Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to expand beyond that. Far from going in the direction of reducing and circumscribing what we agreed to in this place, that every first nation child should have comparable access to social services, education, and medical services, frankly, constitutionally it is clear. The federal government has an obligation to all first nation children, all Inuit children, and all Métis children.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question because I wanted to share some information that I did not get an opportunity to before.

It has been pointed out in a number of places that the underlying reason why indigenous children are suffering from these health problems, sent into foster care, and so forth is that this is the legacy of residential schools.

Yes, we need to immediately provide the dollars necessary to provide the basic services for comparable access to education, social services, and health care. We also need expedited action to address poverty, lack of food, unsafe housing, care and addictions, and care for those suffering from fetal alcohol disorders.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question and her dedication to these issues, and certainly to first nation children in Labrador.

What I have called for is simply what the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations has called for. He has called for the release right away of the calculation that the government has made and how it determined it would give out a measly $75 million. That is not something that simply I and my party are calling for. It is what everyone is calling for.

What I spoke about was the previous government's continuously going to court and refusing to provide documents. Those documents were finally provided and assisted the tribunal in reaching its ruling.

Yes, we need to reform the system, but as everyone, including the TRC and the Canadian Paediatric Society has said, we need to immediately provide these dollars.

[Business of Supply, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak to this motion. I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are here today debating a very important motion, a motion that relates to the right of all Canadian children to have a childhood. Specifically what we are calling for is, first, the immediate investment of an additional $155 million in new funding for the delivery of child welfare as identified in the shortfall this year; second, establishing a funding plan for future years that would end the systemic shortfalls in child welfare, as ruled by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; third, implementing the full definition of Jordan's principle; fourth, fully complying with all orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; fifth, committing to stop fighting indigenous families in court, and instead spend those dollars on their medical and social services; and finally, making public all pertinent documents related to the overhaul of the child welfare system and the implementation of Jordan's principle.

Why is this action necessary?

We had, in January of this year, the historic ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. That tribunal ruled that the Canadian government had racially discriminated against 163,000 first nations children in systematically underfunding services to them, therefore putting those children at risk far and above other Canadian children. The tribunal ruled clearly that the underfunding amounted to systemic racism.

The executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Cindy Blackstock, of whom many in this place have spoken glowingly—and she certainly is a hero for Canadian children—has said there is something seriously wrong that she would have to pursue this critical right over an entire decade in the courts, simply for the rights of first nations children to have the same rights as other Canadian children. I think that certainly everybody in this place would agree with that. She continues by saying that they are speaking of first nations children among Canadian children who are left to believe in truth that they are less worthy than others in this country. If there is anything that can pull at our heartstrings, it is when Cindy shares that indigenous children have said to her that they feel they are worth less because they are receiving fewer services.

As others have said, the federal government is spending millions of dollars in opposing the delivery of rights to indigenous Canadians and against delivering on Jordan's principle instead of actually delivering those services. We firmly believe, and I am sure all Canadians believe, that it makes far more sense in wise spending of taxpayer dollars to spend them on delivering the very services that families need instead of on taking the families to court.

Finally, the most important thing is that it is time for the current government to set an example for everybody else in this country and actually comply with the rulings ordered against it. Reprehensibly, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has had to twice issue directives to the government to comply with its order.

Here we are today with a new Liberal government that promised immediate action. It was a number-one priority, nation to nation, that it would deliver on the needs and the rights of first nations children and their families. Yet we have that very government failing to even comply with the directives of the tribunal to deliver this mere $153 million.

We have a situation of the tribunal having twice over issued the compliance orders to the government merely to comply with the law, an order to the federal government to ensure comparable services to indigenous children. What is important to point out is that, not only did the government fight the right of first nations children to have comparable services, but it fought the right and power of the tribunal itself to even consider the case; and then fought Cindy Blackstock, who brought that case, against her access to documents. In all three cases, she won against the Government of Canada. Millions upon millions of dollars were wasted fighting this case over a decade, when the government simply could have delivered the dollars to Canadian children.

What is Jordan's principle? We have spoken a lot about that in here. That arose because of a New Democratic Party motion in 2007, unanimously supported by the House of Commons.

Essentially it is quite simple. Everybody in this place in 2007 committed that all medical services would be delivered to aboriginal children and that they would not be left in the quandary where a young aboriginal child, Jordan, died while the federal and provincial governments argued over who was responsible for paying for his services. The decision was, whoever has the first contact with the child, delivers the service and they worry later about who pays. That decision by the House is consistent with Canadian children's human rights, their constitutional rights, and their treaty rights.

The tribunal held that the government has since that date systematically limited that duty in responding to medical needs. As we heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay say earlier on, we now have a case where indigenous children are seeking medical assistance, dental assistance, and we are at the state where there is almost 100% denial every time they come forward with these special medical needs.

