aspirational document”. In May 2016, then minister of indigenous and northern affairs announced her government's full support of the declaration, without qualification. However, confusion remained due to continued qualifiers for that support and a continuing refusal to enact the declaration in federal law.

The final breakthrough came in November last year, when the Minister of Justice publicly announced:

our government will support Bill C- 262. The bill acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada with the UN declaration.

In enacting the UNDRIP in Canadian law, what will the Liberal government be committing to deliver? The declaration contains 46 articles specifying the rights to be accorded to indigenous peoples to affirm self-determination and an end to discrimination and genocide. It provides a detailed framework for justice and reconciliation.

Bill C-262 is consistent with the TRC call that any legislation be developed in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples.

It is also important to recall the commitment made by the Prime Minister to deliver on all 94 of the calls to action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action nos. 43 to 52 specifically call on the “federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.”

Bill C-262 mirrors the TRC call for a national action plan, measures to ensure consistency between the UNDRIP and all federal laws, and government accountability through annual state of aboriginal peoples reports outlining plans to advance reconciliation. By this promise, the Government of Canada has therefore committed to “develop a national action plan, strategies and other concrete measures” to achieve the UNDRIP goals, including to enact legislation to establish a national council for reconciliation.

The TRC, in its interim report, recommended that all governments use the UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation in Canada. The council, now established, is led by former TRC Commissioner, now Treaty No. 6 Grand Chief, Wilton Littlechild. As he recently reminded me, the declaration also clearly calls on all states to honour and respect the treaties and other agreements entered into with indigenous peoples.

In closing, I wish to share a message that Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild shared with me, which he recently delivered to the leaders of treaties nos. 1 to 11. He stated, “As with the eagle that represents first nations, one wing of the eagle represents the treaties we signed in good faith. The other wing represents the UNDRIP. It requires both wings to lift up and enable indigenous peoples so they may soar. Forty years ago indigenous leaders came together because their treaties were being violated and disrespected. They worked together to develop and seek global commitment to the UNDRIP to ensure that these treaties are respected.”

By supporting Bill C-262, we can provide the assurance that the UNDRIP will finally be enacted into law. However, we must remain vigilant in ensuring expedited action in delivering on those rights. Promises to respect land rights, rights to self-governance, access to safe drinking water, comparable education and services, and language and culture can no longer be considered adequate if delivered eventually.

As the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has said, “The UN Declaration is a powerful assertion by Indigenous peoples that we have survived, that we will survive, and that we insist on fair and just treatment by governments and communities. The implementation of the UN Declaration...could be a world-changing development.”

[The Environment, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled. I am hearing a consistent theme from the Liberal government that this is mostly the responsibility of the provinces and territories. I remind them that there is a very famous Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Friends of the Oldman River Society, that clearly says the federal and provincial governments share responsibility and jurisdiction over the environment.

Clearly, the Species at Risk Act is under the mandate of the federal government.

The answer is not more consultation and more science. This has been going on for decades. We have a deep problem and the government needs to recognize it. We have already had one previous federal environment minister chastised by the Federal Court for the fact that, when he made his decision on whether or not there was a proper recovery strategy for these caribou, he had failed to consider the treaty rights of first nations.

In this case, we have the Cold Lake First Nations relying for its survival in winter specifically on these herds, and these herds already only—

[The Environment, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I must continue to raise concerns about the lack of action to protect our iconic species, the woodland caribou.

On October 6, I put a question to the minister about what she was intending to do to finally take action for the recovery of the woodland caribou in Canada, particularly in my province of Alberta.

In November, a petition was filed by two environmental organizations, the Alberta Wilderness Association, a longstanding conservation group in Alberta and the David Suzuki Foundation, along with the Cold Lake First Nation. The petition called on the government to exercise its powers under the Species at Risk Act, because of the dire strait of five herds in northern Alberta: the Cold Lake herd, the Richardson herd, the Red Earth herd, the West Side Athabasca herd, and the East Side Athabasca herd.

We know the federal government has been stalling on taking action, saying it has given the provinces the opportunity to come back with a recovery plan, and what they will do to protect the herds. The problem is that thus far from Alberta, we have simply received a list of potential strategies. Those who are concerned about the plight of these iconic species have given the government until April to get that range plan from Alberta, but in the meantime, these are rapidly depleting herds.

The recovery strategy itself sets a target of no more than 35% of habitat disturbed for each population of caribou, and to give them a 60% chance to be self-sustaining. Yet, for these five herds, there is already 72% to 88% of their habitat disturbed, and the herds continue to decline rapidly.

I am calling upon the government. Is it ready to move forward, finally step up to the plate, and exercise the powers that only it holds under the Endangered Species Act, and under the Biodiversity Convention that Canada has enacted as law. It is only within the power of the Government of Canada to make sure that the biodiversity is protected. Over and over again, we have Canadians expressing their concerns that this iconic species is disappearing. We have a specific case here.

If Alberta and the other provinces do not come up with a credible plan to generally protect this species, and not simply put it in a zoo, will the government tell us today that it is willing to step in immediately, and as the petitioners are asking implement some emergency orders?

[British Home Child Day, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague on this side has pointed out, it is remarkable how many members in the House of Commons are touched by this issue and who come from a line of children who were emigrated to this country, were not well treated, and should be recognized in history.

It gives me pleasure to add my support to the motion by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry calling for September 28 to be designated British home child day in Canada. It is hoped that by designating this day Canadians will become better informed of the treatment of these children and this will contribute at least in a small way to the healing process for those home children still with us and their families.

