Linda Duncan

[Petitions, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions from citizens of Edmonton, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Morinville, Wetaskiwin, Fort McMurray, Stony Plain, and Grande Prairie. The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate. They are concerned about the cuts to the service, which will hurt seniors and disabled Canadians.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the current government once put in place the eco-energy retrofit program. The program was popular with homeowners and small businesses because the highest rising cost in Canada is a person's energy bill. The government cut that program before it even expended all the dollars that were set aside.

In the last two budgets, there has been nothing for eco-energy retrofit.

An equal driver to investment is regulation. It is fine that the government talks about not spending money, but in its paying down of the deficit, which it created, by the way, it is not regulating.

What Canadians are waiting for, and certainly what the energy efficiency sector in Canada is waiting for, is for the government to put a price on carbon, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. President Obama is waiting for the government to put a price on carbon in the fossil fuel industry, and the Europeans are waiting for the government to take action.

The government once promised clean electricity. It claimed it is addressing climate change. My question for the minister is, what is it going to do in addition to this budget, which does nothing, to reduce the use of fossil fuels? What is it going to do to actually drive a cleaner economy?

[Rail Transportation, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, grain farmers have not seen a bottleneck like this since the 1970s, contrary to what the minister is saying.

Grain is vital to Canada's economy. We must have an efficient, reliable grain-transport system. The current law is not protecting the interests of our producers. We need better rail service laws, with enforceable performance standards, accountability, and penalties. Will the Minister of Transport finally agree to meet with the producers and establish the long-awaited regulations on performance?

[Afghan Veterans Monument, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand in the House today in support of Motion No. 448, for the establishment of a permanent memorial for those who served in Afghanistan. I wish to credit the member for Palliser for recommending that we memorialize not only those who gave their lives but also those who were injured and those who aided in the mission. One subtle change is that it might be more appropriate to speak of commemorating, not necessarily memorializing, as I understand the member wishes to thank all who served, not simply those who gave their lives.

I, along with my colleagues and all Canadians, am grateful to the contribution that the men and women who serve in the Canadian armed forces provide to this country. It is only right that these brave individuals be honoured. It is right that we, as Canadians, mark our gratitude.

Two members of my immediate family served in the two world wars. My father served in the air force during World War II, and my great uncle lost his life during World War I. I was raised with the tales of war and the sacrifices made. Many spoke of valour, many had sadder tales, and many of my father's generation chose simply not to talk about the war, so it left me with a very quiet understanding of the sacrifices made.

I had the honour of accompanying the former minister of national defence to the repatriation of a fallen soldier brought home to his family. The experience is one that brings home the sacrifices of war and will remain with me forever.

I am working with the forces, business members, and historic groups to re-establish the cenotaph in my own riding of Edmonton—Strathcona to enable the regiment and community to assemble for commemoration ceremonies. I know that all communities across Canada have a great respect for our armed forces. I think it is a beautiful gesture that the people in my community want to come together to remember and to help people come together. It is indeed a beautiful gesture that we will not only commemorate those who gave their lives in World War I and II but also honour those who are serving today.

The timing of this motion is significant, with the permanent withdrawal of troops after over a decade of Canadian participation in the Afghanistan conflict. The end of this mission will be a time to reflect on the contributions made by Canada to improving the lives of the Afghanistan people, the strides we had taken in contributing to training efforts, and the work accomplished alongside our NATO allies.

The proposed memorial offers at least one concrete means to thank these men, women, and their families and would serve as a reminder of the need to strengthen our resolve to support those who have returned home with special needs, for example, those with injuries, whether physical or mental, as the member spoke of earlier this evening. It would serve as a reminder that we always have to be there for our veterans in their time of need and that our responsibility is that if they risk their lives overseas, we will be here for them when they come home and we will care for the soldiers and their families.

Most importantly, it is a time to honour the 158 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives. I wish particularly to mark the contributions of the soldiers from the Edmonton garrison. The garrison is home to 5,000 military personnel and their families. CFB Edmonton began deploying soldiers at the commencement of the mission in Afghanistan, with 750 troops from the Third Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry deploying to Afghanistan in January of 2002. From then to now, CFB Edmonton has been a major contributor to Canada's involvement. Of the Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in the mission, 42, or almost one-third, were from CFB Edmonton.

This past summer, soldiers left Edmonton for Afghanistan, to serve in the final stages of the Operation Attention training mission. While the combat role of the Canadian military ended some time ago, the contribution of these soldiers continues in a dangerous setting far from family and home. Just as they are on the minds of loved ones who are missing them while they are away, our men and women in uniform must remain in the minds of Canadians after their return. A monument is a tangible way for us, as a country, to show our soldiers that their contribution will never be forgotten.

The proposal for a special monument for Canadians serving in Afghanistan is laudable. By coincidence, in Edmonton last fall I had the fortune of meeting the Canadian artist who had designed a proposed memorial to honour our Afghanistan veterans.

The artist asked me what had happened to the previous apparent support for the completion and dedication of this particular memorial. The Canadian monument once installed at Kandahar airfield is now touring the country. We were honoured with a view of the memorial here on the Hill just before Christmas.

