Linda Duncan

[Canada's Oil and Gas Sector, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is 100% right. If the Conservative government had not downgraded that process, it probably could have proceeded through a process that was generally considered to be a credible, useful process right around the world. Instead, Conservatives eviscerated the process and they caused all the downturn in the economy.

[Canada's Oil and Gas Sector, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was quite clear about that. The federal government has a lot of potential power to save the industry. Liberals are taking a resource that is owned by the people of Alberta and choosing not to refine or upgrade it, which would create a lot more employment for the people of Canada. What are the Liberals going to do? Buy every pipeline, buy every upgrader, buy the bitumen mines? Liberals can use their regulatory power, assert some authority and create some jobs for value added in Canada.

[Canada's Oil and Gas Sector, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the ones who have denied the workers are the former Conservatives and the current Liberals. They are the ones who have caused the pipelines not to be built. They are the ones who have not stood up to ask why corporations are not upgrading and refining this product in Canada, which would create a lot of jobs for super added value. Where were they when people were calling for jobs in refineries? They were doing absolutely nothing. Where were they and where are the Liberals today in putting the investment in for a just transition? Do they never talk to the oil field workers? Workers want to be trained in both fields, yet the government invested nothing in that just transition.

[Canada's Oil and Gas Sector, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, indeed, Alberta, our country and the planet are facing an emergency. It is called climate change. I have not noticed the members who prompted this debate mention that at all, though it is part of the struggle that Alberta has in producing a profitable product. As much as they like to malign the current premier of Alberta, she has taken great measures to address that emergency at the same time as trying to develop a resource economy in Alberta. That is something the previous Conservative government did not, so there is a lot of catching up to do.

One of the arguments given for holding the emergency debate on crisis being faced in Alberta is the widening price differential. The Conservatives would like us to believe that the failure to build pipelines to tidewater is the only reason for the decline in the financial return for Alberta bitumen. They fail to mention that the additional barriers producers face include the lengthy and costly process involved in extracting and processing bitumen. In fact, the bitumen must first be upgraded and then refined before it can be used as gasoline or jet fuel, and that accounts for a good part of the discount.

Other suppliers, such as those of fracked oil in the United States, do not face these hurdles. The obvious question then is, as my colleague asked, why are we not upgrading and refining more of the bitumen in Canada? As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has reminded us, companies that have invested in upgrading and refining bitumen continue to make profits.

We also have to remember that one of the greatest barriers to getting public and indigenous support for these pipelines is that in order to send the bitumen by pipeline, we have to add dilbit, a carcinogenic product that many are concerned will pose great risk to the waters along these pipelines' routes.

To her credit, Premier Notley has helped to finance the building of a new refinery in Alberta. What could the federal government do? It could help finance refineries as a start. We have not heard anything in any of the budgets since the Liberals came to power about the possibility of helping the refining and upgrading of the product in Canada, which would help the government and Albertans gain more money for their coffers.

Another way is via the federal government's approval of exports. I often raised this question, which seems obvious to me. What would happen if the National Energy Board—one day soon, maybe, to become the Canadian energy regulator—imposed a requirement that a certain percentage of the raw product must be upgraded or refined as a condition of export approval? It has those powers. It can impose conditions. It imposes conditions on projects all the time. It is a puzzle. If the companies are not willing to step forward and make that investment, perhaps that is something the federal government could start doing through its new Canadian energy regulator. That would create jobs in Canada, as many have said tonight, and higher returns for Albertan owners of the upgraded product.

Second, the United States has been producing massive amounts from fracking. There is just not the same demand for Canadian product, and there is oversupply from many producers as well.

Then there is the question of the business case to build a pipeline and to pay to ship the product. Pipeline builders prefer to get contracts for at least 50% of the capacity for 15 to 20 years, but some potential buyers, like China, prefer shorter-term commitments. As one venture capital analyst has said: “Energy is a commodity business where cost is king”. Now that Canadians own a pipeline, it appears reasonable that some are asking to see those contracts. Certainly the people of Alberta and Canada deserve transparency, and what about the workers?

