Linda Duncan

[Petitions, June 7th, 2010]

I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, from the citizens of Edmonton calling on the House of Commons to support Bill C-466 to create greener commuter choices.

The petitioners are concerned about declining urban air quality, the threat of climate change and the fact that one-half of transport is personal transport creating greenhouse gases.

They call on the House to pass Bill C-466 and to implement a national transit strategy and to increase the municipal share of the federal gas tax.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to table a petition from the citizens of Edmonton, St. Albert, Lac La Biche and Spruce Grove, Alberta.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to enact Bill C-469, an environmental bill of rights, so as to provide the tools for Canadians to hold their government accountable to protect the environment, including the enforcement of environmental laws, and to act on international conventions and obligations, and to give Canadians the right to participate in environmental decision making.

[Health Care, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Friends of Medicare is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

For the past three decades, the members of this organization have been central in the struggle to protect public health care in the province of Alberta. They successfully combated extra billing by doctors in the eighties and for the past twenty years have fought against numerous attempts to increase privatization of the health care system.

In April 2000, tens of thousands of Albertans attended rallies held in Edmonton and Calgary to protest the infamous Bill 11, which would have introduced private hospitals in Alberta.

Canadians from all provinces have reasons to be grateful to this grassroots organization. By stopping the scourge of private health care from gaining a foothold in Alberta, they helped to prevent its spread across the country.

I congratulate members of Friends of Medicare for the dedication and passion they bring to the defence of our public health care system that Canadians value so highly.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the comments made by the previous speaker, to the effect that this free trade agreement with Colombia sets a precedent for future free trade agreements. My recollection is that the NAFTA set the precedent, especially with the rich side agreement which provided for a separate council, a full-time secretariat, the opportunity for citizens to file complaints of failed enforcement and the potential for penalties to be imposed.

What does the hon. member think about the ratcheting back and evisceration of environmental conditions to these trade agreements?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the member's comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Kings—Hants who in the very beginning, and if one did not listen very closely one would have missed it because he kind of skated over it, mentioned that this trade agreement really honours the government's support for balancing the environment, development and sustainability.

I would have liked the opportunity to ask him a question about that but I did not have the chance. However, I am sure the hon. member was listening to what he had to say in the ongoing debate about these trade agreements, these free trade as opposed to fair trade agreements.

As I mentioned before in the House, I had the honour of being the first head of law and enforcement for the NAFTA Environment Commission. There was a lot of concern that even that side agreement to the NAFTA agreement was not binding, the same way that the actual NAFTA agreement was binding, but still provided for a full-time secretariat. It provided for a council of all the environment ministers, as there should be for Colombia and the environment if this is truly a sustainable--

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Northwest Territories does an incredible job of representing his constituents and representing the interests of all Canadians on the protection and sustainable development of the north. I wish to thank him for that. I am sure that his constituents are grateful for the good job he does in the House.

The member started his comments on the proposed amendments to the bill by talking generally about the demise of democracy in the House. From my standpoint, being a mover of the motion to divide the bill, that is the very essence of the problem we have with the way the government is conducting itself on its budget bill.

Conservatives ran on a platform of openness and transparency, on providing a new way of democracy in Canada, and on the involvement of the grassroots. Yet it takes major changes to an environmental statute, developed over more than three decades by industry, the public, first nations, and small communities in every corner of Canada, and throws them into a budget bill, therefore limiting the discourse on a statute, by law, that was supposed to come before the parliamentary committee on the environment within months.

I wonder if he can speak to the issue that the very department that received an F grade from the Information Commissioner surely should be providing for better consultation on the bills that are the responsibility of that agency.

[The Economy, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his motion. Certainly, there are perspectives in there that I support. I think it would be great if the current government put more effort into improved competitiveness in the renewable and energy efficiency sector. If the government would stop playing favouritism for one narrow sector, we could move forward and join the rest of the world in ensuring a cleaner, more sustainable planet.

Would the member please respond to the recommendations also apparently made by the environmentminister to the finance minister on removing the perverse incentives for the oil and gas sector and shifting over toward encouraging a cleaner, more sustainable energy future?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa South for expressing the support of his party for the NDP motion and for this broader review to proceed. He is quite correct. The review that was about to proceed was extremely narrow. It is still unclear whether the government is talking about a review that it will undertake or whether it is talking about the National Energy Board broader review that is about to be undertaken, which, frankly, is not the government but an appointed agency.

I also appreciated the reference the hon. member made to what President Calderón said in his speech to the House, which we all witnessed. He had a hard time finding anything complimentary to say about what has been done by government. He very politely did not talk about the deregulation of the environment going on, but called on us to move on climate change.

One thing the government seems to be saying is the International Energy Agency is endorsing its path. In fact, more than a year ago, the International Energy Agency called on all developed nations of the world to endorse a new greener path to energy security.

Is the member supportive of the call by the New Democratic Party for a national energy, security and sustainability strategy so we get on that path?

[The Environment, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is why there is a coordinated review, except one of the partners is missing in action.

The government constantly touts its policy of following in the footsteps of the United States on energy and environmental policies and standards. Given this, will the government today commit to upgrade Canadian laws governing oil and gas leases to at least provide the same public rights to scrutinize the process and require environmental assessment as provided in U.S. law, and not in Canadian law? Will it follow the path forged by President Obama to seize that control and responsibility to regulate these risky oil and gas--

[The Environment, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, next week in Alberta a provincial hearing will begin into an oil sands upgrader in Upgrader Alley. The project will destroy fish habitat and cause acid deposition in the national park, yet despite public requests, no federal environmental assessment has been required and no federal officials are attending the hearing.

How does the minister defend his failure to ensure a review before an irrevocable decision is made to ensure timely and meaningful public participation, and to provide a coordinated environmental assessment, all required by law?