Linda Duncan

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a great deal of respect for that member. I appreciated working with her on environment committee when I was first elected. She worked very hard on that committee.

However, I am stunned. What is this, alternative facts? We have heard speaker afer speaker reiterate not even what is our opinion in this place but what legal and access to information experts are revealing. We simply need to look at what the parliamentary committee recommended, which the government has not delivered on. We simply need to look at what the Information Commissioner has recommended, which the government has not delivered on. We could shoot cannonballs through the supposedly greater access to information. I am stunned.

All the government is giving us is more opportunities to review a law that we have been waiting three decades to have revised and strengthened for the benefit of Canadians.

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill and share many of the concerns and disappointments that have been raised in the House today.

In my 40 years as an environmental lawyer working as a public advocate, working with governments, and advising other nations, I have been constant in pursuing citizens' rights to have a voice in decision-making and to ensure that those voices are informed and constructive through ready and timely access to information, and, as my colleague from Regina—Lewvan mentioned today, fighting for whistle-blower protection measures.

Time after time, when we were dealing with issues that might impact health or the environment, officials in the health department and environment department have given up their careers by stepping forward and revealing information that the government did not want to reveal.

It is disappointing that those measures have not yet come forward. I have, three times over, tabled in this place a Canadian environmental bill of rights that would have expressly guaranteed those rights, including access to environmental information. It is sad to share that the first time I tabled this bill and it actually went to committee, the majority on that committee—since only I was there, and the others were Liberals and Conservatives—struck down the simple provision in my bill calling for the government to provide access to environmental information.

Why are my bill and a strengthened Access to Information Act necessary? Among the greatest barriers Canadians face in seeking to provide a voice in decisions impacting their health and environment is a lack of access to information. They want information on the planned routes of pipelines and the locations of chemical plants before they are approved. They want information on potential or known impacts of toxins on their health and environment before they are approved for use, information on the safety of consumer products before they are made available for sale, and information on how the government intends to strengthen our environmental protections in a revised NAFTA.

Here I add that the government has circulated a call for public input on environmental impact, yet it has provided absolutely no information on what it is proposing to put in NAFTA. Talk about a vacuous call for consultation.

In successive reports by the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development, recommendations have been made to ensure greater public access to such information. We await actions on these recommendations by a government that claims priority for the environment and for these long-overdue reforms, and we wait for for the government to enact an environmental bill of rights.

As the Centre for Law and Democracy has stated in its comments on Bill C-58:

...the heart of a right to information system...is the right of individuals to request whatever information they want from government.

In other words, at the heart of the right of access of information is the right of Canadians to ask for the information they want, not to sit back and wait for the government to decide what information it might choose to disclose. Yes, we need both, but we need access to information and more willingness to disclose, and as my colleague has pointed out, the Liberal emphasis on proactive publication leaves government the discretion of what to disclose.

In reviewing Bill C-58, we need only consider this simple question: does it deliver on the Liberals' promise to improve access to information? Sadly, the clear answer is no, it does not.

Sadly, Bill C-58 represents yet another broken election promise, as has been said many times over in this place. The government, in presenting this bill, has blatantly disregarded the 85 recommendations for reform by the Information Commissioner and the recommendations by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It has ignored the advice of legal experts and access to information experts.

The bill is completely at odds with the reforms proposed by the Prime Minister in the bill he himself tabled while in opposition. It fails to deliver reforms recommended in many bills tabled by the New Democratic Party. It contradicts the directives issued by the Prime Minister to all of his ministers in the mandate letters, and we have heard this mentioned many times in this place. As the Prime Minister said in every mandate letter:

We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government. It is time to shine more light on government to ensure it remains focused on the people it serves. Government and its information should be open by default.

Contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board has asserted, a statement in a mandate letter does not, in fact, extend a right to information. The government expects accolades for releasing these mandate letters, then abjectly fails to deliver on them.