Why have recent export pipelines not been supported or approved? As my very informed colleague has said, Stephen Harper's government eviscerated the pipeline review process. I find it remarkable that every day in the House the Conservative members castigate the Liberals for not having approved the Trans Mountain pipeline when in fact they, the Conservatives, completely eviscerated it. The Conservatives got so frustrated that they could not get these projects built, there are some rumours about some potential buyers of the product asking why it takes so long to approve a pipeline.

Almost overnight, or over several years as a result of budget bills with very limited opportunity for consultation and discussion, the Conservatives completely eviscerated the federal review process and environmental legislation. It is really rather incredible that the Conservatives would sit here and say that they had nothing to do with that, that they could have fast-tracked all of the pipelines.

What happened when the Conservatives did that? As my colleague said, that is where the demonstrations against all pipelines came from. It was because they excluded the right of concerned communities and concerned indigenous governments to genuinely participate in the revenue.

When the gateway pipeline was turned down, former prime minister Stephen Harper turned to a consultant, Mr. Douglas Eyford. He asked what had to be done to get these projects built. Mr. Eyford met with all of the first nations and carefully examined the issues and asked how to get the western energy projects built.

He recommended four things: sustained engagement with aboriginal communities to build effective relationships; recognition that aboriginal communities view natural resource development as linked to a broader reconciliation agenda; recognition that support would only come for natural resource development if that development were undertaken in environmentally sustainable ways; and ensuring that those projects would help to improve the socio-economic conditions of aboriginal communities. In his words, “progress requires leadership, commitment, and action by governments, Aboriginal communities, and industry”.

What did the Harper government do? As I mentioned, instead of trying to settle the land claims and having genuine consultation and accommodation, it eviscerated via two budget bills all of the environmental laws, excluding the right not only of the indigenous communities but also anyone concerned to participate effectively in the reviews.

Then, the Conservatives promised that they would impose greenhouse gas conditions on all sectors. Guess what sector they never got around to regulating? Oil and gas. This, as I mentioned, resulted in widespread opposition to every federally regulated pipeline, energy east, the northern gateway, and Trans Mountain. No pipelines were approved.

Then along came the Liberals. During the election they promised exactly what my party promised, that they would immediately undo what the Stephen Harper government did to environmental law in Canada and to the environmental review process. They promised to restore all of those environmental laws expeditiously.

As has been mentioned, three years into their term, all of those laws still exist. Equally horrifying, we learned at committee when reviewing Bill C-69 that not only will those projects go through the old, eviscerated NEB process, but any other project that is already before the review body.

Even if the Liberals finally pass their Bill C-69, all of these projects will still be reviewed by Stephen Harper's eviscerated process. Bill C-69, by the way, does not give any specific rights to participate, to table evidence and to cross examine. It is a vacuous bill, although some parts of it may be an improvement.

If the Liberals had listened to us or had done what they promised, they could have had a pipeline or two approved by now, because they would have actually shown the necessary respect for first nations, met the proper constitutional requirements for consultation and accommodation, and looked at the impacts under the Species at Risk Act, but now they have to start at zero again.

Is rail the answer? Please, no. I know that the premier of Alberta is desperate and is looking for every possible solution. I tabled a bill in the House that would amend the federal assessment law to ensure that we review the rail shipping of bitumen, just as a pipeline has to be reviewed.

It is an absolutely reprehensible to propose the use of rail. Everyone in this place knows that it is more dangerous and risky.

And where is the federal money for a just transition?

[Canada's Oil and Gas Sector, November 28th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the Liberal side. Everybody in Canada remembers the major aspect of the Liberals' platform, that they would immediately restore the project environmental review process and the environmental laws that were eviscerated by the Harper government.

What year are we in of the Liberal government? The third year. The Liberals' one bill, Bill C-69, is still in the Senate. All those projects that have gone before them, which they have been approving, have been approved under Harper's eviscerated environmental laws and review process.