On February 16 of last year, the House unanimously passed a motion, tabled by the member for Montcalm, recognizing the injustice, abuse, and suffering endured by British home children and to offer a sincere apology to those still living and their descendants. The New Democrats have long supported the righting of this sad chapter in Canadian history, including through motions tabled by former NDP MP Alex Atamanenko and the current member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, both calling for a formal apology.

In 2009, the Government of Australia issued a formal apology, and in 2010 the Government of the United Kingdom did. In 2011, the Government of Ontario declared September 28 as British Home Child Day. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada has yet to apologize.

In November 2009, then Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, in refusing the request of an apology, stated, “Canadians don't expect their government to apologize for every sad event in our history”. From what we are hearing from my colleagues on this side, I do not think they agree with their former colleague.

During the period from 1869 until 1948 over 100,000 children of all ages were sent from the United Kingdom to Canada to be used as indentured farm workers and domestics. The last shipment of boys and girls arrived on Vancouver Island at the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School, near Duncan, B.C.

Canadians were falsely led to believe these children were orphans who had been living on the streets of British cities, but in truth only 2% were. Most of the children came from intact families that had fallen on hard times. It was because of a lack of a social safety net that these families had no other choice than to surrender their children. For some families, this was meant as a temporary solution until the family got back on its feet. There are numerous reported cases where families seeking to recover their children were informed they had been sent to Canada or Australia. In other cases, families were simply sent an after-sailing notification informing them that their children had been emigrated.

The British organizations were paid for each child they emigrated. For each child, the Canadian government paid $2, the British Government paid an additional $2, and the receiving family paid a $3 application fee.

Once in Canada the children were first sent to receiving homes across the country. Here in Ottawa, 1153 Wellington Street West, a little over a kilometre from this chamber, is where they were sent. From the receiving homes, the children were picked up by the families they were to work for, usually farms. The boys were assigned to farm labour and the girls to work as domestic servants.

The boys continued to work for these families until they were 18 years old and the girls until they were 21. While the receiving families contracted to house, feed, clothe, and educate these children, this was rarely the case. There was minimal effective inspection or monitoring. If an inspection was carried out, the child was interviewed in front of the receiving family.

While some of the children were fortunate to be accepted into homes as adopted children, many suffered. Many were simply used as slave labour and moved from one farm to another. Commonly, siblings were separated as well. Some of the children ran away or disappeared, some died of illness or injury resulting from negligence and abuse, and, sadly, some committed suicide.

Most home children faced stigmatization in Canada, were made to feel worthless, and told they were nobodies. Many, if not most, never even told their close families about being a home child, not wanting to face their shameful past or to avoid speaking of the painful experiences they may have endured. I am happy to hear of people revealing their stories publicly, here in the House.

Over 50 British organizations participated in this scheme. One of the largest was Dr. Barnardo's Homes. The organization immigrated 33,000 children to Canada. One of these children was Agnes Milsom, grandmother to my legislative assistant, Douglas Johnson.

Born in 1900, most of the records concerning Agnes's time in Britain were destroyed by German bombs in the Second World War. However, her family has been able to piece together a little of her life before she was sent to Canada.

Born in Bath, she was surrendered to Bernardo Homes at the age of five following the tragic death of her parents in a fire. At the age of nine, she was sent to Canada to work as a domestic servant for a family in Tweed, Ontario. The family paid Bernardo Homes $7.00 for Agnes.

After she left her service, Agnes went to work at a hospital in Peterborough and later married John Zavitz. The couple moved back to a farm near Tweed and had five daughters. Agnes died in 1927, shortly after giving birth to Margaret, her only surviving daughter, and so would not have heard people recognizing her. Margaret has said, “My mother was a slave, pure and simple.”

A Statistics Canada estimate some years ago put the number of British home children descendants in Canada today at around four million, or as many as one in eight Canadians. The descendants of these children are found in all parts of Canada, including here on Parliament Hill. While many remain hopeful of an official apology for the maltreatment of these children, the least we can do is recognize them through the declaration of September 28 as British home child day.

On behalf of my incredible legislative assistant, his mother, and his grandmother, who I am sure is watching from above, I hope that all in this place stand and support this proposal.

[Tommy Banks, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wish, on behalf of my constituents, all Edmontonians, and the Canadian music community, to share the sad news of the passing last week of Senator Tommy Banks. Tommy was so beloved that a street in Edmonton Strathcona was named Tommy Banks Way, recognizing his efforts to found Edmonton's long-standing jazz club, the Yardbird Suite.

He hosted The Tommy Banks Show, performed throughout North America, and guest conducted numerous symphony orchestras. However, Tommy was not only renowned in Edmonton. He performed worldwide and received a Juno and a Gemini. He was a founding chair of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, and chair of the Edmonton Concert Hall Foundation and the music program at Grant MacEwan. He was made an officer of the Order of Canada, recognizing his long-standing accomplishments as a musician and his dedicated service to the development of Canadian arts. He served as music director for the 1978 Commonwealth Games, Expo 86, the World University Games, and the 1988 Olympics, and as a member of the Canada Council. Tommy Banks served in the Senate from 2000 to 2011.

As Edmonton's Winspear Centre has shared, Banks “changed the landscape of the Edmonton music scene and will be forever remembered for his incredible talent & passion”. He will be missed, but his musical legacy will live on.