Linda Duncan

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member and a number of other speakers have raised the issue of perverse incentives in the budget. It is reported that, by 2014, given the cuts to corporate taxes that the government has announced, $60 billion worth of Canadian taxpayers' money will be lost at a time when our deficit is rising.

It is one thing to talk about the dollars and cents that are actually in the budget bill, but we need to look at the parallel initiatives of the government that go along with the budget, an example being the terrible, perverse incentives that it is providing to major industries by delaying important regulations to clean up the environment and to reduce greenhouse gases. Billions of dollars are being banked by these corporations as a result of the government's failure to act. That is far worse than the direct perverse incentives of cutting their taxes.

What about the perverse incentives of the government's enforcement of foreign investment law and its decisions on foreign investment, putting lots of money in the coffers of multinational corporations that are not even based in Canada? It is also denying thousands of Canadians badly needed jobs so they can buy Christmas presents for their kids.

So in terms of lost tax revenue, lost jobs, and lost benefits to Canadians, I wonder if the member could speak to that and the perversity of this budget.

[The Environment, November 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on just day one of Cancun's climate talks, Canada swept the fossil fuel awards for watering down already weak emissions targets, for slashing funding for renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate science, and subverting the U.S. clean fuels policy, and top prize for undemocratically killing the climate change accountability act, with no debate.

Instead of an acceptance speech for the colossal fossil award, could the minister surprise us all and deliver a real clean energy strategy?

[King's University College, November 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is a remarkable institution in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, King's University College.

A small Christian university college, King's embraces a philosophy that addresses the whole person. King's strives to impart critical thinking skills and core values that not only carry its students through their careers, but also create a culture of thoughtful, caring and compassionate citizens.

King's Micah Centre for Social Justice provides practical student experience through global internships on reforestation, health, education and housing projects with less fortunate communities in Canada and far afield, from Haiti to Bangladesh.

I have enjoyed participating in its student organized conferences, examining different perspectives on critical challenges facing Canada and the world. I was also blessed this fall with a student intern from King's.

This small university punches well above its weight, making a tremendous difference not just for students, but for the broader community.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating King's University College for its years of success and wishing it many more.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually onside with the former minister of the environment. The government is in Cancun with little concrete action to report on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2009 the environment minister said the following:

At the outset, let me emphasize the need to harmonize our regulatory regime with the regime that is evolving south of the border. Harmonize. Not follow.

This year he said, “we need to proceed even further in aligning our regulations”.

U.S. regulations take effect in January. Can the minister explain why Canada's rules for major emitters remain in limbo?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, correspondence between Canada's diplomats and trade lawyers reveals a three-year campaign to collude with oil companies to kill U.S. global warming laws and policies to keep oil sands product flowing from Alberta into the U.S. marketplace.

These same diplomats called their environment officials “simply nutty” when they advocated cleaner oil sands technology.

Could the minister clarify whether Canadians who wish to discuss our national climate policy should call the American Petroleum Institute or BP and ExxonMobil directly?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that I should change a member's name in a quote from a letter and I shall do that in future.

I will close with those quotes, although I could go on and on with other quotes. I have received letter after letter from Canadians writing to say that many Canadians spoke in favour of the passage of the climate legislation passed by this House, climate legislation that simply called for accountability of the elected officials, accountability by the Government of Canada to report regularly to the elected officials on actions they are taking on addressing climate change.

The question before us is why then should we make it a mandatory obligation on the commissioner to report to a house that does not even give due consideration to legislation passed by this House, does not give due consideration to reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development showing the need for stronger action to address climate change?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-210 is before the House again. It is important for the House to reflect on the co-operation provided by the opposition in processing the bill through the House.

This bill came before us before the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to prorogue Parliament and shut down the work of the House.

Regardless of the actions of the Prime Minister in failing to expedite the passage of the bill our parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development was entirely co-operative with the Senate and with the government in bringing the bill forward in an expeditious manner.

This bill would simply make the practice of the office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development mandatory. In other words it would require that the reports be delivered not only to the House but to the other place.

Why should we pass the bill? What is the point? The experience that we have had with the other house over the last two weeks really questions whether or not the other place even cares to hear from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

When I spoke to this bill previously, I spoke glowingly of the work over decades by that office. The office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is very important to this country. That division of the Auditor General's office delivers very important reports on behalf of Canadians, analyzing how well the Government of Canada is doing on delivering on its mandate, its mandate set out in law, its mandate set out in international agreements and bilateral arrangements about the environment and the protection of the environment.

