Linda Duncan

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when the Government of Canada signed the agreement in Paris, people celebrated. They thought they finally had a government that was going to move on climate change. They were equally delighted that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change took it a stage deeper by encouraging her colleagues from the other nations to take it to only 1.5^oC. Yet now we are being asked to ratify an agreement in a similar fashion to what we faced in regard to the Kyoto agreement. Indeed, the current government has backtracked on the reduction commitments it made to Canadians, commitments that drew a lot of support in the election, and it has now said that it is going to adopt the Harper government's targets, which it previously called inadequate, weak, and catastrophic.

Are we now faced with a scenario wherein the government will announce today the kinds of measures it is considering putting in place, but does not actually have the mechanisms in place for it to be able to take them to the United Nations and say, these are our strong measures that will actually meet the targets? Are we looking at Kyoto number two?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it sounded like there are a good number of people in this place who would like some changes in this process. Why are we just starting? Why do we not actually implement the oversight committee?

I think a number of amendments will be brought forward by our members. Certainly there is concern that the government can still pre-emptively halt the confidential investigation by the committee on national security. Is that not the very point of the committee?

[The Environment, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment told CBC that she approved the Pacific NorthWest LNG project because measures will be taken to protect salmon spawning areas. The trouble is, these salmon do not spawn at the mouth of the river. What is actually threatened are juvenile salmon in what DFO has called one of the largest and most diverse wild salmon watersheds in the world.

How can Canadians have confidence that the minister's measures will actually protect the environment and our salmon when she does not even know where salmon spawn?

[The Environment, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a report issued today confirms that Canada is not on track to achieve its 2020 emissions reduction goal. This dire prediction was reached even before the approval of a new LNG project, emitting what some are calling a carbon bomb of 10 million tonnes of C02 a year.

Canadians want action, so where are the promised investments in clean energy alternatives for northern communities? Where are the investments in energy-efficient housing? Where is the plan to deploy green infrastructure? We are running out of time.

[Rail Transportation, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, so much for making rail safety the number one issue.

Both Conservative and Liberal governments have stated that moving oil and other dangerous goods by rail poses significant risk to our environment and communities, yet we have seen little action on community demands, other than one-off measures such as this.

Yesterday, I introduced Bill C-304 to make environmental assessments mandatory and to strengthen regulation of dangerous rail. The Minister of Environment has the power now to order an assessment of potentially dangerous rail. What is she waiting for?

[Railway Safety Act, September 27th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (transport of dangerous goods by rail).

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, my community of Wabamun Lake suffered the devastating impacts of a train derailment and spill of 700,000 litres of bunker C fuel and pole oil into our lake, with a sizeable amount still remaining.

That same summer, a train derailed spilling sodium hydroxide into the Cheakamus River in British Columbia, killing more than 500,000 fish.

In 2013, a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed in the town of Lac-Mégantic, killing more than 40 people and leaving the community traumatized to this day.

I arrived in this place determined to seek action on rail safety. Today, I am tabling a bill to strengthen measures to assess and regulate rail shipping of dangerous cargo.

My bill would make two significant changes to federal laws on rail safety and environmental assessment.

First, it would impose a mandatory duty to undertake a federal environmental assessment of any activity potentially dangerous to health and the environment, and it would extend the right to concerned communities to request such a review, including concerns about rail.

Second, my bill would amend the Railway Safety Act to require additional approval for specified volumes of dangerous cargo. This is critical, as dangerous rail traffic is reported to have increased a thousandfold over recent years, and the National Energy Board is forecasting an additional tenfold increase over the next 25 years. It is time for preventive action.

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

[The Environment, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta is home to the largest inland freshwater delta on the planet. It has been a UNESCO world heritage site for more than three decades. In response to a petition filed by the Mikisew Cree First Nation, this week UNESCO launched an investigation into the government's failure to protect the park from impacts from the oil sands and dams, including Site C.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has asked Canadians to nominate new world heritage sites. How can Canadians take her seriously when her government is failing in its duty to protect this treasured site?

[Infrastructure, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I too rise to speak to Motion No. 45 as amended. It is important to keep in mind precisely what the motion proposes. It proposes that the government ensure that an analysis of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions be undertaken for all federal infrastructure, but it leaves the thresholds unknown and is unclear as to who will be consulted on those thresholds and when they may arrive. Why do I emphasize that condition? Because we are hearing from the big city mayors that they are in a crisis, and that they need funding for social and affordable housing right now. They want to know how long they have to wait for these criteria.

