Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point, which is the cuts to the federal department of environment. While we are all here in this place, surprised in welcoming that the government appears to support this motion to take action on these beads, which can cause harm to the environment, it raises the question of the tens of thousands of toxins that have yet to be added to the list, let alone regulated. I include industrial mercury, which, to its credit, the Alberta government has regulated to require capture in the coal-fired power industry. Canada still has not.

Could she speak to the urgency of the issue and the capacity to possibly fast-track this through, given the fact that we already have a lot of documented evidence? Clearly, Europe is moving forward and some of the United States. We already have the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue that could serve as one mechanism we could use to move this matter forward more expeditiously.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising this matter in the House. Clearly, the extent of potential harm is much broader than I had understood.

How were these corporations allowed to include these microbeads into consumer products that, if not directly impact human health, clearly would impact species that we may rely on for our health and existence? How did this occur without some kind of thorough environmental impact assessment to prevent this from happening?

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard loud and clear from the parliamentary secretary the perspective of the government on who should be making decisions about Yukon.

I had the privilege of being the first ever assistant deputy of natural resources in Yukon and I know the way Yukoners like to work. They like to work together with first nations and with other Yukoners.

There was a process going on, a five-year review of this statute, which was cut off unilaterally by the federal government. It threw out the issues and preferences of the first nations and brought in three amendments to which the first nations were totally opposed.

I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Who should decide on resource development, environmental protection and socio-economic development in Yukon, Yukoners and Yukon first nations, as per the First Nation Final Agreements, or the southern-based Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development?

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has opened the discussion on this. What is so apparent here is that the government, in wanting to bring limitation on the debate, will give us a remaining five minutes to try to be a voice for the people of the north. Instead of spending the time actually hearing from representatives of this place on behalf of the electorate, it is going to limit our time to five minutes.

Why is that serious? It is because the process for the bill is exactly the same failed process the government followed in similar legislation for the Northwest Territories. As a result, the Tlicho and the Sahtu, whom the minister mentioned, have the government in court for exactly the failed unilateral process it followed, which is unconstitutional.

[Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we just got the truth about why this bill is being rushed through. It was rushed through the Senate, and it is being rushed through the House. It is because the only voice that is being heard by the government is the mining associations'.

What is absolutely outrageous is that the government would limit debate on this bill when, in fact, the very issues we wish to raise are the ones expressed by Yukoners and the Yukon first nations themselves. Ruth Massie, the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, is vociferously opposed to this legislation. Why? It is for two reasons. First, it is substantively eroding their constitutionally entrenched umbrella final agreement and all first nation final agreements that were negotiated between the territories, the federal government, and the first nations. Second, the government is obligated by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitution to consult, consider, and accommodate, and it has absolutely refused to hear the concerns of the Council of Yukon First Nations.

[Regional Economic Development, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts are clear. The Conservatives are failing to spend millions budgeted for economic diversification. It is bad enough that the government has, since 2010, reduced by half the dollars committed to diversifying western Canada's economy. Over the past four years it also underspent its diversification budget by almost $70 million, this in the face of rejections of applications by our promising renewable energy sector.

Why is the minister passing up the opportunity to create real economic diversification and jobs for western Canadians?

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that commentary. It is regrettable, given the seriousness of this bill, that the hon. member gave little attention to talking about the significant measures in this bill or to cogent recommendations on how we can further strengthen it.

I am a little bit troubled that the minister is saying that when we are talking about compensation for spills from pipelines, we should be balanced and take a pragmatic approach in regulation. That is deeply troubling.

This specific bill is supposed to be about pipeline safety and about putting in place significant measures to genuinely offer a way in which people can be compensated. This bill is not about the mumbo-jumbo that we are hearing about what our energy policy should be. I hope that when we get to committee, we will have a discussion about the specific measures under the bill.

I did find what the minister talked about very interesting. I do follow up with these projects that Western Economic Diversification Canada supports. If the minister is genuinely concerned about acting on climate change, I would be happy if her agency gave greater attention, or at least equal attention, to supporting the renewable energy sector. She has continuously rejected it when it applies to invest in jobs in Alberta and in exporting clean technology to the rest of the world.

I look forward to her response about when the government is going to move from further research and dialogue about addressing climate change and the regulation of the fossil fuel sector and actually take action to address the impacts of the oil and gas sector.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I did note in my speech that there was some growing concern about the factoring in of bankruptcy. That of course would particularly arise where there were abandoned pipelines, as is the case in my province where there are tens of thousands of abandoned well sites. In some cases in residential development of suburbs we discover, after the fact, that there are abandoned well sites and someone has to move in to clean that up. It may be companies have disappeared or may have been bought by another company, and there is the issue of who is liable.

What the relationship would be in the case of bankruptcy and the powers under this legislation to recover the costs are matters that need serious discussion at committee. Particularly what it does is send a wake-up call that time may lapse and the company may be bankrupt. This follows on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development 's report on the failure of the National Energy Board to move quickly enough to ensure compliance or action to address what it has issued in its orders.

We need measures in both ways. We need to look to the resources and the intention of the NEB and where its priorities lie. We also need to ensure we have dealt with this in the bill.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech at the outset, there are two approaches to liability under the statute. One is unlimited, if it is unintended or uncontrolled release of oil, gas or other commodity as a result of a company's fault or negligence. In the second, it is limited to a million dollars if there is no proof of fault or negligence. Those are often complicated matters and it may well be that the government simply relies on the $1 billion because of a difficulty in proving fault or negligence.

What would probably happen in those scenarios and what the community that would be impacted really would want to have happen, if in an isolated area, would be an immediate cleanup. What will happen is the taxpayers will incur the costs of that more immediate, direct cleanup and eventually try to recover that. It may end up in complicated litigation over whether there was or was not fault or negligence.

[Pipeline Safety Act, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the terrific role he plays as the critic for natural resources. It is a pleasure to work with him in that role.

I can not answer why the government has chosen $1 billion. Canadians will be pleased that we have gone from, I think, $50 million before to $1 billion. Simply doing it as a one-off for offshore activity, shipping and so forth is inadequate. We are glad the government is coming forward with a larger sum to potentially recover after a pipeline spill.

There is a measure in the bill wherein the discretion of the cabinet could opt to increase that amount, but again there is no criteria given for when it might opt to increase that amount. Again, that topic merits discussion at committee. There is potential for an amendment to the bill to provide criteria either by regulation or within the context of the legislation in those incidents where we would require more than $1 billion, not only to clean up the spill but to provide compensation.