Linda Duncan

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly raising matters that my colleagues and I would like to see the government committing our budget dollars to.

Regrettably, we are in fact falling down on the commitments that we have made. So far, we have only committed a little over half of what we committed for international aid, for climate mitigation adaptation. We committed to having a 50-50 balance in our global assistance for adaptation and mitigation, and that most of that would go to grants, not to loans, and through public dollars, not through private dollars. However, Canada is taking the complete opposite direction.

We have just heard that the head of the OECD is deeply disappointed in Canada's falling far behind in our commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

I wonder if the member could speak to what she sees in this budget that will in fact shift us toward what we committed to.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I want to compare the two. I was pretty clear in my speech that it is not what I am calling for, it is what the Auditor General, OECD, and what all those countries that will be gathering in Bonn are calling for. Canada made big promises but is failing on delivery.

Frankly, I did not just speak to Alberta. I hear it day after day in my riding, and I know there are a lot of people from across this country, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and B.C., who have come to work in the oil industry in Alberta. Everyone knows there is a downturn. A lot of those young folk call me and ask what they can do to get into the renewables sector, because they know there is a lot of potential for jobs. There is a waiting list for the renewable energy program at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

For heaven's sake, when is the Liberal government going to step up and give some of the money over to help with this just transition?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am hearing the same kinds of concerns that all members in this place are hearing, particularly given that I am from Alberta. We know there is a downturn in the oil industry and a depleted price for oil and gas. Today I read another report on how many oil field workers are trying to get into training so they can get into the renewable sector. However, we do not see a cent from the current government towards a just transition. I am proud that the Government of Alberta is working on a strategy with unions and workers in Alberta and trying to move this forward, but where is the strategy? People across Canada need work. There are a lot of people being laid off. People want to work. They do not want to go on welfare. They want to look after their family. They would probably prefer to go back to the communities that they came from. The renewable sector can clearly provide a lot of jobs, as it has around the world. Therefore, I am deeply disappointed that there are lot of things that are not in this budget that would help Canadians obtain employment in the new energy economy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-63. I intend to focus on commitments made by the government of the day, and the previous government, on the phasing out of inefficient or perverse subsidies for fossil fuels.

This commitment was made repeatedly since 2009 to the G20, including by the Liberal government in 2016. Canada, Mexico, and the United States committed to remove these perverse incentives by 2025. The government has voiced a commitment to phase them out in the medium term. The question then arises, as we move at a snail's pace, what exactly is the medium term?

The government also committed to take action to reduce greenhouse gases. They made that commitment in Paris, and we are now hearing from world leaders that this appears to be a sliding commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, leading into the climate meeting in Bonn.

I would like to start off reminding those in this place of what the Prime Minister's mandate letter said about the phase-out of these perverse subsidies. The mandate letter for the finance minister is very clear.

First, his mandate was to work with the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues in the cabinet to review tax expenditures and other spending to “reduce poorly targeted and inefficient measures, wasteful spending”, and ineffective initiatives.

Second, his mandate was to work with the Minister of Natural Resources to “enhance existing tax measures to generate more clean technology investments and work with the provinces and territories to make Canada’s tax system highly competitive for investments in the research, development, and manufacturing of clean technology.”

Third, the Minister of Finance was mandated to work with the Minister of Environment to fulfill the government's “G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.”

It does not end there. The mandate letter for the finance minister also says that if the government is to tackle climate change, the work must be “informed by performance measurement” and “evidence”. Then the mandate letter says that the government has committed to a “higher bar for openness and transparency”, and that the Prime Minister expects the minister to deliver on these commitments during this mandate in the first four years. However, two of those years are gone and we are now sliding into the third year.

What has a leading international entity said about Canada's sliding commitment to addressing greenhouse gases, including our commitment to remove the perverse incentives?

Jose Angel Gurría, the Secretary-General of the OECD, has expressed great pain at the sliding commitment. He says it is “a bit of a paradox” that Canada seems to be espousing the political will to reduce greenhouse gases, but does not seem to be going down that road. However, in the United States where the political will is gone, they have moved far ahead of Canada in taking action. He also stated that, “While at the same time, the local situation is showing that speed of reduction is not as fast as one would have wanted”, that emissions in Canada should have fallen 17% from 2005 levels, and instead the drop has been more like 2%. He also stated that Canada is “on a path where, by 2030, you may not be able to get to the target.”

It is very concerning. Therefore, it is not only Canadians expressing concern about the lack of commitment of the government to deliver on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. There will be growing concern about the failure to deliver the commitments to the G20 and their commitments in Paris.

This is reiterated by Canada's Auditor General in a letter sent by him on June 2 to the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

This audit focused on whether the Department of Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in a manner consistent with their respective roles and responsibilities, supported Canada’s 2009 G20 commitment to phase out and rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.

It continues:

Overall, we found that [these departments] did not define what the 2009 G20 commitment to phase out and rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies means in the context of Canada’s national circumstances.