Perhaps the member can guess why so many Canadians have been opposed to major energy projects. Is it because they have lost confidence in the federal review process?

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I was simply speaking to the committee's report, of which the Liberals were the majority.

The committee heard testimony from people like Omar Khoudeida, an activist in the Yazidi community in London. He was of the opinion that special measures for additional resettlement of Yazidi women and children to Canada were necessary given how many are still in refugee camps.

The case that is being made by many, which we are supporting, is in the case of genocide. Surely, there has to be some kind of special consideration. If we made that special consideration in the case of the 1,500, why all of a sudden are we saying we have done our bit^

We have been hearing at the foreign affairs committee about the Congo. Women are being raped and murdered and children taken away as child soldiers. There may be special circumstances in which there are Canadians here who are willing to sponsor extended family. Maybe we should be reconsidering that in some circumstances.

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2018]

I am not sure if that was a question, Mr. Speaker.

I fully believe that the member is very committed, but I can only look to the committee, which included a majority of Liberal members. It was a unanimous report. I find it hard to believe that since that report was tabled, all of the requests contained in it have been met.

We have been generous to refugees, but there are millions of refugees around the world. We accepted 35,000. That does not mean that we cannot do more.

I understand there are more Yazidi women and children that could be rescued. If there are families that are willing to sponsor them, I do not understand why the government would want to stand in the way of that. It would not cost the public treasury. It simply means that the government would have to lift the cap and let Canadians be generous, which they enjoy being.

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the members of both of the committees, in 2016 and 2018, which did incredible work in reviewing what needed to be done to help the Yazidis. Then again, this year did we go far enough, and what additional work needs to be done? I hope to concentrate on the work of those two committees.

To reiterate, in August 2014, four years ago, Daesh launched attacks on the Yazidi people in Sinjar, in northern Iraq, removing and murdering the men, forcing the women and girls into sexual slavery, and forcing the young boys into child soldier roles with Daesh fighting groups. This was a targeted group, in particular, as I recall, for religious persecution purposes. They were intent on essentially creating genocide.

To the credit of this place, some years back it clearly recognized that this was a genocide of the Yazidi people. As my colleague and others have mentioned, in 2016, the House of Commons passed a motion brought forward by a Conservative member to provide asylum to women and girls considered the most vulnerable victims of these attacks.

I think it is important for us to know what that motion said, because there was recognition way back then of the significance of the problems being faced by this particular group of people. That motion said:

That the House (a) recognize that ISIS is committing genocide against the Yazidi people; (b) acknowledge that many Yazidi women and girls are still being held captive by ISIS as sexual slaves; (c) recognize that the government has neglected to provide this House with an appropriate plan and the corresponding action required to respond to this crisis; (d) support recommendations found in the…report issued by United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Syria entitled, “They came to destroy: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis”; and, (e) call on the government to (i) take immediate action upon all the recommendations found in section 210, 212, and 213 of the said report, (ii) use its full authority to provide asylum to Yazidi women and girls within 30 days.

Following the passage in this place of that motion, the member for Vancouver East brought forward a motion to the immigration committee. That motion said:

Pursuant to Standing 108(2) and in light of the House of Commons unanimously voting in favour of the motion for the Canadian government to use its full authority to provide asylum to Yazidi women and girls who are escaping genocide within 120 days, the Committee undertake a study....

I will not go into the details of the study, but the committee then set about looking at all the details of what these women and children were facing and what actions Canada could possibly take. Passing that motion, with the committee agreeing to review, eventually spurred the government to actually host Yazidi women and children. I think it is important to recognize that there were Yazidi women in Canada who worked with the members in this place, and that is what really spurred action. It was a very emotional reaction.

In response to the emotion of the crisis Yazidi women and children were facing, Parliament responded. The government then moved to host and eventually bring some Yazidi women and children to Canada. My understanding is that a thousand Yazidi have since resettled in Canada, and half of those are children.

