Rachel Blaney

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to the issue of oil spill at Burdwood Fish Farm: (a) how many square meters of water has the spill affected; (b) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil absorbed by the absorbent pads and, if so, what is the amount; (c) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil on the sea floor and, if so, what is the amount; (d) is the government capable of determining the amount of oil evaporated and, if so, what is the amount; (e) is the government capable to independently determine the amount of oil spilled; (f) how many pads were put (i) in the fish pens, (ii) outside of the pens; (g) was a report or study done on the response rate and, if so, what were the results; (h) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard or his Deputy Minister and has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (i) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and, for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (j) what are the titles of the responsible parties during the spill response at (i) the Canadian Coast Guard, (ii) the Department of Environment, (iii) the Western Marine Company, (iv) the Department of Transport, (v) the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); (k) what does the government anticipate will be the long term impact of the oil spill; (l) does the government have precise data in terms of biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in this zone; (m) when was the last time a biomass survey of the region was conducted; (n) in the event that the last biomass survey of the region was conducted more than two years ago, will the DFO conduct a biomass survey this summer and, if not, why not; (o) has DFO identified contamination in the clam or other species and, if so, (i) how did DFO make such a determination, (ii) is the government providing measures aimed at restricting harvest, (iii) what recommendations has the government made with respect to the use and the management of this resource, (iv) have these recommendations been followed or have there been any failures in the implementation of these recommendations; (p) how many studies have been made regarding oil spill and (i) which one is the latest, (ii) what are the details, conclusions and recommendations of these studies; (q) in regard to sampling made following the spill, (i) how many samples were ordered to be taken, (ii) how many samples were taken, (iii) how many samples were analysed; (r) why was there a reduction of the number of samples, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was this decision taken; (s) what are the results of the samples in (q); (t) how many years does the government anticipate it will take for the clams to be harvested and edible; (u) how many clams bed have died as a result of the spill; (v) what is the impact on the fish in the pens and (i) how many fish were affected, (ii) will the fish at Cermaq be commercialized and, if so, was DFO or other agencies notified of this decision; (w) were the fish pens prioritized in the cleanup and, if so, why; (x) was their pressure to clean up the fish pens first and, if so, by whom; (y) what is the impact on wild fish; (z) what is the impact on the ocean floor; (aa) how does the government anticipate First Nations and other groups will have to monitor and evaluate the area in the future; (bb) what are the resources that allow First Nations to monitor and evaluate the area in the future; (cc) how did the government cooperate with First Nations on the ground; (dd) was there ever a circumstance when First Nations were limited access and, if so, what was the reasoning; (ee) was there an investigation into the cause of the oil spill and, if so, (i) who investigated, (ii) what was the results of the investigation, (iii) was it a lack of diligence or training, (iv) what were the recommendation of this investigation, (v) have these recommendation been implemented; (ff) what additional training has been identified in order to prevent this accident; (gg) what other measures has been identified in order to prevent this accident; (hh) what where the financial costs for (i) the Canadian Coast Guard, (ii) the Department of the Environment, (iii) the Western Marine company, (iv) the Department of Transport, (v) DFO, (vi) all other parties involved; (ii) have the costs in (hh) been reimbursed by Cermaq or any other parties; (jj) what polluter pays principles have been applied as a consequence; (kk) how has the government or Cermaq proposed to rectify the loss of major food source to Kwikwasat’inuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation; (ll) what is the compensation in place or planned for the replacement of income for the First Nation; (mm) has an environmental impact assessment been conducted and, if so, (i) what are the results, (ii) what were the recommendation, (iii) have these recommendation been implemented; (nn) how many times did DFO complete a follow up; (oo) how many more samples does the government anticipate will be performed in the next five years; (pp) does the government anticipate the results of the samples in (oo) will be shared (i) publically, (ii) with First Nations; and (qq) has a schedule been established for the samples in (oo)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to the shellfish harvest issue in British Columbia in zones 15 and 16: (a) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) observed an increase in harvesting in the last years on local beaches and, if so, has DFO (i) quantified this increase, (ii) determined this increase to be problematic, (iii) recommended measures, (iv) implemented measures; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the measures and what is the status of these recommendations; (c) has DFO observed an increase in illegal harvesting in the last year on local beaches and, if so, has DFO (i) quantified this increase, (ii) determined this increase to be problematic, (iii) recommended measures, (iv) implemented measures; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what are the measures and what is the status of these recommendations; (e) has DFO identified excess harvesting and, if so, (i) how did DFO make such a determination, (ii) is the government providing measures aimed at restrictions; (f) who has the authority at DFO to request a (i) stock assessment, (ii) management advice or biomass survey; (g) does the government have precise data