Linda Duncan

[The Environment., December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I did not obtain answers to any of the questions I asked. In all the trade deals negotiated under the Conservative government, and now by the Liberal government, they have not retained the provisions in the side agreement to NAFTA, which is an independent council and secretariat and high-level oversight of decisions on whether trade deals or business are actually undermining environmental protection.

Is the Liberal government proposing at the table? Will it let the public know what it is proposing at the table? Is it its intention to retain these very important measures that have actually delivered a lot?

I had the privilege of working with the secretariat. We delivered a lot of very good work. There has been a lot of good work by the independent secretariat on reviewing submissions claiming failed enforcement, but what has failed is the response by governments to those reports.

When is the Liberal government going to finally reveal to the public what it is bringing forward at the table so we can know whether this future NAFTA will in fact be stronger, or will it be weaker?

[The Environment., December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25 of this year, I raised this concern. While the government claims it is seeking inclusion of strong environment and climate provisions in the modernized NAFTA, no such measures have been publicly revealed and no environment advisers have been appointed to the council advising the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is leading negotiations on NAFTA.

Only at the eleventh hour has the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced she has now formed a NAFTA sub-group. None of the recommendations have been made public. Nor has it been revealed whether its proposals have even been tabled in the negotiations.

How can Canadians have faith that the Liberals are strengthening environment and trade deals without transparency? When will the minister reveal to Canadians what the Liberals are actually seeking for the environment at the negotiation table? The Americans, at the onset of the negotiations, publicly released their proposals for environmental provisions of a revised NAFTA. Therefore, where is the oft-touted Liberal government's openness, transparency, and accountability?

Here are some important questions requiring an answer.

Is Canada proposing to shut down the independent Commission for Environmental Cooperation, based in Montreal, created under the current NAFTA? Is Canada proposing to reduce senior level oversight over commitments for effective environmental enforcement and not to downgrade environmental laws by replacing authority vested in the council of ministers with instead junior level bureaucrats? Is the government recommending shutting down the secretariat, thereby ending any independent reviews and reports on allegations of failed enforcement? Finally, what is the baseline for Canadian environmental law? Is it the yet to be strengthened laws eviscerated by the Harper government?

[Criminal Code, December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I had to stand because of the speech my colleague just gave. He talked about how his government was open to amendments proposed by the opposition. Let me share an experience that counters what the member has said.

In my committee, I brought forward a number of amendments to a bill that the government brought forward. The amendments were actually recommended by the majority Liberal committee, yet my committee, which is a majority Liberal committee, rejected those amendments.

Perhaps the member could explain this to me. What is the purpose of members of the opposition working hard, looking at a bill, looking at what committees are recommending, considering what witnesses have said to strengthen to the bill, and then just flat out rejecting them, presumably, because the government of day does not want any amendments.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in fact, it is not a gender-equitable cabinet. I do not understand why the members keep saying this, when even the experts, their own officials, are saying that they do not deliver that.

What concerns me most is that this government has been in power for two years. It was in 2004 when the pay equity task force called for action on equal pay for work of equal value in the federal civil service.

Again, this is the answer to everything. It is the answer to indigenous children having access to comparable services and to indigenous communities having access to drinking water. The answer of this government always is “eventually we will have equal rights.”

[Fisheries and Oceans, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yet another iconic Canadian species, sockeye salmon, is now threatened.

While we appreciate the government's response to the NDP's call for a deadline to list a species at risk, it continues to fail in its duty to protect critical habitat. Many of these species are relied on by indigenous communities and other communities for their survival.

Will even more court actions be needed to trigger government action on its duty to protect threatened species?

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do know they accepted one from another party, and it is my understanding that they rejected every single one from my party.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, not speaking to the specific provision the member read from, I do recall that every single mandate letter stated that every member of cabinet would be accountable for greater openness and transparency and consultation with the public. I used to be on the transport committee. Now I am on the environment and sustainable development committee. It is the same requirement for both ministers. The government, because it has delivered a poor bill before us, is simply not delivering on that overall promise for greater sunshine in access to information.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there were no amendments made, so I have a hard time responding to the question. The hon. member says we did not list other people. How about Duff Conacher, the founder of Democracy Watch? How about Mark Weiler, web and user experience librarian? How about Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy? They also gave scathing reviews of the bill.

If the government is not even willing to listen to the testimony of its Access to Information Commissioner, who is it willing to listen to? The Liberals made a big promise. They broke the promise. The President of the Treasury Board promised that he would be open to amendments and he rejected them all.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative Party for getting a few more members to join us to hear my recommendations to strengthen the bill before us. Of course, we do not mention names in this place, but it is nice, and I can feel the room warming up already.

Where have the Liberals failed?

Well, there is no duty to document decision-making processes. The bill would allow information to be labelled as cabinet briefings to deny access. It would introduce yet more exceptions. It fails to require a harm test, which is a specific recommendation made by the parliamentary committee. It fails to prescribe in law an explicit public interest override, another recommendation by the parliamentary committee.