In October 2017, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and lmmigration requested an update from the government on what was happening with the Yazidi in Canada and how well they were resettling here and what the situation was overseas for the Yazidi who had not yet come. The committee was well briefed by the government, settlement agencies, refugee sponsors and newly arrived Yazidi women and children.

As a result of that review, the committee as a whole made a good number of recommendations. I think it is important to recognize that, yes, good action was taken to support Yazidi women and children, but the committee, all parties on the committee, made some very strong recommendations to the government to go further. Most of that went to giving greater support for two things. First was to ensure that we provide fulsome support for the resettlement of the Yazidi families in Canada, and second was to take action to enable more Yazidis to seek refuge in Canada.

One of the recommendations was to increase Canada's refugee settlement targets generally. Within that, we would also give greater support to the Yazidi families.

Another recommendation was to work with stakeholders to facilitate private sponsorship. As my colleague mentioned tonight, there are many in my riding as well who desperately want the government to let them step forward and sponsor more refugees. Most want to support more Syrian families. However, there certainly are families that have stepped forward and said they are willing to also help Yazidi women and children. The call from the committee was to facilitate more private sponsorship beyond the sponsorship agreement holder allocations from the government.

Third was to work with multilateral partners to help internally displaced Yazidis return to their region, should they choose and if it is deemed safe for them to go back. Normally speaking, refugees come from an area of strife. That is where they would like to return, but obviously, we do not want to help them return if we do not think they can return safely.

Other recommendations included offering greater information and support to new arrivals, offering greater support to settlement services and ensuring access to affordable housing and services. Two of my colleagues spoke to that earlier. We have a crisis with the cost of housing, particularly in British Columbia and Toronto. If a lot of the Yazidis are moving there, we have double the crisis. We have to figure out a way to put these families in places that are affordable and safe.

The committee also recommended providing mental health supports, providing professional interpretation services and language training to Yazidi families, and supporting family reunification for survivors by extending indefinitely the one-year window of opportunity.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, who is a member of the committee, went a little further at committee and added supplemental recommendations. Those recommendations included that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada lift the cap on privately sponsored refugees. That has been a bone of contention for those trying to support bringing in Yazidi families. We need to be letting families who want to step forward support them.

The second recommendation was that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada expand the definition of “family”, under the family reunification program and the one-year window of opportunity sponsorship program for refugee claimants, to include siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. I have faced this in my own riding. There is a wonderful Congolese man who has settled in Canada, and he had nieces stranded in one of the refugee camps out of the Congo. However, he was having trouble sponsoring those children, because they were not his own children. When we look at the situation in a place of war and strife and genocide, we need to be rethinking the category of persons we should let people sponsor. The third recommendation was that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada engage in a follow-up measure to resettle 5,000 Yazidi refugees in Canada.

Other recommendations included increased humanitarian aid levels targeted toward populations of internally displaced people; that the government work with the provinces and territories to ensure that interpretation is available to those with language barriers in accessing public services; and that the government provide greater funding through resettlement services to provide conversational English-French programs to ensure that vulnerable refugees, especially women, do not experience isolation, language training for children, and child care services.

[Official Languages, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford is not the only one abandoning French-language universities. This government has turned its back on Campus Saint-Jean, the French-language university in Edmonton, even though Alberta's francophone population is on the rise and the number of students there has doubled. Funding needs are not being met, and the Liberals refuse to provide funding. At least the Alberta NDP has stepped up.

Why do the Liberals not support Campus Saint-Jean?

[Petitions, November 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from citizens from Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Beaumont, Fort McMurray, Beaver County, Bonnyville, Frog Lake, Oyen, Hanna, Cereal, Provost, Camrose, Chinook, Consort, Veteran, Cold Lake and Acadia Valley, all calling on the government to introduce and bring forward a national framework for action to promote eye health and vision care. In the next 20 years, it is expected that vision loss will double, particularly for indigenous, seniors and children.