in terms of biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in British Columbia; (h) does the government have precise data in terms of biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in zones 15 and 16; (i) has there been a reduction biodiversity or biomass of shellfish in zones 15 and 16; (j) in the event that the last biomass survey of the region was conducted more than two years ago, will DFO conduct a biomass survey next summer and, if not, why not; (k) has the government done any studies on quantities and availabilities of shellfish and, (i) if not, why not, (ii) how many studies have been completed and which one is the latest, (iii) what are the conclusions and recommendations of studies in (k)(ii), (iv) what recommendations has the government made with respect to the use and management of this resource, (v) have these recommendations been followed or are there any failures in the implementation of these recommendations; (l) is there any analysis concerning the sustainability of the current harvest and, is so, (i) can the beach sustain the same level of harvest, (ii) can the beach in Powell River sustain the same level of harvest, (iii) can zones 15 and 16 sustain the same level of harvest; (m) is there any assessment determining maximum sustainable harvest rates and, if so, what are the rates; (n) has the government undertaken an analysis in terms of water temperature conditions required for the development of some shellfish and, if so, (i) will the fecundity rate be affected, (ii) what is DFO’s recommendation or management advice, (iii) what is the forecast for the next two years in zones 15 and 16, (iv) is the fecundity annual rate preserved for each species, (v) are assessment made regularly, (vi) what is the threshold in identifying an unsustainable harvest; (o) how many people have been asked for their Tidal Waters Sport Fishing licence by fisheries officers in the last (i) year, (ii) five years, (iii) ten years; (p) of the people in (o), how many were caught without their Tidal Waters Sport Fishing licence and how many circumventions have been inspected in the last (i) year, (ii) five years, (iii) ten years; (q) what kind of sanctions have been handed out; (r) how many warning have been handed out; (s) how many people have been fined in the last ten years, broken down by zone, and (i) what was the average fine amount over the last ten years, broken down by zone, (ii) how many fines per species, (iii) what were the ten most common offences under the Fisheries Act; (t) what where the most common species harvested illegally; (u) what measures does the government have in place to deter people from committing such offences; (v) has the government undertaken an analysis to study the effectiveness of penalties for offences charged under the Fisheries Act and, if so, what were the results of this analysis; (w) has DFO identified the need for more sanctions and, if so (i) what sanction were identified, (ii) what steps were taken, (iii) how often does the government review its policies and procedures regarding fines and penalties for offences charged under the Fisheries Act; (x) has DFO identified the need for more education in order to limit circumventions and, if so, (i) what steps have been taken, (ii) what is the proportion of the DFO budget devoted to this education, (iii) how many staff and officials are involved in education, (iv) how many hours do fisheries officers spend per week and per month on education, (v) where does this education take place, (vi) what kind of tools and means are used for conveying information, (vii) are medias, social networks, daily newspapers and posters used, (viii) what has been the education budget for the last five years; (y) how many calls has DFO received in regard to harvesting shellfish and (i) has this number increased in the last ten years, (ii) what is the follow up associated calls, (iii) how many investigations have occurred in respect to these calls; (z) do the regulations provide for flexibility in specific cases and measures to be adopted concerning exceptional occurrences such as massive tourism flows, chartered tours specializing in harvest and soaring populations and (i) which specific cases do the regulations provide for, (ii) what are the possible solutions envisioned for each specific case, (iii) are special provisions in place in case of excess harvesting; (aa) what are DFO’s plans, in conjunction with other departments and agencies, to address and alleviate tension and racialized problems in regards to shellfish harvest; (bb) how many full-time equivalents (FTE) fisheries officer (i) are assigned in each management areas in the pacific region, (ii) how many were there five years ago, (iii) have the number fisheries officer in charge of onsite control been reduced in the last five years; (cc) what is the government employment outlook of fisheries officer for the next two years; (dd) has the question of over harvesting shellfish been tagged as a priority; (ee) have resource management biologist at DFO raised concerns regarding over harvesting; (ff) have resource management biologist at DFO raised concerns regarding overharvesting in zones 15 and 16; (gg) has the Regional Resource Manager of Invertebrate raised concerns in zones 15 and 16; (hh) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (ii) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department’s internal tracking number; (jj) concerning the DFO meeting with representatives from Tla’amin Nation supposed to establish methods to create stock assessments (i) has this meeting taken place, (ii) if not, when will it take place, (iii) if so, what methods were established and what were the results of the meeting, (iv) what are recommendations, (v) what is the timeline for the stock assessment to take place; (kk) does the government anticipate that there will be a meeting organized in order to make locals have more voice in the settlement of local fishery quotas; (ll) does the government anticipate that local staff will have more power in the management of the quotas in (kk); (mm) does the government anticipate that there will be any openness by DFO to set local limits and, if so, (i) when will this happen, (ii) what will be the process, (iii) how can Tla’amin Nation be involved in the process, (iv) what kind of power can Tla’amin Nation have (discretionary power, sanction power); and (nn) how often are the regulations governing recreational harvest reviewed?

