Linda Duncan

[Petitions, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Albertans who call upon the Government of Canada to take action to support Christians in Iraq and include the provision of humanitarian aid in co-operation with other nations.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table.

The first petition is from Albertans in support of the climate change accountability act. It is an act that calls on basing government policy on science and holding the government accountable for the actions it takes on reducing greenhouse gases.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am left very puzzled. My questions were clearly about providing safe drinking water to first nations.

Over the last couple of years, a good number of first nations in Alberta have suffered deeply because of flooding. It is also the responsibility of the government to step in and provide them with an emergency response, and to assist them in building new housing to replace the housing that was destroyed during the flooding.

The government has absolutely failed to respond to my question. When will it step up and provide the funding needed to meet the millions of dollars deficit for safe drinking water? This is a completely separate issue and is occurring in tandem. I do not know if we call the lack of safe drinking water going on for decades an emergency, but it certainly is an emergency for first nations families that are trying to provide safe drinking water for their children or to bathe their babies. I remain puzzled.

Perhaps the government would like to respond to my initial question about when it will deliver the promised $162 million to deliver safe drinking water to Alberta first nations.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleague across the way also has an opportunity to hear what my issues are and what my eventual question will be.

The government is moving forward. The legislation was simply framework legislation. Essentially, it simply passed liability from the federal government to the first nations to begin delivering waste water services and safe drinking water. Regrettably, it still does not have the regulations in place that will clearly say what the standards are that first nations have to live up to and deliver on. Second, there is still no new money.

First nations across the country, including Treaty 6, Treaty 7, and Treaty 8 first nations had agreed to support this law, but on condition that they received $162 million for water infrastructure to cover the deficit faced by Alberta first nations as identified by the independent national engineering assessment. They agreed that they would accept this legislation being imposed on them, even though constitutionally and under the UN declaration they are supposed to have responsibility for self-government in determining their own regime for regulation. They agreed to consent to that legislation on that condition.

The second condition was that Canada develop a satisfactory and adequately funded process for collaborative development of the implementing regulations. Thus far, I am told by the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 first nations in Alberta that they have come to the conclusion that they must withdraw from the process because the money has not been forthcoming and they have not been supported in the consultation on the regulations.

My question for the government is this. When can the first nations expect this money? The government has committed only $323 million for the whole country, and yet half of that is needed to meet the needs of the first nations in Alberta in order to enter the 21st century of basic minimum standards for their community.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on June 17 of this year, I put a question, through you, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The question was about what additional action we could expect from the government to address the huge deficit in safe drinking water for first nations, particularly in Alberta, where a number of first nations were in such extreme circumstances that they were forced to take the federal government to court.

I would like to take the opportunity today to raise this matter again. I am not going to address the court action, because I know that the response would be “we cannot discuss that matter as it is before the court”, and so it should be. That is where the matter should be resolved. However, there are much bigger issues.

We still have 17 boil water advisories for first nations in Alberta alone. Time after time, when these matters are raised, either by the first nations or by the opposition in this place, we get the same old tired refrain from the government, which is that the federal government has spent a lot of money on first nations, as if that should be some kind of appropriate response. I hate to remind the federal government that it has a constitutional responsibility to meet the needs of first nations. It also has obligations and commitments under treaties, so that is simply not an adequate response.

What the government did was move forward, proposing a law that would regulate safe drinking water for first nations communities. There were a lot of qualms in first nations communities about that, but eventually, when consultations were held, the Alberta first nations of Treaty 6, Treaty 7, and Treaty 8 said that under a number of conditions, they would agree to this law. I will get to that in a minute.

That law did pass in this place. Unfortunately, it is only a framework law, so specific standards to ensure safe drinking water for first nations are still not in place.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would like to intervene just for a moment. Across the way, they might have courtesy.

[Employment, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I must ask yet again exactly the same questions I have asked continually in this place.

First, again, how many full-time inspectors are there, and how many are dedicated to enforcing the temporary foreign worker program in the oil sands?

Second, why is there public disclosure of only a small subset of the enforcement responses? It does not apply to the warning letters, the suspension or revocation of the LMIA, or the work permits. Why is that information not being disclosed to the public?

[Employment, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in follow-up to a question that I put to the Minister of Employment and Social Development on September 25.