The Auditor General then continues, and states:

We found that since 2009, six subsidies to the fossil fuel sector were reformed by legislation. Other tax measures for this sector were not reformed. We also found that the Department of Finance Canada did not consider all tax measures to determine whether they were inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the commitment. The Department also did not develop an implementation plan with timelines to support the phase-out and rationalization by 2025 of remaining tax measures that are inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

The Auditor General closes with this, which states:

...without a clear understanding of the fossil fuel subsidies covered by the G20 commitment and without an implementation plan with timelines, the departments cannot ensure that they are providing the support needed for Canada to meet the commitment by 2025.

Clearly serious concerns are being raised, in all quarters, about the failure of the current government to deliver on its commitments both to reduce greenhouse gases and to take more expedited action to remove the perverse subsidies. In this budget, the government appears to be partially addressing Canadian development and Canadian exploration expense deductions. With respect to the removal of these subsidies, it may be noted that the Canadian exploration expense deduction used to be 100%, but is now being slid into the Canadian development expense deduction, which is 30%. It is hard to tell from what is in the budget document how much further the government is going, but clearly it is not rapid enough to meet the demands of the Auditor General.

It is important to consider that these corporations can continue to defer the deductions. Therefore, while the budget document appears to suggest that by a certain date, which I think is 2021, they can no longer claim them, the corporations can hold those off and claim them at an end date. Therefore, we may have hundreds of millions of dollars being claimed in the near future, at a time when we need to be spending that money on supporting renewable energy.

Why is this of deep concern? I have gone through the reports where people have been adding up the subsidies and grants for the fossil fuel industry. It adds up to an astounding $5.8 billion a year, so the government has a long way to go, given the meagre measures it has in this budget document.

Therefore, the obvious question for the government is this. When will it step up to the plate, move this forward, and respond to the call by the Auditor General to provide a plan of action and a timeline? Further, is it going to begin to become transparent, instead of holding discussions on these perverse subsidies behind closed doors?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary in his role in justice. I am deeply concerned about the lack of access to justice by Canadians. We heard a major report on CBC today about how many people are having to represent themselves in court, causing further delays in the judicial process and ending with some serious cases being dropped that should proceed.

In my province of Alberta, even though the provincial budget may be stressed for dollars, it has increased legal aid, yet in this budget, we see no increase whatsoever for legal aid so that all Canadians can have access to justice, including middle-class families.

Can the member speak to that and to why this budget update does not include additional monies for legal aid, which is a pressing need in the country?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what is not in this budget update bill is the most troubling. In the budget the Liberals tabled, which I know by heart, on pages 149 to 150 were a lot of promises to support the conversion toward a cleaner energy Canada, but the vast majority of the dollars would not come until after the next election.

The Auditor General has been calling on the government to move forward on its commitment to deal with, reduce, and phase out the perverse subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The grants and subsidies amount to more than $6 billion a year. Could the member speak to how disappointing that is and how little the government is doing to deliver on its commitments?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his attention to SMEs.

If the government of the day paid attention, it would see that world investment is shifting toward renewable energy, not fossil fuels. Yet the current government has been chastised by both the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Auditor General for not only refusing to provide the schedule for how it is going to meet its commitment to remove perverse subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, but also for the pathetically tiny shift in fossil fuel write-offs in its budget, which we are debating here today. My understanding is that it simply would move from 100% write-off to a 30% write-off, and that this will continue up to even 2021.

Could the member tell us, given his interest in SMEs, his government's schedule to finally remove the perverse subsidies, which amount to almost $6 billion a year, and of that amount, how much is reduced in this bill?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, that is a confusing response.

Let us try this one. Leading into next week's climate meeting in Bonn, the United Nations is raising concerns with the growing emissions gap. It has called for deeper action by all nations. The environment commissioner has reported that the Liberal government is failing to even meet Stephen Harper's targets.

Given the UN's concerns, and reports that Canadian methane emissions may be double those forecast, will the Prime Minister commit today to more substantial cuts to our greenhouse gas emissions?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that multiple ministers are benefiting from a loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, and the Ethics Commissioner has been calling for this loophole to be closed since 2013.

For a government that held itself to such a high ethical standard, why is the Prime Minister refusing to do the right thing: take the Ethics Commissioner's advice and close the loophole?

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when I sat on the transport committee, we had a very intensive review of rail safety. I have to say that I am stunned at how little has come forward. We identified a lot of problems with the regulation of rail safety. I know that government members are out talking to people, but they should be talking to the lawyers who have a whole litany of reforms they would like made to the Railway Safety Act.

What is particularly stunning to me is the testimony we heard, including from the Transportation Safety Board and the inspectors from the Department of Transport, that there is a problem with the lack of inspection and a problem with the lack of response to problems identified by the Transportation Safety Board.

All this bill is doing is picking on the workers on the rail lines. The number one safety issue the workers have identified is fatigue, and the change in the rules has allowed the rail companies to hire fewer and fewer people and to work very erratically.

The member appears to share my concern that they have handpicked this one issue. There is no clarity on how this information will be used. It is going to violate workers' rights if it can be used by a company for other, nefarious purposes.

Would the member like to speak to my concerns?