I was advised that the intent is to permanently install this memorial in the capital region. It is not clear from the motion whether this is the member's intent or if he is suggesting a second form of memorial. Either way, we need to establish a permanent memorial.

I feel obliged to raise a concern I am also hearing from veterans that no similar initiative has been taken for Canadian soldiers deployed elsewhere who also lost their lives. An example is the Bosnian mission. I encourage members in the House to give careful thought to that request from our veterans.

It is high time for us to come together as a country to recognize more broadly the contributions of our Canadian Forces and the burdens that they and their families continue to bear. I was struck by the documentary aired on CPAC about a number of volunteer initiatives in this country to support Canadian veterans who are disabled and have become homeless, some long suffering from PTSD-type symptoms.

More must be done to honour their service. We must honour our long-standing sacred obligation to care for our injured veterans. As the member from across the floor mentioned this evening, yes, we need to build a permanent monument, but we also must assume the responsibility to ensure that those who return home injured or suffering from some form of mental distress or suffering from the cultural shock of returning to the wealth of Canada from a country such as Afghanistan receive our support to adjust back into Canadian society.

We must all reflect on this proposed memorial and dedicate ourselves not only to ensuring expenditures on the physical monument to those who have served but also to ensuring that all veterans are granted the assistance and care they deserve for the sacrifices they have made on our behalf.

I would like to add that I had the privilege of serving in a Canadian aid project in Bangladesh over a five-year period. I had the opportunity to travel to Chittagong. For those who are unaware, Chittagong borders between Bangladesh and Burma. There is a beautiful cemetery there that is maintained by the Bangladeshi, where are buried our young Canadian and British soldiers. It was very heart-rending to go through that cemetery and see all of the young Canadians who had given their lives, but what was most heart-rending was seeing the dedication of the Bangladeshi people to honour the service that our Canadian Forces gave for their protection and seeing the cemetery being so beautifully maintained.

I recently met with some veterans in Edmonton, and they called upon me to speak to my colleagues here to make sure that we maintain the burial sites of our veterans who have returned home with the same initiative as they are maintained in Bangladesh and in Europe. I look forward to taking up that matter.

In closing, I commend the member for bringing forward the motion and I look forward to supporting it.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to be called a minister, although being a chief was my favourite moniker.

The member makes a good point. I will not speak to the specific amendments. I know there were a number of amendments that came forward at committee. It is always discouraging that those are roundly rejected, particularly when we have witnesses come in, particularly witnesses who would be directly impacted by the proposed legislation.

As I mentioned in my brief remarks, the most important thing for attracting investment is to have certainty. We already have active diamond mines and other mines in the north. All of a sudden, we are changing the rules of engagement and we have the first nations saying that they will litigate if this goes forward. I do not think that the chamber of mines would be any happier than any other investor taking a look at this.

Very clearly, the Gwich’in Tribal Council has said it supports the devolution part but rejects the second part of the bill with the MVRMA amendments. That is very clear. It is on the record. It had hoped that the government would listen to common sense.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate, it has been very clear that there has been support from the first nations in favour of devolution. What they are opposed to is the imposition of the superboard. This is not a minor matter. It is not a case of their getting everything else, but not this.

The point in principle here is that the current regime was negotiated in good faith and signed off on in good faith by all parties. The Conservative government has now unilaterally decided to throw out and tear up this agreement, which is constitutionally entrenched. That is the point.

It is going to make all first nations that are currently negotiating first nations final agreements think twice about entering into these kinds of negotiations.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the bill. I know this legislation is of great import not only to the Northwest Territories but also to the first nations of that area of our country. As the House is well aware, there has been considerable support across the Northwest Territories for the first part of the bill, which is, finally, the devolution of additional powers to the Northwest Territories government and to the first nations to be shared.

In Canada's north, there are not just two jurisdictions, there are three jurisdictions: the territorial government, the federal government, and the first nation governments. In this place, we always have to keep that in mind when legislation is coming forward that may impact on each of those three orders of government.

I understand there is a high level of support by the first nations. They like the fact that the north is finally moving toward a jurisdiction of independence and self-government. There are probably still some issues to be worked out between the federal government and the other two orders of government. I know from when I was assistant deputy of resources in the Yukon that it was one thing to negotiate and reach agreement on the legislation which would devolve these authorities, but it was another thing to reach agreement on the person years and the resources that would transfer from the federal government to the territorial and, potentially, to the first nation governments.

We in this place can only hope that with this devolution also comes the fair transfer of resources so that those orders of government can effectively and efficiently deliver those responsibilities in the same way that the federal government previously might have, even if it had shared those responsibilities. That is always something to keep in mind. It is one thing to debate and bring forward legislation, but it is another thing to make sure that there is appropriate transfer and sharing of resources to ensure that this occurs in an effective way.

When I spoke to the bill in the previous reading, I made it clear that those I heard from in the north, the concern that they hold is in the second part of the bill. There are many in the north who had implored the government to separate these bills and have them debated and voted on separately. That would have made it much easier for all members of this place to say resoundingly, absolutely, that it is up to the territorial government to decide how it resolves these issues. We could have looked at this closely, with careful scrutiny, and decided that, yes, we are in favour of this.

Regrettably, the government, in its stubborn will, has again chosen to combine two matters that really merit separate discussion.

As some of my colleagues in the House have mentioned, there is a strong likelihood that the passage of this legislation may trigger litigation by all three first nations in the Northwest Territories: the Sahtu, the Gwich’in, and the Tlicho, all of whom have first nation final agreements, self-government final agreements, that were not only negotiated and signed off among those three first nation governments but also with the territorial government and the federal government. Those agreements, as with all the first nation final agreements, are constitutionally entrenched. Therefore, deservedly, these first nations are raising clear, well-grounded issues.

By what right does the federal government have to unilaterally reopen a first nation final agreement without sitting down and discussing the procedures set forth in that agreement? It is my understanding that the real contention is in the second agreement, which has to do with land use, land use development, land use planning, and land use approvals.

The legislation that stands right now, prior to this bill, established three separate land use regimes for the Northwest Territories, one for each first nation, because there is a clear recognition that each of those first nation governments has the right of governance. The people of each of those first nations have the right to a direct say in decisions about land use and water management in their regions.

It is my understanding that even within those first nation final agreements, where the separate water boards, the separate land use boards, and all the provisions are set out, there is allowance for discussion about moving toward a more consolidated approach. That allows for the beginning of the discussion, the negotiations, and the consent by those first nations, none of which, as I understand, has occurred to the satisfaction of those three first nation governments.

We have here what appears to be strong allegations of a violation of the existing legislation, the requirement for advanced consultation and agreement from that negotiation process. We are hearing from those three first nations that should this legislation go through, they will clearly contemplate litigation.

I have to attest to the fact that an analysis has recently come to my attention that of all the legal actions coming forward by first nations dealing with resource management, almost every one of those cases is won by the first nations. What we are foreseeing is, if not an overthrow eventually, or an order of the court to go back and take a second look, at least considerable delay.

If we go back to successive speeches from the throne by the government, it has said over and over again, not just for the north of Canada but across Canada, that its objective is to streamline, in other words, to fast-track resource extraction, development, and export.

The government has heard the message from those first nations that should this legislation go through, they will contemplate litigation against it and, given that we know from experience that in all cases, the government proceeds at all appellate levels, we can foresee there will be a lot of delay in the eventual implementation of this legislation.

The last thing we need for investment and development in the north is uncertainty. That is one thing that investors do not want. Wherever they look around the globe, they question where they should invest their dollars. They do not want to invest those dollars where there is uncertainty. Certainly, this uncertainty must be hanging over the three to four diamond mines proposed in the Tlicho territory.

It is a complete puzzle to me and to my colleagues why the government did not, first of all, separate out these bills, to allow for much deeper consultation, perhaps provide an option such as moving toward a superboard, and if there were a superboard, how we would ensure that each of the three first nations would be similarly accommodated and heard.

If we look at the provisions in the Gwich'in first nation final agreement, under section 24, “Land and Water Regulation”, it clearly states that “Legislation shall provide for co-ordination of the activities of the boards…”, that “Each of the boards...shall be established…”, and “may establish its own rules of procedure…”.

Most particularly, and this was the concern of these first nations, it states:

The legislation implementing the provisions of this chapter shall provide for a method of monitoring the cumulative impact of land and water uses on the environment in the Mackenzie Valley, and for periodic, independent, environmental audits which shall be rnade public.

All of these provisions relate to the terms of reference and the operation of these distinct land and water boards and authorities for these first nations. Is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater?

I hope that all members of the House will give due consideration to voting for the amendment that the official opposition put forward. We think it is a reasonable amendment. It will not hold up the rest of the legislation, which is welcomed by those in the north, and Canadians and investors across the country. We ask that this amendment be accepted.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the penalty provisions would be extended to those kinds of offences. The problem is that the necessary powers to investigate those offences would not be extended to the officers. Therefore, the government can have all the penalties it wants, but if officers cannot investigate properly, they are not going to bring forward any charges.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one area I did not have a chance to speak to, and an area that the hon. member mentioned, is that our legislation and policy at the federal level should absolutely move toward ensuring that all Canadians have the right to vote and that they are enabled to do so.

One of the powers that would be removed from Elections Canada is its ability to contact first nations band offices to offer assistance in organizing on-reserve voting and to make sure that staff are available. From my own personal experience in having gone to the Samson band prior to an election, I saw that this assistance helped to bring them out and it helped them to identify that their elders could not get access to polls, so the chief made a bus available. Radio announcements were also provided so that people knew exactly when and where to vote.

I am very deeply concerned that instead of moving forward to give even more powers to Elections Canada to engage and inform electors, this bill would reduce them.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a number of personal cases have arisen in the House concerning how certain members feel that they or their colleagues' campaigns were targeted. I cannot speak specifically to what measure would be in place, but I would hope that giving extended powers to the Chief Electoral Officer or the commissioner of elections would enable those matters to be investigated.

One thing we absolutely need to make sure of is that there is no political interference in the delivery of elections.