[Official Languages, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have so mismanaged the process of selecting a new Commissioner of Official Languages that the office currently lacks the ability to do anything. Without a commissioner, the office falls into a legal state known as “functus”, which sounds appropriate. The office cannot sign papers, deliver reports, or begin investigations.

When they could have easily extended the interim commissioner's term, why have the Liberals chosen to leave the office completely functus?

[National Aboriginal Day, June 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of North Island—Powell River, National Aboriginal Day celebrations are happening everywhere across the region. For example, there are multiple activities at the Comox Bighouse to share cultural practices and art. In Port Hardy, the municipality and Kwakiutl, Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw, and Quatisino first nations will be unveiling murals addressing 150 years of Canada. There will be the opening of the day in the Big House in Campbell River, followed by multiple activities at Spirit Square, and in Powell River, the Métis Society will have events at Willingdon Beach, with a barbeque to honour Auntie Elsie Paul, a Tla'amin elder.

Most importantly, today I hope all members in the House remember that today we celebrate, but reconciliation does not truly start until the harm ends. It does not start until the story of aboriginal people becomes a story all Canadians know.

As Lee Maracle wrote so wisely, “The stories that really need to be told are those that shake the very soul of you.”

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, June 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I remember knocking on the door of an elderly man who lives in Campbell River in my riding, overlooking the beautiful ocean and mountains. What he said had a profound impact on me.

He told me he had been living in the same house for 60 years and had seen, over 20 and 40 and 60 years, tremendous changes to the environment, and that these changes scared him. He has children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He said the environment we live in has to be at the very foundation of every decision we make, because it is changing so quickly.

I agree with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that we cannot ever underestimate the power of what is happening to our environment. I hope all of these processes are reviewed and renewed in a new way that means we move forward toward providing a future for our children and our grandchildren. We in the House can do nothing less.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, June 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the comment and for his hard work on this file.

One of the things we saw clearly here was a model of how we can move forward in creating a true nation-to-nation relationship, and how harmful it is when areas and communities work together to create a solution that will work, where we can really track how things are interconnected and how important it is that it be supported, but what we did see, unfortunately, was a total lack of consultation from the previous government, something that tore things apart but could have been so much more positive.

I am very happy we are doing this work in this House. I hope to see the next steps continue, and I do have to say that I hope the commitment for a nation-to-nation relationship that the current government has made begins to flourish more. I would like to see some glowing examples of that in the near future.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to let the House know that I will not be nearly as exuberant as the previous speaker, and I apologize for that.

It is important for everybody also to know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni on this very important issue.

Today, I will address Bill C-17, a bill that would amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. As the title suggests, this bill does not directly affect my beautiful riding of North Island—Powell River in B.C. Nonetheless, I am happy to rise today to speak to these amendments for first nations and Yukoners whose voices were lost and opposition eerily ignored in the last Parliament.

Without affecting my riding directly, the matter at hand is a very important example of the behaviour lauded during the Harper years. This legacy reverberated in all ridings across Canada. We should not forget that this approach was alienating and downright contrary to the idea of a nation-to-nation relationship.

As the Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson said, in a public letter:

What we need, what is sorely missing, is a willingness to engage in an open and honest manner. We need a relationship built on dialogue and respect, rather than on lawsuits and secret negotiations.

We are here today to repeal the most damaging clauses in Harper's Bill S-6.

In 1993, after 20 years of discussions, the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Yukon reached an agreement concerning the management of land and resources in Yukon and the settlement of land claims. Chapter 12 of this agreement called for the establishment of federal development assessment legislation. This obligation was fulfilled in 2003 with the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act.

The five-year review of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act was completed in March 2012. Due to a disagreement over the recommendations, the review was never made public. The amendments were developed through a secretive process, yet at the end of it came Bill S-6, which unilaterally rewrote the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. Bill S-6 imposed time limits on the review process. It implemented changes to allow the minister to give binding policy direction to the board overseeing the environmental and socio-economic assessment process. Bill S-6 provided a delegation of authority that allows the minister to delegate any or all of a federal minister's powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government, and it also changed the requirement for additional assessments to only where the project has been significantly changed.