There is huge interest across the country, including in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona, for a shift toward consideration to a more sustainable way of living. Both my municipal government, under the direction of Mayor Iverson and his council, and the youth of my city are very interested in job creation in the new energy field. That includes in greener infrastructure.

The motion appears in small part to respond to the recommendations by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in her recent audit report. It offers only a partial framework for commitments already made by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to at least partially redirect federal funds toward greening infrastructure.

The problem is the motion offers no substantive changes to either the regulatory or assessment laws to make consideration of reduction of greenhouse gases mandatory. It also offers no recognition of proposals for a more substantive and all-encompassing reform for a next generation environmental impact assessment process as proposed by a number of leading legal and environmental impact assessment critics, some of those including from Dalhousie University in the riding of the member for Halifax.

What has the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development called for? She has called for more substantive reforms to the ways in which the federal government actually delivers money for municipal infrastructure. This past spring, she reported in her audit on federal infrastructure programs intended to improve community environmental sustainability, including on the gas tax fund, the green municipalities fund, and other infrastructure programs whose objectives were to improve performance and sustainability of Canadian communities. She determined that in all three cases the government had failed to achieve environmental objectives. One of those objectives is action on climate change.

What about the gas tax fund? The commissioner found no demonstration that the gas tax fund spending actually resulted in cleaner air or water, or in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. When Jack Layton was the president of the FCM, he instituted sustainability criteria for the fund. Municipalities were required to produce sustainable development plans in order to receive some of those funds. However, the Conservatives in the last government stripped all reference to sustainability in the gas tax renewable agreements.

Over the past decade, there were no adequate performance measures, no reporting, and no accountability for the spending under that fund. The commissioner recommended that Infrastructure Canada work with the recipients to develop effective performance measures, take corrective action, and report to Parliament and the public. Motion No. 45 partially addresses this, but only for greenhouse gas assessment, with no specific actions required in the reporting.

What about the green municipal fund? That has been a $500-million endowment to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM, since the early 2000s. The commissioner determined that the FCM managed the fund well, but needed clear objectives and performance expectations and longer-term federal commitment was needed. The announced green infrastructure fund may partially address it, but there are no details yet on the specific criteria. The threshold, once agreed on, would trigger a greenhouse gas assessment, but again that is unknown. The agreement granting the funds to the FCM already specifies a desire “...to enhance Canadians’ quality of life by improving air, water and soil quality and protecting the climate.” The criteria include energy. Again, there is a need for greater certainty.

What about the commissioner's concerns with federal infrastructure funds generally? She determined that the government had failed to consider environmental risks including climate change and the fact that there was a failure to identify, manage, or mitigate environmental risks the announced green infrastructure fund may address, and no criteria.

What is the response of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to the motion? I am told it is concerned about the effects of climate change and is already moving toward taking action on the emissions for which it is responsible. It is taking a lead on climate resiliency and on greenhouse gas reduction, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it has no choice. It is bearing the brunt of flooding and fires in my province.

Across the country programs are being implemented to make transit fleets greener, to retrofit buildings, and to manage stormwater more effectively. The federation is modelling some of Canada's best lowest carbon practices such as investing in district heating, active transit, electric car infrastructure, and better waste management. For the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, flexibility is paramount. It also wants a voice in any terms that are set.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association, which has been on the Hill in the last few weeks speaking with all elected officials, has already espoused a vision of sustainability in transit. That is encouraging.

Our partners are already on board.

What are the challenges the government faces in redirecting federal dollars to the greening of infrastructure? As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities has testified at committee, and additionally outside, that he has a focus on three strategic areas: public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

It is still unclear how the government defines green infrastructure and whether there will be a requirement to provide upfront analysis of how the project would address or mitigate environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas reductions.

A number of people in this place have suggested that we need is legal criteria. What is the point of assessing if there will not be an obligation to deliver on those undertakings?

There appears to be some contradiction in direction by the government. The minister has stated that his mandate letter requires transport to refocus on building Canada funds toward trade-related infrastructure. Yet there is also this interest in moving toward greening. Are the dollars going toward building overpasses, freeways and rail terminals, or toward more of a greening of our infrastructure?

It is important who will be determining the priorities. My understanding is that the Liberal government has said that it is no longer going to dictate to the provinces or municipalities. Yet today's very motion proposes that it will be dictating the criteria. The FCM has said that it wants to be a part of the negotiations on how this moves forward.

As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley recommended in his speech on the motion, an assessment of greenhouse gas potential of an infrastructure project may not be sufficient. He concurred with the recommendation of the commissioner that there was a need for performance measures, reporting, and accountability. As my colleague queried: will the projects under any of these categories of funding be denied if greenhouse gases are not decreased? Does it mean that those projects proposing to reduce a greater amount of greenhouse gases will get priority? What about infrastructure projects that do not reduce greenhouse gases, but rather help mitigate the impacts of climate change or propose better solutions?

