Linda Duncan

[The Environment, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a peer-reviewed report on the oil sands emissions just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that oil sands operations are emitting today, and have been emitting for decades, levels of contaminants, putting the Athabasca watershed and its fisheries at serious risk. They found levels of airborne toxins equal to a major oil spill each year.

The finding raises serious questions about the government's long-term failure to regulate the impacts of this industry. Will the government commit to undertake an immediate fulsome investigation and timely response? Canadians—

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very important remarks. Every day we come to work, we pass these workers on the street, today in the middle of a blizzard. I find it absolutely reprehensible. These hard workers work in institutions that our family or friends go to visit. There is a very treasured part of my heritage there. The museum holds the artifacts of Dr. Yee a famous Alberta herbalist. I find it reprehensible that we are not giving due attention to ensure we have the highest calibre, well paid and continuous workers in that museum.

Would the member comment on that? We appear to be saying that a different rule applies to private employers, which should treat their employees fairly, and yet where we have an area of responsibility, we are falling down on that.

[The Environment, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this past year, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development was privileged to hear testimony from many leading Canadian scientists on the impact of oil sands operations on water resources.

Federal officials and industry witnesses defended their monitoring programs, including the industry funded RAMP, reporting no evidence of contamination in the Athabasca watershed and asserting that the majority of contaminants were from natural sources and posed no risk to human health or the environment.

Testimony by university and independent scientists offered a contrary view and serious concerns with government and industry-led monitoring. A peer review of RAMP showed it lacked scientific oversight, transparency and scientific veracity. We were advised a peer reviewed study was imminent.

This report, now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and co-authored by the lead scientist, Dr. David Schindler, provides clear evidence that the oil sands operations are emitting, and have been emitting, levels of contaminants that put the Athabasca River and tributaries at serious risk.

The results pose serious questions about the failed assertion of federal environmental powers today and—

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very thoughtful presentation, particularly on behalf of the first nations of Canada.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House, if members did not pay attention to the latest Auditor General's report, a series of reports by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner identified a serious lack of attention by the federal government in addressing potential impacts to first nations water sources due to the lack of attention to waste management. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Department of Indian Affairs have identified serious problems with the lack of legislation to protect aboriginal safe drinking water.

I wonder if the member would speak to the fact that if we actually provide the opportunity to the people of Canada to discuss this proposal, including the first nations people, perhaps they would like to provide us with their advice on how we could better spend this $8 billion. Perhaps it would be by providing safe drinking water to all Canadians.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to congratulate the new member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. I congratulate him on his inaugural speech, which was very well put. I know the rest of the House would join me in supporting him as he swims through the many hurdles that we face in trying to represent our constituents.

A lot of members, in speaking against the bill, have objected to the fact that there has been no opportunity for Canadians to speak to it. As a member representing residents of Alberta, what does the member have to say about the fact that we have also not consulted with people in Alberta and do they wish to shell out $6 billion, which could be spent on climate change and saving the fisheries instead of the—

[Petitions, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my second petition is a petition from residents in British Columbia and Alberta from Canadian Grandmothers for Africa. I am pleased to say that there is a very strong contingent of the grandmothers in my riding and across Alberta.

The petitioners are seeking the House to give support to the immediate setting of a timetable to meet by 2015, less than five years from now, its 40 year old promise to contribute 0.7% of our GNI to development assistance, contributing its fair share to the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and making the necessary legislative change for Canada's access to medicines. A good step along the way was made just this past week.

[Petitions, December 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to present two petitions to the House.

The first is a petition in support of the enactment of Bill C-368 to impose an immediate ban on the further use of cosmetic pesticides. Consistent with the precautionary principle, I would remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that Canada is bound by the precautionary principle and that until their use and consequences are proven safe, they should be banned from use.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, at 12:04 p.m., I raised a point of order regarding a false statement made November 20 in the House by the member for Ottawa South on Bill C-311. He stated that it was not two weeks ago that his colleague, referencing me, the critic for the NDP, was in agreement with the extension of 30 days in committee as it was extremely important to hear other expert witnesses. This is, by the way, a complete falsehood. I had voted against the extension and had spoken very clearly in the committee and outside. I wanted an expedited review and vote on that bill.

To my knowledge, the member has not yet withdrawn this false statement and I seek your intervention, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this request.

[The Environment, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has much to gain, contrary to what the minister suggests, from reducing carbon pollution.

We have the experts and we have the knowledge base to become the leaders in the green economy that will define the 21st century. Instead, what we have is a government clinging to an outdated 19th century way of thinking.

The Canadian economy is at serious risk and our once burgeoning renewable sector is losing its competitive edge.

Will the government finally deliver on its promise of support to the renewable sector and provide genuine clean power for Canadians?

[The Environment, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, more than 500 leading Canadian scientists have written to the Prime Minister, calling for more aggressive action on climate change. They are on the front line. They are in the field documenting already evident impacts of climate change on our oceans, on our Arctic, on the Prairies.

Dr. Smol, Canadian research chair in environmental change at Queen's University, has said that the only chance of stabilizing the climate is to move much more aggressively on reducing greenhouse gases.

Will the government commit to go to Copenhagen to seek deeper, earlier cuts supported by stronger action here in Canada?