The President of the Treasury Board gave accolades to the government because it was elected to this open government committee, yet one remains puzzled. An analysis by a recognized group, the Centre for Law and Democracy, pointed out that there are actually international criteria for assessing how well a government is delivering on access to information. There are seven criteria, and they have done an analysis. It is important to note that right now, Canada sits at a miserable 49th position globally. By implementing the measures in the bill, it is only going to rise to the 46th position. It shoots a cannon hole in the argument of the President of the Treasury Board that the bill deserves great accolades.

Canadians remember the broken election promise to end first past the post elections, which was an action mandated to the first minister of democratic reform and broken.

On balance, Bill C-58 is a very small step forward in improving public access to information, but it delivers us many steps backwards.

What are the key reforms the commissioner, the committee, members of Parliament, and access to information experts have long called for? First is expanding the scope of the act to require access to a broader array of information. Second is reducing the wait times and fees. The government is doing that. In fact, it has done it before. It would simply put it in law. Third is substantially narrowing the exceptions and exclusions, including access to prime ministerial and ministerial information, yet the bill would cut that back with the exceptions it includes. Fourth is empowering the Information Commissioner to issue binding orders. While that power would be extended, it would be cut back by additional powers that would be given to the government to short-circuit those powers. We would have hoped for protection for whistle-blowers.

What would the bill provide? Bill C-58 would provide a five-year review. We have waited three decades for a strengthened act, and now all we get is that in five years, we can review it again. It defies credibility. I find it astounding. Of course there should be a five-year review, but we should not wait for the amendments we have waited 30 years for.

The bill would formalize free waivers. It would grant powers to the Information Commissioner, which I mentioned, but they would be restricted.

Where have the Liberals failed? Well, there is no duty to document the decision-making processes. The bill would allow the labelling of information as cabinet briefings to deny access. It introduces yet more exceptions. It fails to require a harms test, which is a specific recommendation made by the parliamentary committee. It fails to prescribe in law an explicit public interest override, a recommendation of the parliamentary committee. Indeed, it empowers the commission to order information released but undermines it with other provisions it adds.

Absent government acceptance of significant amendments to the bill, and the record has been that the Liberals have not been open to amendments from this place, and given the abject failings of Bill C-58, perhaps the next measure we can anticipate by the government to cover off another broken election promise, and sad to say we will wait and see, is yet another amendment to the ministerial mandate letters to remove the commitment to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government.

The President of the Treasury Board has committed to be open to amendments. We are hopeful. We will have a good discourse in the committee. There have been a lot of concerns raised. We have had a lot of reviews—from the Information Commissioner, from previous reports by Parliament, and from experts. Let us hope that if the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee examines the bill in closer detail, it will speak to the Government of Canada and call for these kinds of changes to come forward to genuinely provide access to information to Canadians. If the Liberals will not listen us, perhaps they will listen to nations around the world.

[The Environment, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, further on transparency, the government claims it is seeking inclusion of strong environment and climate provisions in a modernized NAFTA, yet there are no environment advisers on the minister's NAFTA council. At the eleventh hour, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change formed a NAFTA subgroup, promising openness and transparency, yet refusing to reveal the measures the Liberals are seeking in the new deal.

How can Canadians have faith that the Liberals are strengthening environment in trade deals without transparency? When will the minister come clean on what the Liberals are actually seeking for the environment at the negotiation table?

[Health, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow my constituent Petra Shulz will arrive in Ottawa hoping to deliver a message to the Minister of Health and to Parliament. She speaks for a network of Canadian mothers and families whose loved ones have died from opioid use or who could have hope of recovery.

I encourage all to view the heartbreaking messages of their children who were lost to opioids at momsstoptheharm.com. They remind us that every victim is somebody's son, daughter, brother or sister, somebody's someone. These mothers echo the NDP's ask, that after more than 2,000 overdose deaths in our country this past year, why is the government not declaring a national public health emergency? We must heed their call for expedited action on the opioid crisis, grant interim exemptions on all outstanding applications for supervised consumption services, initiate a national anti-stigma campaign, and launch a national advisory council modelled on Alberta's council.

So many lives depend on it.

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been encouraging if the member's party had moved on the kinds of amendments that he is now calling for. Canadians have waited for more than three decades to finally have a strong Access to Information Act so we would have a better reputation internationally.

The member is bright and I always appreciate his comments, so I think he might agree with me. We all recall another promise, and that was that this would be the last election of first past the post. The government then decided it would not deliver on that promise, and what did it do. It simply switched ministers and changed the mandate letter.

The Liberals have failed to deliver on the vast majority of recommendations by the commissioner or the committee, or most legal experts. Does the member think that the next action we will see is that they can now just amend the mandate letters to the ministers and remove the higher bar for openness and transparency in government?

[Holidays Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to support the bill, although I have to admit I am deeply disappointed that the member has relented and reduced his bill substantially.

Initially, as I understand, Bill C-311 proposed that Remembrance Day be a statutory holiday. Remembrance Day is already a statutory holiday in my province of Alberta and in every province except Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia.

My experience is, and the experience of those in my city, that making this day of remembrance a statutory holiday enables and encourages families to participate in memorial services. Events are well-attended in Edmonton, at cenotaphs located across the city. Schools do host events and there is no conflict, as has been raised I think by some veterans. Most schools host their November 11 activities days before November 11. I have regularly participated in events in both McNally High School and Vimy Ridge Academy and they are a pleasure.

While the largest service held with the Lieutenant Governor is hosted at the University of Alberta in my riding, for the past few years, I have been honoured to be invited to join the premier and the South Alberta Light Horse regiment in a very special service at Holy Trinity Anglican Church. We then march with the soldiers to the cenotaph at the now renamed Light Horse Park.

I have also had the privilege of working with a committee of Edmontonians determined to refurbish the old Strathcona cenotaph, an effort led by the South Alberta Light Horse Regiment Foundation, nicknamed Sally Horse.

I am joined on this committee by our local MLA, the premier of Alberta, the rector for Holy Trinity Anglican Church, the Royal Canadian Legion, our city council, the Old Strathcona Foundation, the Strathcona Community League, Fringe Theatre Adventures, the Old Strathcona Business Association, and finally the Youth Empowerment and Support Services, or YESS.

YESS is an organization that supports youth who are homeless. It is located in the adjacent Connaught Armoury, the oldest in the province. Each Remembrance Day, they kindly host all who attend the ceremonies at our cenotaph.

This joint initiative to refurbish the cenotaph has been inspired by the growing interest in participating in this community-based ceremony and in recognizing the deep connection of the Light Horse to Old Strathcona.

The official birthdate of the SALHties was July 1905 and Old Strathcona was the regimental headquarters until 1964. Their flags still fly in Holy Trinity church.

The regiments were horse-mounted in the early days. Albertan regiments are famous for the horsemanship, going back to World War I, when Albertans were tasked with breaking in new mounts at Swaythling Remount Depot because of their natural horsemanship.

Members of the then-called Dragoons were dispatched from the Old Strathcona train station in 1914, during World War I, and also in 1939 during World War II. Their current Colonel-in-Chief is Her Royal Highness, the Countess of Wessex, who has attended some of the November 11 services and ceremonies. She honoured us at the groundbreaking of the new cenotaph park, Light Horse Park.

The 31st Battalion was one of the key Alberta battalions. It drew approximately 50% of the men from Edmonton and its surrounding area. It was active in all major campaigns throughout World War I and was awarded many battle honours, to name only a few: Ypres, Mount Sorrel, the Somme, Arras, Vimy, Hill 70, Passchendaele, and Flanders.

The 15th Light Horse continues to service Calgary on horseback and trains regularly as part of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade, 5th Cavalry Division, alongside the 19th Alberta Dragoons. In 1942, the unit was converted to a tank regiment re-designated as the 29th Armoured Recognizance Regiment, and fighting in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, finally, German, with continuous action from 1944 to 1945.

In 1954, the South Alberta Regiment merged with the 15th Alberta Light Horse to form the South Alberta Light Horse.

Planned additions to the memorial will commemorate the Alberta Light Horse history and its strong links to the community, creating a place of interest and gathering year-round. The changes will provide new educational materials for students, families, and community members helping bring the local military history alive. The Light Horse Park cenotaph rehabilitation project is an important legacy project, not just for November 11, but benefiting the community year-round, including for our famous Fringe Theatre festival and for the Strathcona Community League.

We are hopeful that it will soon be completed so that all may gather in a beautiful location in Edmonton Strathcona to observe Remembrance Day. Again, I am very grateful that everyone, every family in my city, has the opportunity to come and celebrate with us on Remembrance Day.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has troubled me deeply in the eight, almost nine years I have been elected. There was a concern in the last government, the Harper Conservative government, that they would come forward and say they had reviewed these bills for charter compliance. As I understand it, the policy put in place by the Liberals was that as long as it was thought there was a 2% chance of charter compliance, people could say it was charter compliant. If the intention of this provision is to make available the analysis by the Department of Justice on whether it is charter compliant, I am all for it.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what is most troubling about the bill is the timing. The bill was tabled exactly at the point in time to turn the page on the fact the Prime Minister broke his promise, not just during the election, but in his throne speech and the specific mandate to his minister of democratic reform, which this would be the last election using first past the post. Then they come out with a bill that would supposedly reform our electoral process.

When we hear the Liberal members speaking to the bill, what is most troubling is that they say we are all in this together, that all elected members fundraise. They know we are not talking about that point. We are talking about influence on government, paying for access to government. We are not talking about members of the House raising money in their constituencies. We are talking about pay for access, and it is completely wrong.

[The Environment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned. I will give the hon. member an opportunity to correct the record. Misinformation was given by the minister in this place and by her officials at committee yesterday as to whether they have consulted the Mikisew Cree on these concerns that they have raised.

It is important to note that the UNESCO investigation found that in fact the government has abjectly failed to deliver the responsibilities under legislation to look into these kinds of impacts of the oil sands on this area.

I am giving an opportunity to the hon. member to correct the record and perhaps today to finally reach out and deliver the promised consultation to the Mikisew Cree, the other first nations, and the Métis peoples on these concerns.

[The Environment, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that I get a more direct answer to the questions that I put here tonight, which we are not getting to the other questions.

On March 6, 2017, I posed a question for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change regarding concerns raised by three first nations and four Métis communities about the proposed use of untested solvents for extraction of bitumen through in situ processes, solvents including benzene and other toxins. Parallel concerns are being raised by the Pembina Institute.

The concerns relate to potential contamination of ground water and surface water, sources that these communities rely on. The minister has refused to intervene despite her discretionary power under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to call for such a review where she deems an activity may, one, adversely affect the environment; or two, cause public concerns. The minister has chosen not to exercise this power, despite yet unknown and untested effects of injection of these solvents into ground water, and despite broad public concerns voiced, including by the communities potentially directly impacted.

The minister also holds broad powers under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to take actions to assess and control the use of harmful toxic substances, potentially posing harm to health or the environment. It is worth noting here that during the recently completed review of this act, testimony was heard recommending strengthened measures and action to deliver the duties under this law to prevent harm from toxins, including expanded measures regarding the oil and gas sector. It should be noted that another authority, the Minister of Health has a mandatory duty to initiate investigations and action where she is made aware that a substance may pose harm to health

The refusal to address the concerns raised by these particular indigenous communities is just one more example of the failures of the current and past federal governments to respond to ongoing calls for a baseline health study of communities impacted by oil sands operations, requests made almost a decade back during parliamentary committee studies on the impacts of oil sands on water.

Will the minister now finally consider revising the terms of reference for the strategic assessment on impacts by Site C and oil sands on the Peace, Athabasca, and Slave watersheds to at least examine potential risks posed by the proposed use of solvents on waters that indigenous peoples rely upon?