New Democrats have been leading the fight against these harmful provisions unilaterally imposed by the Harper Conservatives to dismantle the environmental and socio-economic assessment process. This process was developed in Yukon, by Yukoners, for Yukon, and the Harper government imposed these changes without consultation. Like many of Stephen Harper's agendas, this fell into the hands of the courts. On October 14, 2015, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and the Teslin Tlingit Council took these legislative changes to the Supreme Court of Yukon. Their case states that these changes are inconsistent with their final land claim agreements.

Grand Chief Ruth Massie stated:

It is very unfortunate that Yukon First Nations are forced to bring this matter to the courts. But after numerous overtures to the Harper Government resulting in no compromise or real effort to accommodate First Nations’ interests, Yukon First Nations are left with no choice but to defend our rights and established treaty processes. This Petition has broad based support, but we hope the case won’t have to go the distance once a friendlier federal government assumes power in the coming weeks.

Some will see this dismantling of the Harper legislative agenda by the courts as judicial activism, but I caution members to acknowledge the reason we are here. Bill S-6 represented a complete lack of co-operation. It was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon first nations and the residents of Yukon, and it was not supported by the majority of them. Moreover, many provisions in the review were not addressed during the review the government unilaterally imposed on the system.

Forty years of discussion have resulted in a unique relationship between first nations, Yukon, and Canada. The steps of Bill S-6 were an example of the realities. When one bullies one's way through, this does not lead to relationship building.

In addition to the provisions in the bill, the Liberal government must reverse the Harper government's unilateral imposition of a new fiscal agreement on first nations in the Yukon. Not directly associated with any provisions within Bill C-17, two weeks before the writ was dropped the Harper government unilaterally imposed a new fiscal agreement on comprehensive land claim agreements, including first nations in the Yukon. This new approach was produced and adopted behind closed doors with no meaningful consultation. It undermines these treaties and cannot be implemented without breaching these agreements.

It is the opposite of a nation-to-nation approach. In November 2015, the Land Claims Agreement Coalition, which includes first nations in the Yukon, wrote the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs requesting the immediate suspension of the previous government's fiscal approach as it was incompatible with their treaties. Too often we have seen this top-down approach failing indigenous communities across Canada.

The Harper government systematically weakened environmental protection legislation with no public consultation and little parliamentary oversight. Since coming to power, the Liberal government has done little to reverse these very important changes. Sadly, the Liberals are also still using Stephen Harper's inadequate targets that will not allow us anywhere close to meeting our international commitments, and nothing in their plan does anything to address this ever-growing, gaping problem. We have seen Liberal and Conservative governments repeatedly make international commitments and then fall very short of following through, and so far the current government looks no different.

New Democrats will be raising the continued refusal of the government to fix the National Energy Board review process, as the Liberals committed to in the last election. It is important that all energy projects be subject to a credible and thorough environmental assessment that allows for public participation, respects indigenous rights, and considers the impacts of value-added jobs.

New Democrats are willing partners to work with the Liberal government to roll back the damage from the Harper Conservatives, but New Democrats also know that we must do better with indigenous people in Canada, that merely rolling back these damaging changes is one step, but it is not enough, and that is where the Liberal government has continued to fall short.

I look forward to seeing some positive movements in the future, and I will continue to do my work in this House to make sure that happens.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 16th, 2017]

With regard to the investment made by the government in BC Ferries: (a) what grants has BC Ferries received since it became eligible; (b) what requests for grants were made by stakeholders since they became eligible; (c) how many times has the Prime Minister met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (d) how many times has the Minister of Transport met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (e) how many times has the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities met with the Ferry Stakeholders and the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to discuss BC Ferries; (f) what where the results of the meetings in (c), (d), and (e); (g) is the government committed to ensuring same level of ferry service across Canada; (h) has the government studied problems that are hindering interprovincial trade with Coastal Dependent Communities in British Columbia; and (i) has BC Ferries ever been a determinant in hindering interprovincial trade and, if so, (i) what solutions were proposed, (ii) what solutions have been implemented since then?

[Infrastructure, June 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister warned the Senate yesterday against splitting the infrastructure bank out. I guess the Senate is independent only when it is convenient for the Liberals, but this was exactly what the NDP proposed to do. The Prime Minister is busy making infrastructure announcements that will be directly linked to the Liberals' infrastructure bank, but the Liberals never mentioned the privatization goal of this bank during the campaign, and now they are against taking the time to study it.

Do they not understand it looks as though they have something to hide?

[Privacy, June 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is the kind of assurance that Canadians expect to hear. Let us look at the government's actual record. The Liberals voted for Bill C-51 under the previous government. They then claimed, right after they won the election, that they were preparing legislation to undo many of the bill's provisions, yet here we are, two years later, and Bill C-51 is completely untouched.

How can the Liberals be trusted with protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians?