Linda Duncan

[Petitions, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from Edmontonians and people from Sherwood Park calling on the House of Commons to intervene in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. The petitioners state that the Government of Canada has recognized fundamental human rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has provided substantial funding for capital and operational funding to the museum.

Since the Government of Canada has recognized the Holodomor, they are calling on Parliament to ensure that the Holodomor and Canada's first national internment operations be permanently and prominently displayed at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

[Western Economic Diversification, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is now investigating Regina's International Performance Assessment Centre for alleged fraud and breach of trust. The federal government gave $4 million to IPAC toward research on carbon capture and storage.

Conservatives have been aware of these problems for some time. Have they been contacted by the RCMP? What actions are they taking to recover any misspent taxpayer monies?

[The Environment, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to a reiteration by the second parliamentary secretary of the same statement that allegedly the government has made stricter federal environmental laws.

I look forward to the parliamentary secretary outlining to this place what these new stricter environmental protection laws are that are going to ensure protection of first nation rights and interests, and of threatened species.

I also wonder if the parliamentary secretary agrees with the recent decisions by the Alberta energy regulator to deny standing to first nations and Metis in oil sands expansion projects, and to deny the request for a buffer between recently appended lands for traditional harvest and a major new oil sands operation.

[The Environment, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on October 28, I inquired of the government how its recent decision to exempt in situ oil sands projects from the federal Environmental Assessment Act was consistent with its publicly-expressed commitment to balance resource development and its publicly-announced new respectful working relationship with first nations. I asked this in the wake of repeated concerns expressed by first nations about the failure of the federal government to intervene to protect their constitutional and treaty rights.

The rather confusing response by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment was that environmental assessments were shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments and they, presumably the federal government, had made environmental protection laws stricter, while making environmental assessments more efficient and effective. Efficient and effective to what end, one may validly ask, fast tracking resource extraction by avoiding reviews and hearings? Are we to believe that exempting major projects for environmental assessments are stricter protection laws? Is this what the government considers balance?

I sought this clarification as this past month the government chose, absent any consultation, to downgrade federal environmental assessment laws to exempt in situ oil sands projects from any federal review or hearing.

First, the decision ignores federal jurisdiction and duties to address any transboundary impacts and overriding duties to address impacts to aboriginal peoples, lands and their rights and interests from resource development. Decisions to reduce consultation on project impacts also abrogates federal Crown duties of advanced consultation, consideration and accommodation of aboriginal right and title.

Second, significantly delayed action to protect threatened caribou and bison herds in the wake of ongoing approvals of massive bitumen extraction projects further erodes the ability of the federal government to deliver on its languishing duties under the Species at Risk Act to protect threatened species and their critical habitat. It is noteworthy that today the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development issued a scathing report on the abject failure of the government to comply with the prescribed mandatory duties and timelines to protect protected species and their habitats.

Two of the most threatened species are the woodland bison and the boreal woodland caribou, whose critical remaining habitat is being sacrificed to expanded oil sands mines. Several new bitumen mines are approved and others are in application on the habitat of two critical herds of woodland bison--the Ronald Lake herd--and boreal woodland caribou. These herds graze on the lands adjacent to the Poplar Point reserve, residence of the Athabasca Chipewyan peoples who rely on these herds for their sustenance. The habitat has reportedly been zoned by Alberta to allow bitumen mining.

The government is making these decisions in the face of repeated requests by the first nations to protect these herds and their habitat and in the face of decisions by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Federal Court ruled two years ago that then minister of environment Jim Prentice had erred in law in holding that he was not required to consider impacts to aboriginal right and title when making decisions under the Species at Risk Act. How many more court challenges must these impacted first nations face before the government finally takes action to protect these threatened species and their habitat?

[Rail Transportation, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to reiterate again: we appreciate that the government has taken some actions, but regrettably, it is by and large after the fact.

More than half a dozen measures that the Transportation Safety Board directed should occur two decades back have still not occurred. I do not have time to list all of them, but I encourage the government to go back and look at the many reports of the Transportation Safety Board done after the fact.

