Unfortunately, there are no drugs or techniques that can cure a brain injury and the emotional, social and economic costs are devastating to families.

Sandhya and Swapna Mylabathula in my riding have been working with the Brain Injury Association of Canada to promote a pan-Canadian concussion strategy.

Together, let us fight for a year of the brain and fight for a national brain strategy to improve the quality of life for all Canadians living with a neurological disease, disorder, or injury, and their families and caregivers.

The petitioners call upon the government to investigate these deaths through the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, develop federal-provincial job programs, particularly with the RCMP, and examine witness protection.

Canadians with MS want to know when Conservative MPs and senators learned of their government’s position to kill both the House and Senate bills for CCSVI. The decision was taken by February 6, 2012. Did they know the position going into the Senate hearings, and if so, why did no one have the courage to talk to Canadians living with MS and be honest with them? Canadians with MS should not have been given false hope for eight months.

The petitioners are calling upon the minister to consult experts actively engaged in diagnoses and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis and to require follow-up care.

The community, which makes up less than 2% of Toronto’s population, had 18% of its shooting deaths in 2012. No questions were asked. No investigation was launched. No solutions were offered.

Why is the Conservative government indifferent to this human tragedy?

RELEASE

Duncan Praises Canadian Soccer Association for Action Against Turban Ban

Ottawa, June 14, 2013 – Kirsty Duncan praised the Canadian Soccer Association for taking tough action against a provincial association’s ban on turbans on the soccer pitch.

“I applaud the Canadian Soccer Association for taking strong, decisive action against the intolerant position of the Quebec Soccer Association,” said Duncan, the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke North.

On June 10, the Canadian Soccer Association suspended the Quebec Soccer Association after the provincial organization decided to restrict children wearing turbans from participating in soccer games.  Today, FIFA, soccer’s world body, released a statement saying turbans were perfectly acceptable on the field.

“Sport is a joyous celebration of achievement that every child deserves to take part in,” said Duncan.  “Canada’s vibrant communities are what make Canada a strong, resilient and prosperous nation. This type of ignorance has no place in Canada.”

-30-

For further information, contact Diana Mendes, at (613) 995-4702 or Kirsty.duncan.a1@parl.gc.ca.

Will the government finally admit that its inaction on climate change is forcing Canadians to pay the price?

The petitioners call upon Parliament to provide national leadership and support for child and youth nutrition programs through the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, develop a national child and youth nutrition strategy in consultation with stakeholders across the country and develop partnerships with farmers, food producers, et cetera, to stimulate economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill S-15, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, the conclusion of 50 years of work to protect Sable Island’s distinctive nature.

Since 1583, there have been more than 350 recorded shipwrecks on or near the island, earning it the title “Graveyard of the Atlantic”.

Let me briefly describe the history of the creation of Sable Island national park reserve.

Given the exceptional ecosystems found on the island, the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded in 2004:

The island would be designated as a national park reserve in recognition of the fact that it is subject to the claim of the Mi’kmaq. The Mi’kmaq and the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia are currently negotiating this claim. The designation as a national park reserve allows the governments to continue these land claim negotiations.

Conserving Sable Island poses a challenge owing to the wealth of resources in and around the island and the legislative framework under which the reserve was developed, which was that there can be no adverse impacts on petroleum activities.

Parks Canada has explained to me that this is the first time a reserve has ever been created in an area of oil and gas activities. Over the last 50 years, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has made 23 significant discovery declarations in offshore Nova Scotia.

Bill S-15 would put into law an existing prohibition against drilling on Sable Island. Importantly, five oil companies that have been granted exploration licenses for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish these rights.

The Liberal Party strongly supports the establishment of Sable Island national park reserve. However, we would like this legislation to proceed to committee for a thorough review to ensure that this national treasure is properly protected. We want to ensure that rigorous environmental protections and safeguards are maintained for this national park reserve, for all our national parks and for future parks. As well, we must ensure that any concerns by the Mi’kmaq with regard to the legislation have the opportunity to be addressed.

One concern is with regard to the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 would authorize. These include petroleum exploration activities, which might include seismic, geological or geophysical programs on Sable Island. Additionally, what other activities might fall under the term “low impact” petroleum exploration? What does the government define as “low impact”?

At a departmental briefing, officials explained to me that “There are no exact details, no discussion of when low impact becomes high impact”. In fact, when I asked about the availability of studies looking at possible impacts, I was told Parks Canada had only one.

Moreover, the official repeatedly used the words “as presented to us” to describe the evidence they did have, which is evidence from only industry. The lack of definition requires further clarification.

Parks Canada explained that if it was developing a marine protected area the department might have taken a different approach. Should a reserve have less protection? This is an issue that should be examined at committee. Low-impact activities must be defined for parliamentarians when this is reviewed at committee.

The Liberal Party is in favour of responsible and sustainable resource development. However, we believe that development projects must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments. We must ensure that Sable Island is environmentally protected and that the ecosystems are not detrimentally affected. We understand the economic value that developing the oil and gas resources in and around Sable Island would provide Nova Scotia and that it is legislatively protected. However, Sable Island is a particularly sensitive ecosystem.

We would like a review of Clause 3 and an exception to the application of the Canada National Parks Act with regard to existing leases, easements and licences of occupation and work on Sable Island.

Regarding clause 7, what would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board? This is key, as in the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act it states, “before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice”. In other words, the offshore board is not bound by the recommendations of Parks Canada. Who is looking after the interests of the environment and Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision? I understand from Parks Canada that the MOU defining the rules of this relationship would be put in place after the park is established. The act contains changes to land borders in Jasper National Park. Would the exchange of land between Parks Canada and the operators of Marmot Basin have a detrimental impact on the species in the area?

Regarding clause 15, with respect to Jasper National Park, with the exchange of land and the new development, are there any areas of concern with regard to the environment and species at risk in this new area that would be developed?

Last week I had a conference call with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which focuses on protecting many important areas of Canada’s wilderness. The call was to find out whether it was indeed comfortable with the fast-tracking of this bill and the fact that even if the bill went to committee, amendments may not be accepted. I was informed that it wants Sable Island protected and that this bill is an important first step.

I ask that the government not use this bill as a precedent to allow exploration in other national parks. I am assured by officials that future parks are legislatively protected from this. Having said that, I have asked the parliamentary secretary and the minister and have still not been given that assurance on the record tonight. I would like the government’s word that the integrity of Canada’s national parks would not be undermined but instead protected, and that creating a national park among oil and gas exploration is not a foot in the door, an opening or setting a precedent to allow development in our treasured national parks.

I look forward to these issues being addressed at committee.

In closing, I would like to say that the government says it is a conservation government, but its actions paint a different picture.

Both with proposed national parks and protected areas such as the Rouge, as well as Sable Island, there are concerns regarding ecological integrity of the parks that cannot be overlooked, yet government members continually brush aside.

Moreover, I am concerned about the government’s environmental track record that we have seen play out again and again over the past year, whether it be through Bill C-38 that gutted environmental legislation, that repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, that repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, or Bill C-45 that dramatically reduced environmental protection of our waterways.

These are not the actions of a conservationist government. These are not the actions of a government that seeks to protect our national habitat.

Minister of Health

0916A Brooke Claxton Building,

16^th Floor, Tunney’s Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K9

June 5, 2013

 Dear Minister,

I am writing following receipt of your signed “answers” to my Order Paper question Q-1254, concerning my two access to information requests, ATI 2012-005 and 2012-006, on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI).

Your answer reads, “this Government has been as transparent as possible with parliamentarians and the public on this issue.”  Minister, on behalf of the Canadian public, I must ask how your government defines “transparency,” particularly as it is under considerable fire regarding its current lack thereof. And what exactly do you mean by “as transparent as possible”?

My ATIs were to have been answered in 45 days, and not the 225 days taken (although an improvement over the previous 51 week response time). Your slow response time is unacceptable and interpreted by Canadians with MS as a delay tactic and attempt at stonewalling — particularly in light of the fact that some information included in ATIs should have been released in previous responses two years earlier.

Moreover, Minister, you signed off on the answer to my order paper question, which:

• fully answered only items a, q and z;
• only partially answered items b, c, and n;
• and provided no answers for items d-h, j, l-m, r-s, u-y, and aa.

Minister, your response fails to meet the requirement of transparency under any reasonable interpretation and raises tremendous concerns among the 93,500 Canadians living with MS (you have previously said that 55-75,000 Canadians live with MS) and their families, particularly with respect to:

• which CCSVI groups the Minister has met;
• when the MS Monitoring System is expected to receive data, and why has it yet to receive data;
• and the government’s position with respect to follow-up care.

I have asked very clearly for the government to state its position on access to after care for MS patients who have travelled out of country for CCSVI treatment. Is it the federal government’s position that “MS patients who have received a venous procedure abroad should be reassured that they will be continued to be cared for by their physicians and/or regular MS specialists as any other patients?” or does the government view follow-up care as an issue that is primarily the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments? Or is it the position that “the federal government has provided regular MS research updates to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, which have the responsibility to ensure that Canadians receive appropriate health treatments and follow-up care.”

What is the government doing to ensure that no Canadian is denied post-treatment and follow-up care by a province or territory? Minister, the above questions regarding follow-up care are fundamental to Canadians with MS, and they need to know what recourse and resources they have should they be denied follow-up care, as Roxanne Garland was.

Canadians deserve much more from their Minister of Health than a simple restatement of talking points that appeared in the ATIs. I call on you to show courage, demonstrate real accountability and transparency, and provide real answers for the 93,500 Canadians with MS who are waiting.  Specifically, they want to know, has the clinical trial begun, have they recruited patients, and if so, how many, and what were the results of the preliminary study?

Yours very truly,

Dr. Kirsty Duncan

Member of Parliament for Etobicoke North