Linda Duncan

[Petitions, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I table a petition from the residents of Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Tofield, Alberta. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that many out-of-work tradespeople currently have to finance their own travel and accommodation if they have to move to another region to obtain a job, which is, of course, what the government is trying to encourage.

The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to support private member's Bill C-201, tabled by the member for Hamilton Mountain, which would allow tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at construction sites more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

[Ethics, November 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is word today that several members of the Conservative caucus will be bringing forward legislation to limit the power of the Prime Minister's Office. These MPs are joining others with growing concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office. A recent access to information disclosure has even revealed that there may have been inappropriate political interference with RCMP operations during emergency response.

When will the Prime Minister start addressing these concerns and rein in his office?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, only 9% of Alberta children are aboriginal, yet since 1999 they account for a staggering 75% of children dying in care. Increasingly higher rates of child deaths are occurring in first nations-run agencies. The reason given is that these federally funded agencies receive substantially less money than provincial agencies. An Alberta judge recommended Alberta ask the feds to end this disparity.

For the sake of the children, will the government finally grant the money needed to provide comparable care?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very cogent speech on this topic, which I spoke about previously in the House.

To come back to the issue of what the Supreme Court determined, it is really important for everyone in this place to understand exactly what the Supreme Court said in this case. The Supreme Court was very clear that in this case, a declaration of the law was not sufficient. The matter was so serious, because of what the government was trying to do to provide public health safety, that it issued an order of mandamus, which does not occur very often.

The Supreme Court said that the infringement at stake, meaning from the government trying to shut down InSite, was so serious “it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them”. Therefore, an order of mandamus was necessary.

The Supreme Court was clear that the government, in responding to its direction, must take a balanced approach. It must look at the interests of the community, which the government claims it is looking at, but must balance them with the charter, or in other words, the rights of those who are suffering from a drug addiction where there are measures to also protect the community from this.

The Supreme Court actually directed the government to put in place balanced criteria. When we look at this legislation, there is the complete opposite of balance. We have almost 40 requirements that must be met before there can be an InSite-type of location. That is not balance. It is not simply about giving a voice to communities, which is normally done on every other matter by the local government.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Edmonton, Fort McMurray, and St. Albert. They are petitioning the House of Commons to support young Canadians.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that after 50 years of economic growth, youth should not have to accept less than their parents did. They should not have to accept lower wages, weaker pensions, less secure health care, and less affordable education. The petitioners call upon the government to address youth unemployment, which is now twice the national average, and to stop gutting environmental protection and ignoring climate change. The petitioners call upon the government to change its policies to build on the skills, aspirations, and potential of today's youth, instead of dumping an ever-increasing social, economic, and ecological debt on the backs of future generations.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table two petitions.

The first petition is in support of fair budget legislation and contains signatures from Leduc, Edmonton, Valleyview, Enoch, Calgary, St. Albert, and Cold Lake, Alberta.

The petitioners are raising concerns with the two 400-plus-page omnibus bills in which dozens of unrelated measures are put through changing old age security and health care, gutting environmental laws, reducing support for job-creating research and development, and shrinking oversight of the government. The petitioners are deeply concerned about the wide-reaching impact of this kind of procedure. They call upon the Government of Canada to halt the practice of introducing omnibus legislation to avoid democratic accountability to Canadians.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

No.

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member about the views he has on the Senate.

The Senate was created, presumably, to provide sober second thought. I think most Canadians are under the illusion that the Senate is an independent body that forms its own opinions. Yet I am sure the member will verify, when he stands to reply, that the Liberal and Conservative members of the Senate, respectively, are part of the caucuses of those two parties, respectively, and receive briefing notes and opinions on how to take positions. The witnesses who come before the reviews are called in either by the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Does he not foresee that, in fact, the kinds of issues we have facing this second body of Parliament were, in some ways, foreseeable? Does he not agree that, in fact, maybe we should go in a direction of an actual body making decisions for the country where the people are duly elected by Canadians?

[The Environment, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here is a standard of leadership. A billion litres of toxic coal slurry was released into the Athabasca River from an abandoned coal mine.

The federal government is responsible for regulating industrial facilities to prevent such catastrophic incidents. The obvious response to a disaster of this scale is to ensure no other industrial facilities along this river pose similar risks.

Has the government taken immediate action to ensure no such incidents occur, including in the oil sands?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member is a good father and wants to protect his children. I am convinced that any other member in this place who has children or grandchildren wants to do the best to protect them from both becoming addicted and from coming into contact with people who are addicted and might become HIV contaminated or into needles. I have found needles in my garden in my residence in Ottawa. That is deeply troubling.

This is exactly why we need to set up these safe injection sites: so there is not a possibility that anyone in our community can come in touch with contaminated items. However, there is also the chance that any of our family members, our children, could end up becoming infected with hepatitis C or HIV because we do not have those injection sites for using drugs.

We must remember that it is not simply people lying in alleys who are injecting these drugs. Drug users are across society. Everyone needs a place to go that is confidential, where they can get assistance. Clearly, evidence from around the world and Canada says that drug injection sites are the best mechanism to reduce disease and to get people off drugs.