Linda Duncan

[Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, October 29th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-634, an act to establish a Canadian environmental bill of rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again table my bill, the Canadian environmental bill of rights.

The bill, once enacted, would impose critical duties and extend important rights by, first, enshrining the right in Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, including through amendment of the Canadian Bill of Rights; second, by legally enshrining the government's public trust duty to protect the environment to the extent of its jurisdiction, including legislating and enforcing environmental protection laws; and third, by extending to Canadians the right to hold their government accountable through access to environmental information, participation in decision-making impacting their environment, and legal standing to seek judicial intervention where those rights are denied.

In the five years since it was first introduced, this reform has now become all the more critical, as the government has undermined and eroded almost every environmental protection and related public right.

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

[Petitions, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions are calling on the House of Commons to increase the Canada pension and Quebec pension plans.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, Canadians are calling for greater federal leadership and investment in a pan-Canadian prescription drug strategy, a pan-Canadian strategy on primary care, and improved conditions for aboriginal peoples.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions.

In the first petition, Canadians are calling for an end to the cuts to the postal service.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask questions of my colleague on two matters. The first is a comment that the opposition welcomes the fact that we might actually get a chance to discuss a bill and propose amendments when in fact this very government has refused request after request from this side of the House to do that kind of procedure so that substantial amendments can be made. For that very reason, we are procedurally supporting this.

My second comment and question for the member is this. Again, the unelected Senate has come forward with suggested changes, improvements, and amendments to a bill. However, if there had been proper review and discourse with all sides of the House, it could have been improved to begin with. My concern in quickly looking at the bill, and far be it for me to profess that I know this area in detail, is that a good number of the security breaches are happening because of the government doing that, and yet this bill seems to refer to private organizations.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of tabling two petitions on the same matter.

The petition calls for a national dementia strategy and support for the bill introduced by the member for Nickel Belt.

The petitioners are calling for action on the national dementia strategy in consultation with the provinces and territories, providing annual reports based on remedial action, a standing round table, and greater investment and research.

[Care for Veterans, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to Motion No. 532, from the member for Edmonton Centre, as I did on the motion by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, debated earlier this year. That motion called for immediate action to address the mental health crisis facing our soldiers and veterans due to the closing of veterans offices.

I am surprised by the comments by the MP for Durham. His comments appear to contradict the findings of the standing committee and the very motion by the member for Edmonton Centre calling for further action. I would certainly agree that this is not a partisan issue and that all members in this place are proud to stand and speak on behalf of our Canadian veterans.

Motion No. 532, tabled by the member for Edmonton Centre, calls on the government to examine all possible options for a fully unified continuum of care for the men and women in uniform and veterans. He calls for the elimination of all unnecessary bureaucratic processes; the elimination of duplication and overlap; further improvements in care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; continued support for veterans' families; and strengthened connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada.

This motion, in perhaps a less specific way, appears to mirror the official opposition calls, as stated unanimously in June 2004 by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, for specified enhancements to the veterans charter and repeated calls by injured veterans for more long-term supportive services.

While I commend the member for Edmonton Centre, a retired and honoured armed forces member, for tabling this motion and for calling for greater action in support of Canadian war veterans, it is unclear if he is now mirroring the opposition's calls for action by the government.

These questions arise: Is the member similarly decrying the wasted taxpayer dollars spent in forcing our veterans into a five-year court battle to end the clawback of the service income security insurance plan, or SISIP, benefits? Is he also now joining the opposition in supporting the RCMP call for the government to drop its court proceedings contesting the claim by the RCMP disabled veterans to end the clawback of their benefits? Third, is the member perhaps now regretting this past February having voted against the motion by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant calling for more government support for veterans and military mental health services? That motion stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, the men and women who bravely serve Canada in the armed forces should be able to count on the government for support in their time of need, and that the government should demonstrate this support by (a) immediately addressing the mental health crisis facing Canadian soldiers and veterans...(b) reversing its decision to close veterans' offices; and (c) prioritizing and concluding the over 50 outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides....

I was proud to stand in support of that motion by my colleague. It is clear that the member for Edmonton Centre is proud of his role in the armed forces. Can we hope that he is now publicly joining our call for the government to support the government's sacred and fiduciary duty to our veterans, contrary to the position presented on behalf of the government in the Equitas court case?

It is unclear if the intent of Motion No. 532 clause (c), which says, “further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans”, is intended to also include mental health conditions. We can hope so. If so, it is encouraging that the member is now speaking in support of calls for greater federal support for veterans suffering mental conditions as a result of their service and for suicide prevention interventions. It is also encouraging that the member has brought forward this motion seeking greater action on a continuum of care for our veterans. Action is needed, and it is needed now, to strengthen the veterans charter, as recommended by the standing committee.

I fully support and stand behind the member's call to eliminate any unnecessary bureaucratic processes put in the way of timely access to veterans' benefits and supports. For those already suffering physical or mental challenges, the support should be front and centre and readily available in the community to facilitate a timely response. Certainly toll-free phone service is neither sufficient nor appropriate.

I would remind the House that we, on this side of the House, have stood repeatedly to call on the government to invest more time on support and services for those who are suffering mental distress and to prevent any further suicides.

Increased financial support is needed and is needed now. The government response to look into this is not an acceptable response. On this side of the House, we appreciate that the member has brought forward this motion. However, I am troubled that the member's response to some of the questions posed to him are that it would have to happen in a phased manner. Yet, here we are with the government projecting that there will be a surplus. Surely, this matter should be front and centre and somewhere high on the list of priorities for increasing services.

The veterans charter is a step forward, but based on actual experience and the significant frustrations experienced by veterans, further actions are now required, as clarified by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

The member for Edmonton Centre has called for phased improvements. We would say that the ball is in the government's court. It can bring forward changes and move forward bureaucratically both within the reassembling of the various agencies and between Veterans Affairs and the armed forces. It can also make services available in a more timely fashion in our veteran communities.

The New Democrat calls for improved health support to our veterans are not new. In 2006, we called for the immediate elimination of the unfair reduction of the veterans disability pension benefit from the SISIP benefits.

Sadly, the government opposed this action. Here we are almost a decade later and this action was finally only taken in response to a court order and the expenditure of resources by our proud veterans. We are asking for an immediate response to the critical needs of our injured veterans, not reform over time.

As per the standing committee, we must address the personal injuries of soldiers before they depart or are dismissed from the forces to civilian life. As many members have said, it is important to merge the veterans and military services and benefits as recommended by the committee but in an expeditious manner.

There is a clear covenant and undertaking that when Canadian men and women serve in our armed forces and are sent off to war, we will ensure their care on their return, whether for physical injuries or mental disabilities, including PTSD.

Canadians expect that the federal government will ensure that full benefits and services are provided in a timely manner as physical disability is often accompanied by emotional and mental health challenges.

I can share that a very close friend and neighbour of mine, not through war service, lost one leg below the knee and then a second. It was an extremely difficult time both with respect to the physical recovery as well as adjusting to life in a new and different way.

Our members of the armed forces tend to be the most physically fit, energetic and determined of Canadians. That is why they step forward to serve. When they suddenly face a mental or physical disability, it is incredibly challenging for them and the family then bears the brunt of that.

I am proud to say that the city of Edmonton has brought forward fantastic health and other services to assist those who are returning and facing physical disabilities. I am proud that we have the services available for veterans housing.

However, it is important that the government steps up to ensure that when members of the armed forces return from serving, they are given every care, consideration and support, so that they can move forward and adjust to society, not just at retirement when they go into a retirement home but at the height of their young lives.

[The Environment, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, during the audit, the commissioner actually heard testimony on how the government was ignoring key duties to engage first nations and Metis in environmental assessments and monitoring of the oil sands.

The commissioner determined that the government had failed to collect important traditional ecological knowledge, ignored its duty to consult and made it harder for aboriginals to participate.

Why is the government neglecting its duty to consult and preventing effective engagement by first nations and Metis?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in answering the question, I would like to suggest an alternative. Given that the majority of Canadians called for the larger size, perhaps it would be a reasonable compromise that the government commit to increasing the Parks Canada budget and specifically allot dollars to expedite the creation of this park and to market the development of its tourism to make up for the fact that it shortchanged the size of the park.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my colleagues what should additionally be put in the bill at committee. I will certainly confer with them about how it could be changed.

Frankly, given the fact that there were direct negotiations and discussions with the first nations peoples, because of my experience in that area, I would be reluctant to in anyway suggest that something be opened up to which they had not agreed. That is why I would encourage the government to have open conversation when the bill goes to committee. In fact, it should probably be travelling to the Sahtu as well and directly talking to the community about whether this satisfies its needs.