The government has been systematically clawing back Jordan's principle. The tribunal ruled that is not appropriate, that “comparable services” means “comparable services”, and that first nations children living on reserve have the right to comparable access to medical services.

A heartbreaking statistic on failed child welfare comes from my own province. An Alberta study reported that between 1999 and 2013, 145 children in foster care died, and 75% of those children were indigenous. The government later revealed that it was actually 741 deaths, including 24 infants. That surely will spur us to come forward and support the motion. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

Mr. Justice Rosborough, an Alberta judge, found in an inquest into the death of a baby in the Samson Cree First Nation:

It would appear that there is a significant disparity in the level of funding provided for children “off reserve” as opposed to those “on reserve”.... An archaic funding arrangement with the latter results in considerably fewer resources made available to them.

Raven Sinclair, who is a professor of social services in Saskatchewan, stated that:

There are an incredible number of kids dying in care each year.... This isn’t just an accident. It is not a fluke of statistics. It is happening year after year.

As many in this place have said, this is not simply a request coming from New Democratic members. That is not what we brought forward in the motion. It is endorsed by credible organizations across this country. The Canadian Paediatric Society has called for immediate action on the Jordan's principle and immediate action on the ruling by the tribunal. It references also the government's commitment to deliver on every recommendation by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

What was the commission's number one priority recommendation? It was on the legacy of failure on child welfare. It calls on the federal, provincial, territorial, and aboriginal governments to commit to reducing the number of aboriginal children in care by providing adequate resources to enable aboriginal communities and child welfare organizations to keep aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so and to keep the children in culturally appropriate environments. Second, it calls on the federal government to prepare and publish reports on the number of aboriginal children in care. As has been mentioned earlier, we do not have those statistics. Third, it calls upon all levels of government to deliver fully on Jordan's principle.

As has been mentioned in this place, the Manitoba legislature last evening unanimously called on the federal government to act and deliver the necessary dollars ordered by the tribunal. The First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, under the direction of Cindy Blackstock, has said and reminded us that children only get one childhood and it is our obligation to make sure they equally get that opportunity. The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations has called on this government to deliver fully and comply with the tribunal direction.

As has been mentioned earlier, within the government's budget deficit of over $30 billion, surely it can find a pitiful $100 million for first nations children.

I ask every member in this place to support the motion and make this the Parliament that finally ended 150 years of discrimination against indigenous children.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the member before this place is very thoroughly written and very thoughtful. It is encouraging that a member of the Conservative Party is calling for action by the government in response to a call for action by the United Nations. That is a refreshing shift from the stance her party previously took while in government.

The member also raised the issue about the trafficking in women, women who have been trafficked for sexual purposes. Has she also reached out to organizations such as ACT Alberta, which has been doing incredible work across the country on trafficking, and considered whether or not we might connect with them if we bring Yazidi women here?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a full year since Canadians voted out the Conservative government, which was a laggard on action on climate change. Canadians had high hopes for a new government, yet the Liberals are embracing what they once called Stephen Harper's woefully inadequate reduction targets. Canadians are just as troubled that the Liberal government has broken its promise for a new, fair environmental assessment process.

How many more projects are going to be approved before Canadians are finally given a voice on the projects that impact them?

[National Strategy for Safe Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-238, tabled by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who I sit on the environment committee with, is proposing a strategy for dealing with the mercury that comes from lamps containing mercury. He proposes three measures: national “standards”, which I will discuss later; guidelines for disposal facilities, which is required under the Basel convention and long overdue; and a plan to promote public awareness for the need for safe disposal.

By way of background, in November 2014, the previous government promulgated regulations requiring that products containing mercury be addressed. However, those regulations had exempted lamps and excluded disposal. Interestingly, in the meantime there was a Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canada-wide standard, which seems to have been forgotten. It also announced the intention to bring forward a code of practice, and in the spring of 2016, under the current government, the government posted for public comment a proposed code of practice for safe disposal. However, the issue has been known for far longer.

By way of background, from 2001 to about 2008, I participated in both the national MERS and Alberta processes related to the elimination of mercury in the environment. Why? The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment had issued a list of top priority substances for elimination, and mercury was at the top of the list as a neurotoxin of serious impact, particularly to children. The identified major sources were not light fixtures or any product, including auto switches, but in fact coal-fired power and cement plants. Sadly, to date, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary suggested in his speech on the bill, the federal government has absolutely failed to regulate either of those significant sources.

However, in 2005, the Alberta government, to its credit, responded to a multi-stakeholder framework issued by the Clean Air Strategic Alliance and issued regulations requiring coal-fired power plants to capture their mercury emissions. To its additional credit, this past year Alberta moved forward to shut down coal-fired plants in a faster time span due to health reasons.