Canadian communities are calling for the government to use its regulatory powers. Why regulatory powers and not emergency orders? That is because regulations require that there actually be consultation with the communities that are impacted.

What Canadians, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, are calling for is that the government actually assert its regulatory powers, consult with the municipalities, and come forward with a concerted regulatory agenda to avoid these serious accidents in the future.

[Rail Transportation, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Transport some days back. The issue was with the growing concern with rail disasters and the failure of the government to assert its powers to intervene and prevent these incidents. There is great concern that there has been, reportedly, a 3000% increase in dangerous rail traffic. The minister responded by saying the health and safety of Canadians was a top priority and then cited a statement by the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities endorsing the actions taken by the government.

It is important to clarify that, as I understand it, the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities did thank the minister for suggesting that it would require increased insurance in the case of disasters. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has called for preventive action, to prevent further incidents, not simply action after the fact. It has called for three specific measures: equipping and supporting municipal first responders to rail emergencies; ensuring federal and industry policy and regulations address rail safety; and preventing the downloading of rail safety and emergency response costs to local taxpayers. In fairness, the federation did say it looked forward to working with the Minister of Transport to deliver concrete reforms, which it is still awaiting.

What deeply troubles Canadians is, sadly, that the response by the government to tragedies such as in Lac-Mégantic and additional rail disasters is seriously inadequate. The situation in Canada is that the federal government has unilateral jurisdiction over rail and, therefore, Canadians wait for it to take action. They cannot turn to their provincial jurisdictions. The focus has been only after the effect instead of on prevention, such as measures to deal with insurance after the fact if there is a serious incident.

What communities are calling for is preventive action. The rail workers are calling for an end to railway self-regulation. They want the government to assert its power to regulate dangerous shipping, prevent loss of life and prevent damage to the environment.

I would like to raise several recent major incidents. At Wabamun Lake in Alberta in 2005, a CN derailment spilled 700,000 cubic meters of bunker C oil and a large portion of pole treating oil into Wabamun Lake. The important recreational lake was closed to swimming, boating and fishing for an entire year. It was the largest spill into fresh water in North American history. There was an absolutely abject response by the federal government to that. It did not show up until a week later to assist the first nations whose lands were badly damaged.

The Cheakamus River disaster, a few days later in British Columbia, spilled 40,000 litres of sodium hydroxide, killing the fishery that had just recovered. In my own riding, tanker cars of hazardous chemicals come through into the heart of the community daily. Now I have heard recently about dangers of a CN burned-out bridge in Slave Lake.

When can we expect the government to take preventive action, assert its regulatory powers and actually protect Canadian communities and our environment?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the government's love of the P3 project for private-public partnerships. The city of Edmonton was a victim of this. It applied for funding to expand its LRT and was promised a certain amount of money. Then it was told to withdraw its application and apply under the P3. It was then only given a portion of those dollars, which means the LRT that is badly needed in Edmonton is delayed for probably a decade.

Does the member think municipalities should be forced to choose the mechanism to build infrastructure or should they have the choice as to how to proceed with infrastructure in our cities?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her presentation and appreciate having members in the House of Commons with her important background of nursing.

I am a little troubled at the hon. member's comments on this budget. One aspect of this budget, which is most troubling for my colleagues, is the fact that the government is taking on the discretion to determine what work is dangerous. It is taking it from fully trained health and safety officers and giving total discretion to the minister. I would expect that the hon. member would be doubly concerned because her government has been convicted of three counts of failing to protect federal workers, three violations of basic health and safety protections. I am a little troubled that she would think that the government is going in the right direction in this area.

[Petitions, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from Albertans calling on the government to take action on the changes to old age security. Petitioners oppose the changes to extend eligibility to the age of 67 as it will take money out of the pockets of future generations when they retire. They call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the retirement age for old age security at 65 years and to make the required investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

[Petitions, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 120 Albertans calling on the government to immediately rescind the changes to the interim federal health program so as to reinstate necessary health benefits to refugees.