I commend the government for finally responding to my repeated requests for the minister, through his department, to develop an enforcement and compliance strategy to govern the temporary foreign worker program.

In my four decades of involvement in environmental enforcement and compliance, both domestically and internationally, a clear consensus has developed across the country and around the world that it is important to the credibility of a regulatory regime that there be a publicly available and endorsed enforcement and compliance strategy. It is important that policy also be opened up to the public, to impacted persons, to employers, and to employees to ensure that the government is delivering a credible policy.

I would again like to commend the minister for not only finally responding and producing an enforcement and compliance strategy but also making that available to various parties to provide feedback.

The questions I wish to raise tonight relate to the apparent final strategy that has been released by the government.

In that strategy, which I understand is the final enforcement compliance strategy for now, the government sets forth, to its credit, some clear, publicly known criteria for how it is deciding what the appropriate enforcement responses are to violations under that legislation. To my surprise, the criteria seem to have a few problems. I would like to reiterate one of the issues from the ironworkers, who were impacted by the temporary foreign worker program.

As I have previously raised in the House, there have been a number of occasions in the oil sands sector where in some cases more than 100 Canadian ironworkers have been surreptitiously laid off and replaced by foreign workers. I reached out to the ironworkers to ask what their thoughts were on the proposed enforcement compliance strategy. Here are some of their concerns. I noticed that despite their input, the draft strategy remains exactly the same. As the ironworkers have pointed out, and I agree with them, the fact that an employer has violated the temporary foreign worker program—for example, by replacing Canadian workers with temporary foreign workers—for an economic or competitive advantage, is given a very low rating.

In the system, the government has laid out the kind of offences that may occur under this regulation. Here is what we think the criteria are. There has been a lot of concern expressed by a number of parties with the way the criteria have been assigned. One of those is that an economic advantage is a major factor, and I agree.

I have asked these questions that I would like to put to the parliamentary secretary tonight repeated times in the House. The minister has said that he has quadrupled the number of inspectors. Exactly how many inspectors are now employed? What are their credentials? Are they employed full time? What is their training? How many of those officers are deployed to the oil sands sector?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks were very thoughtful.

The question I would like to put for the member is this. The motion that has been put forward, as amended twice over, simply says that we have a situation where a member of the chamber has been convicted of violating a federal law, a very significant federal law, one that establishes the electoral rules to place us in the chamber and that determine whether the member, who has now been convicted, can take his place in the chamber.

It appears to me, and I will ask the member, that it is a reasonable proposition before the House that the member be suspended until such time as the appeal period lapses or the outcome of the appeal. We have to uphold the reputation of this place, and I think Canadians expect us to assume our responsibilities to do that.

The member has made some very cogent remarks. I would agree with her that it is appropriate to refer this matter to the standing committee, which may determine the appropriate measures to take at the appropriate time and look at the alternative measures available, depending on what occurs in the judicial process.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week, respected Cree elder, Gary Moostoos, was physically evicted and banned from an Edmonton mall. The apparent offence? He was suspected of associating with the homeless. However, like others, he was simply enjoying a bowl of soup.

Elder Moostoos raised himself out of a life of despair on the streets to bring solace to Cree elders in health care, to victims of residential school abuse and to the homeless, yet he was still subjected to public humiliation and is emotionally wounded.

The mall offered an apology, but apologies simply are not enough. Was this elder targeted because he looked aboriginal? What direction was security given? Is the intention to keep the homeless and traumatized out on the street?

Tina Fontaine was not the first aboriginal child to be treated with abandon. Elder Moostoos was not the first aboriginal man to be humiliated.

As parliamentarians, we can and must use our powers to advance from mere apologies to ensuring comparable child and family services, restitution and support to the healing centres, and to meet our commitments under the UNDRIP, including respecting the rights of indigenous peoples to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and their aspirations.

[The Environment, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, surely the government can change its talking notes now that it is ranked last among all OECD nations.

Members of Parliament from all parties have been briefed on the laudatory actions by higher-ranked OECD nations, including Germany and Denmark. Many of those initiatives and investments made to transition to cleaner energy sources are readily available to Canada. What our country needs is a government with the will to act.

What on earth is it going to take to make the government act in the interests of Canadians and invest in a cleaner energy future?