Interestingly, in 2007, the federal government initiated a public consultation on alternatives to reduce mercury contamination from products containing mercury. One source was compact fluorescent bulbs. Strangely, this alternative, while more energy efficient, contained the dangerous neurotoxin, mercury. I had the privilege of participating in Environment Canada's consultation in Vancouver that year. At that meeting, I raised concern with the mercury contamination potential and that there was no life-cycle strategy. There were strong concerns being voiced across the country that the federal government was merely downloading the costs of recycling, recovering, and disposal of the mercury to the municipalities. As the Canadian Environmental Protection Act requires a cradle-to-grave response to its proposals, the department had failed in addressing this part of its mandate.

There was strong support for the need for a compliance strategy up front to evaluate the efficacy of the approach with these lights to ensure that they would limit harm to health and the environment by requiring the capture of the mercury from the bulbs when disposed. There was also a widely held view across North America that without a regulation requiring the capture of this mercury, there would be no incentive to pursue an alternative cleaner technology.

Some provinces and some municipalities have, in the interim, established programs for the recovery of the bulbs containing mercury, where others have not. Some companies have stepped up, and some have backed down. For the most part, recovery depends on the voluntary actions of homeowners or businesses to take their bulbs to an eco-station, and by and large, the cost is then passed on to the municipalities to pay for the handling, transport, and recycling. Environment Canada has estimated that approximately 10% to 15% of these bulbs sold in Canada are recycled. The rest go to landfills. This dismal showing reflects widespread public ignorance about the issue, hence the bill the member has brought forward.

Back to Bill C-238. The first measure is a proposal for national standards. Indeed, action is needed but it is unclear exactly what mechanism is proposed by the member in the bill. Is it merely another Canada-wide standard that is not legally binding? Is it a code of practice, which is not legally binding as well?

Both of these measures could be made binding if they were adopted in permits or in regulations issued by provinces or territories. If it were a binding standard, the provinces or territories could enforce, and their law, if enacted, could claim equivalency. In fact, the government could issue a code of practice or a guideline if the agreement was with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions that they were going to take measures to actually make this happen.

I note that the government of the day has already issued notice that by the end of this year, it will issue and have in place a code of practice. I note that the member is proposing a measure, but only to come into effect two years from now, and it is not clear which of the three measures he would come forward with more quickly. Perhaps, given the fact that the government has shown initiative, at least one measure would be expedited.

The second proposed measure is guidelines for disposal facilities. It is not clear whether that would be a code of conduct or a guideline. Again, it would not be binding unless it was implemented by permit by a province or territory, and it would then be binding on the facility that was disposing of the mercury-containing product.

Third, the member proposes a plan for public awareness. There indeed has been a lot of support on the need for action on awareness. As I mentioned earlier, only 10% to 15% of these bulbs are being returned for proper disposal or recycling, so there needs to be awareness. However, there has also been concern that simple public awareness is not going to get it done and that we need additional measures to support, for example, the recycling facility in the member's own riding, Dan-X, which currently recycles mercury.

However, it is clear from our past experience with enterprises like this that have been set up that unless one is obligated to submit the substance for recycling, we cannot guarantee the return. Therefore, indeed, we need public awareness, but we need the first two initiatives more.

The second issue is that the code of practice the government put forward offered training for employees, but by and large, it is homeowners who take these bulbs to the recycling centres, and they are not going to be subject to the training.

In short, I am very pleased that the member has come forward. This is an important action, but I look forward to the member also supporting my initiative and move on the largest source of mercury, which is coal-fired power plants. I look forward to him taking similar action in his province of Nova Scotia.

[National Defence, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting response but not an answer to my question.

The brigadier-general has just revealed, “The mission has changed since the spring.” We are told the mission has moved from defensive to offensive, and after promising increased transparency, the Liberals will not tell us how often our troops come under fire and how many are on the ground in Iraq.

Does the minister believe that Canadians have a right to know about the increasing risk to our soldiers in Iraq?

[National Defence, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal platform said, in black and white, “We will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq”. Canadians were told that, instead, our troops would just be training local forces, but yesterday, Brigadier-General Dawe said that there is less need for training, and troops are increasingly on the front line engaging directly with the enemy.

Canadians were told this would be a training mission. Has the mission changed?

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments by my colleague from Alberta.

You might want to take a look at the actual costs of fossil fuel, and in particular coal-fired power compared to renewables, if you finally factor in the health costs. We can take a look at what the Canadian Medical Association has told us about health and health impacts.

The question I have for the member is this. You talked about your great concern about retiring in dignity and how the carbon tax is going to make it more difficult for seniors to have an affordable life.

Where was your party, when it was in government, when we called for increases in the OAS, GIS, and pensions for seniors?