Why just infrastructure? Our greatest challenge to meet our international commitments on greenhouse gases remains our major source industry. Is it fair that our municipalities will face strict scrutiny and conditions on federal funding when few conditions exist yet on larger sources?

The big city mayors are calling for urgent funding for affordable and social housing, and they need that money now. Do they have to wait for this criteria? Do they have to wait and be consulted on this criteria?

What about more comprehensive reforms to environmental impact assessment laws? Many, including legal experts at Dalhousie University and Schulich School of Law, support a more substantive next generation change toward sustainability assessments beyond simply responding to greenhouse gas reductions. They want upfront considerations.

It is well past time that the federal government moved to address rising greenhouse gas emissions. This is the beginning of an answer but only partial. We will support the motion, but we look forward to more detailed conditions being imposed by the government.

[Rail Transportation, September 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, $140 million has been committed over three years. That is about $46 million per year over the next three years, and $11 million of that is for rail crossings. Given the extent of the changes needed for even the two most serious rail crossings in my riding, let alone additional ones in the surrounding area, I cannot conceive that is going to address the problem. Therefore, there needs to be more discussion. I am concerned that my mayor still has no idea of where he can access the dollars. He is concerned that he has to use the infrastructure dollars he gets from the federal government simply to address the problems with rail.

What the hon. member has not addressed is the overriding issue of the move by the previous Liberal government to rely on self-management rather than regulation. If ever there were an issue that is overriding, that increasingly legal experts are raising, particularly in their analysis of what happened in Lac-Mégantic, it is a call for a rethink about the way we are dealing with this industrial sector. If we think about it, rail, which is moving increasingly dangerous cargo, is not subject to environmental impact assessments, while other sectors are.

I would appreciate hearing broader—

[Rail Transportation, September 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those in the House on the first day back in this parliamentary session for staying here. I would not have stayed and made the parliamentary secretary stay to respond to this, except that I think the topic is very important to all Canadians.

Over my tenure as transport critic, I have become increasingly aware of the depth of concern across the nation about rail safety.

Last April, in this place, I raised a number of serious railway safety issues with the minister. Despite the minister's response that rail safety is his top priority, Canadians have seen minimal action on many of these outstanding critical issues. That includes in any substantive way addressing, first, runaway trains; second, demands for public access to risk management reports prepared by rail companies; third, the frustration expressed by rail workers about failed resolution of rail-worker fatigue; fourth, a growing number of communities, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with concerns about risks from increasingly dangerous cargo traversing their communities; fifth, mounting concern about overreliance on self-management of the rail sector, including by inspectors; and sixth, concern among rail workers about whistleblower provisions.

Many of these concerns echo those expressed previously by the Auditor General of Canada. Three months back, the transport committee tabled a report in this place recommending action on a litany of concerns identified by rail inspectors, rail workers, legal experts, and communities alike who called for deeper reforms. However, as yet there has not been a government response tabled in the House. Perhaps at the top of that list from the committee is the recommendation to accelerate the five-year statutory review of the Railway Safety Act as a comprehensive independent study. When will this be announced?

That is enough of the one-off responses to serious incidents. It is time for an open public review of the shift to self-management and whether that is a proper response to ensure public safety.

Since last April there have been at least seven major rail incidents, including collisions, derailments, and runaway trains. Most recently, a collision in midtown Toronto, between two trains carrying dangerous cargo, spilled over 1,000 litres of diesel fuel near a residential neighbourhood. The accident shed light on the absence of a fail-safe physical automatic defence to prevent train collisions, a matter that has been called for many times in this House. In a previous investigation, the Transportation Safety Board recommended that Transport Canada require major Canadian railways to implement physical fail-safe train controls, but to date, there has been no action from Transport Canada.

In April it was revealed that Transport Canada had withheld information on the 500 most dangerous rail level crossings. Two of those listed on the most-dangerous top-20 list are in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona. My mayor would welcome federal dollars to address these risks but has yet to receive information on how. I am hearing the same concerns from smaller communities across the country.

Every year, approximately 200 accidents and 30 fatalities occur in Canada as a result of train-vehicle collisions at rail crossings. Transport Canada officials say they have committed $11 million to improve these crossings, but the municipalities have yet to get information on how to access that funding. That is a drop in the bucket, with 21,000 rail crossings, let alone to address 500 of the most dangerous.

Inaction will not improve rail safety. When can we expect the government to take the initiative to make rail safe?