What do we have? The government wants to require, not just suggest, that the commissioner also speak to the other place about the matters he has been working on and be required to report. The question I would put before the House is, what is the point? We have the circumstance of what happened in the other place in the last two weeks where reprehensibly, that place killed a bill passed by this House, by the majority of duly elected members of this House.

The Senate was created as a place of sober second thought. It was established as a place where there would be different representatives from a cross-section of society to look at legislation proposed by the elected representatives to see if there were gaps, to see if there was anything missing, to see if anything should shift to make sure that any legislation coming from the House reflected the best interests of Canadians.

What did that place do to a bill on climate change passed by a majority of members of this House? We have heard from many Canadians and I will share some of those thoughts of Canadians on the actions by that place.

Let me remind the House of a report delivered to the House by the commissioner himself in 2009. The commissioner presented to the House and also presented to the Senate an audit report on actions taken by the government on addressing climate change, on delivering on its own promises to reduce climate change. Let me again share with the House some of the highlights of that report by the commissioner. He stated:

The annual climate change plans do not fully meet the requirements of the Act.... Expected emission reductions are overstated for the Regulatory Framework for Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions....The descriptions of the renewable fuels and renewable power measures are not fully transparent....The annual climate change plans do not disclose uncertainties about expected emission reductions....A monitoring system has not been developed.

That was the audit report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development delivered to the other place. Did it listen to the words and advice and findings of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development? Clearly not, for it made a determination that it would simply throw out legislation passed by the duly elected representatives of Canada.

Despite Canada's support, and without debate, it simply killed that bill. We have heard resoundingly from Canadians that they are appalled by the behaviour of the other place. Let me quote from a letter by two of my colleagues, the MP for Halifax and the MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore on the actions by the other place, having heard the report by the commissioner:

Despite Parliament’s support and adoption of this bill, the unelected, unaccountable Senate voted down and killed this much needed legislation in a snap vote at second reading. The Senate killed the bill before they studied it or even heard from expert witnesses. It is virtually unprecedented for the unelected Senate to defeat a bill passed by the elected House of Commons.

Not only did members in the other place ignore the information, advice and audit report of the commissioner, they failed to give any opportunity to Canadians to speak to that bill and to express their opinion on whether or not that bill passed by the duly elected representatives in the House of Commons should proceed.

Let me share what one of the senators had to say about the actions of that place:

In voting to defeat Bill C311, the Conservative senators betrayed the democratic process. They did so without debating the bill, although they had 193 days to do so. They also killed the bill before it could reach committee stage where it would have received detailed study. And, they still would have had third reading to defeat it.

I have received letters from Canadians from across the country who are absolutely dismayed at the actions of that place having had the opportunity to see the testimony before the committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and having had the opportunity to hear the speeches by elected representatives who spoke in support of that bill over and over in this House.

One person wrote to me and said that they were shocked and appalled to learn of the defeat of a bill in the Senate, a bill which had been passed by the House of Commons. It raised a number of questions and concerns.

Another letter written to the government and copied to the members of the opposition stated:

I am outraged at the cowardly tactics the Harper government uses to have the things the way corporate lobbyists...want them to be; this last one which killed Bill C-311--

[The Environment, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has rewarded a decade of lauded climate science by axing funding. Science, like industry, needs long-term, stable investment. As our young scientists are poached by other nations, we also lose the critical science necessary to form sound climate policy.

Instead of heading to Cancun empty-handed, will the government at least commit to restore funding to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I concur, of course, with the member's analysis. However, I would like to digress and go in another direction.

We have a lot of people who are having to rely on their retirement incomes because they are losing their jobs.

The government is failing in its watch in a number of areas that are seriously affecting people's retirement income, and that includes the matter of foreign investment.

When corporations come to this country from another nation and sign on to so-called agreements that the government puts forward, either the terms are not strict enough or the government is not bothering to watchdog those agreements. A lot of Canadians are losing their jobs and this is part of the crisis.

We need much broader action by the government to protect the income of Canadians, protect the jobs of Canadians and protect their future retirement earnings.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am astounded by the member's comment, equally.

First, he is fearmongering. I do not see any major corporations running away from Canada when they already have the lowest corporate tax rate in the western world, already a lower corporate tax rate than the United States of America. This is complete balderdash.

The point that we have been trying to raise all evening is that those on the other side simply do not appear to understand that there is a rising percentage of Canadians who do not have the money to buy RRSPs. They seem to be completely unaware that in the crash of the economy under their watch, a large number of Canadians lost their life savings in these supposedly sound RRSPs, which is precisely why they are calling upon us to plead the case to double the CPP.