The Liberals are not willing to listen to the recommendations at committee. They are not willing to listen to the amendments brought forward. It really begs the question of why we work so hard in this place, why we diligently go through the bills, have witnesses come in, and make recommendations to strengthen the bills before us, because the government simply dispenses with them.

Therefore, it is with great sadness that, yet again, we have legislation tabled in this place that breaks an election promise. The Liberals have not provided sunshine and greater access to information for the public. They have not included what is most important of all. They say they are going to provide for proactive disclosure, but the best way to do that is to include provisions for whistle-blower protection. They have not done that, and so have put a cork in the mouths of their officers, who would otherwise readily disclose information to the public.

[Access to Information Act, December 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House when you are presiding.

I participated in the debate at second reading, hopeful that for once the government would be open to amendments. As I recall, the President of the Treasury Board promised they would be open to amendments. Regrettably, every amendment tabled by my colleague was rejected.

Why is that important? As the representative for the Conservative Party stated, great promises were made by the Liberals when they ran for office, a new world of openness and transparency and sunshine. What are they offering? Like many of the bills they have brought forward, they tell us not to worry, that they have not made those changes they promised, that in five years when we review the bill again, they will think about whether they will bring those forward. It is getting very tiresome.

It is time for the government to deliver on its promises and on requests by Canadians, by experts, and by its own commissioners to open access to information.

I have shared in the House that in my 40-plus years as an environmental advocate, I championed the cause for the rights of citizens to have a voice in environmental decision-making. Critical to that is having the opportunity to participate in the review of standards and the review of projects, policy, and trade deals. For the public to constructively participate, it is very critical they have ready access to information. The government has failed on that.

The Liberals have said that they will have a proactive disclosure, but then it is up to the government to decide what the public will receive. Yes, it would be nice if the government were more open with access to information, but let me give a concrete example of where it has abjectly failed to deliver on this promise.

We are in the middle of negotiations on a “modernized” NAFTA. Very late in the day, the government suddenly remembered it would have strong provisions for environment in any NAFTA deal, yet there is no environmental adviser to the foreign affairs minister who is negotiating the deal. To her credit, she has industry representatives and representatives from labour, but no representative with environmental expertise.

Very late in the day, at the eleventh hour, the environment minister established an advisory committee. We have no idea what role it is playing, whether its ideas are passed on to the negotiation table. We have no idea whatsoever what the government is proposing for environmental provisions in the NAFTA deal, unlike the Americans. We can criticize the Americans as much as want, but they tabled and made publicly available all the provisions they were intending to seek for environment in a negotiated trade deal. So much for openness and transparency.

Nothing in Bill C-58 will improve that, because the government has made its own decision that it will not disclose that information in advance to the public. To make matters worse, the Liberals issued a call for public comments on a revised NAFTA, when we did not even know what a revised NAFTA would say. I do not know what the outcome of the consultations were but I heard from a lot of Canadians who asked how they could comment on a trade deal when they did not even know what it would include. The Liberal Party's idea about open access to information and timeliness is a bit of Russian roulette.

Why is it important for Canadians to have access to information? From my perspective, as the environment and climate change critic and as an advocate for environmental rights for over 40 years, these are the kinds of things the public wants. They want to know in advance, before they are consulted, if they are consulted, what the planned routes are for pipelines. They want to know the locations of chemical plants before they are approved. They want information on the potential or known impacts of toxins on their health. That request was made very strongly by very many people who testified before our parliamentary committee.

The government has been in power now for over two years. What was one of the Liberals' big election promises? They promised they would immediately restore all federal environmental laws. Well, there is nothing stopping them from tabling today or tomorrow a revised Canadian Environmental Protection Act to extend these kinds of rights. We had a review by our committee with all kinds of recommendations to amend the act, but there has still been no action, and we will not hold our breath for a response.

We want to know about the safety of consumer products before they are made available for sale. Again, it is a specific request made by experts to our parliamentary committee. We are still waiting for action to make that information available. It is a vacuous offer to increase and improve access to information when, in fact, the Liberals bring forward a bill that provides very little.

As my colleague did, I will also share from the Information Commissioner's report on Bill C-58 entitled “Failing to Strike the Right Balance for Transparency”, which reads:

In short, Bill C-58 fails to deliver.

The government promised the bill would ensure the Act applies to the Prime Minister’s and Ministers’ Offices appropriately. It does not.

The government promised the bill would apply appropriately to administrative institutions that support Parliament and the courts. It does not.

The government promised the bill would empower the Information Commissioner to order the release of government information. It does not.

Rather than advancing access to information rights, Bill C-58 would instead result in a regression of existing rights.

That is from the report of the Information Commissioner, and it is a scathing review, yet members of the government stand and defend the bill they have brought forward.

The bill could have been strengthened if the government finally delivered on the undertaking in this place by the President of the Treasury Board that he would welcome amendments to strengthen the bill, and yet the government refused every single amendment brought forward by my colleagues. This is not open and constructive government. It is not listening to experts. It is not listening to its own commissioners. It is not listening to the public.