Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It is an interesting debate this morning. I have looked at the motion, listened to the speeches and I wonder if anybody here has actually read the motion. The motion tabled by the member for Carleton is in essence a call for an order of the House that the government deliver on its duties and commitments for openness and transparency, although the ask is narrow in scope.

The member has previously raised in this place his frustrations with the government providing significantly redacted documents, documents allegedly providing analyses of the impacts of the proposed carbon tax on low and middle-income families. The documents the member seeks to have released include reports titled “Impact of a carbon price on households' consumption costs across the income distribution” and “Estimating economic impacts from various mitigation options for greenhouse gas emissions”. However, the Conservatives have also asked for any additional documents that the government may have prepared, or have in its possession, or have used public funding for to analyze the implementation and the costing of the carbon tax.

As I mentioned in my questions for some of the colleagues in this place, the motion does not call for release of any analyses documenting the cost of failing or delaying action to address climate change, including impacts associated with mitigation costs already experienced in our country. Natural Resources Canada commissioned such a report decades back, documenting climate impacts across sectors of the economy and across regions of the country. I recommend a read of that document by everyone in this place.

The motion also does not call for any measures to mitigate the costs associated with private investment and reducing greenhouse gases, such as the home energy retrofit program, installation of solar panels, and so forth.

I first wish to speak to the matter of the duty and commitment for open and transparent governance, including full disclosure of documents.

As the motion states, the Liberal Party was clear in its election platform on its commitment to restore openness and transparency in government. By way of example from its platform, it states, “Together, we can restore a sense of trust in our democracy. Greater openness and transparency are fundamental to accomplishing this”. It goes on to say, “At its heart is a simple idea: transparent government is good government. If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians”.

Once elected, the government issued a policy document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. Under this policy directive issued by the Prime Minister, the Liberals undertake to ensure a policy of openness and transparency, and respect for the role of Parliament. It states:

In our system of government, Parliament is both the legislative branch and the pre-eminent institution of democratic accountability. Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

That is the most important role we have on both sides of the House.

This mantra is again repeated in the mandate letters issued by the Prime Minister to his ministers. For example, the mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change repeats this mantra of openness and transparency. It states:

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. If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians....Canadians do not expect us to be perfect – they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

Again from the Liberal Party platform, I will share some of the actions the government committed to in the election. It states:

We will work together to establish national emissions-reduction targets, and ensure that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies.

These targets must recognise the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater-than-two-degree increase in average global temperatures would represent, as well as the need for Canada to do its part to prevent that from happening.

That is precisely what is being asked for in this motion, which is the deliverance of the documents so all sides of the House can make a determination on whether the government is moving appropriately and cost effectively in the measures it is introducing.

In the mandate letter to the Minister of the Environment, she is then specifically mandated to ensure that any reduction targets recognize the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater than 2° increase would deliver.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Finance are mandated to undertake a cost estimate of delayed action. It would be nice if we could have that revealed as well. Certainly, when the Conservatives were in power, they did not reveal nor advertise the fact that even before their mandate the Department of Natural Resources had done an in-depth analysis showing considerable impacts across our country already occurring more than 15 years ago. Although the member does not request the release of information on the economic costs of mitigating that damage, failing or delaying to take action, it would be useful as well.

Where we differ with the Conservative Party on this motion is the Conservatives' persistence, first, in refusing to recognize that climate change even exists and, second, that Canada has inappropriately committed to do its part to prevent catastrophic climate change, including imposing a price on carbon. It is clear that the Conservative Party continually does not support any kind of measures to put a price on carbon, including the measures chosen to date by the Liberal Party. Third, the Conservatives refuse to accept that world leaders are taking action, including embracing a transition to a cleaner energy economy, and fourth, that credible entities, such as the International Energy Agency, have called on all nations, including Canada, to expedite this transition to investment in clean energy.

Yes, we need full disclosure of any considerations, studies, assessments, or estimates on the cost, policies, or measures for greenhouse gas reduction, including the proposed carbon tax and other measures which have not come forward yet and will be needed in order for the Liberals to deliver on the commitments made in Paris. However, the starting point must be toward delivering on our nation's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. The Liberals committed to one thing in Paris and we have targets that came from the previous regime, which are not going to deliver on our commitments made in Paris. That should be done through a just transition.

If there is one thing we have not heard from either the Conservatives or the Liberals in this place, it is the need to start moving on action for a just transition. If we are going to move from an economy largely based on the oil and gas sector, we are going to need to support the people who work in those communities. Many workers in the oil and gas sector, including the oil sands sector, started their own organizations and are calling on the government to actually finance their retraining and deployment, not just research, on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

In closing, this motion is, frankly, all about openness and transparency and I grow tired of hearing that access to information requests are done independently. I, too, have been refused documents which, in fact, I knew were already publicly released. I call upon the government to rethink and commit to the our previous bill that called for improved access to information, including for members of this place.

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, but I have to say that 99% of it is irrelevant. He ranted on about what the provinces are doing. We have certain jurisdictions, and so do the provinces.

If we want to talk about a jurisdiction in Canada that significantly raised the cost of electricity, it is Alberta, where the previous Conservative government introduced deregulation, which that member's party loves to tout. There were astronomical increases in the cost of electricity, which had nothing to do with consumption.

I wonder if the member could speak to the issue I raised with his colleague. It is well known around the world, and certainly well known in this country, that the longer we delay action on reducing greenhouse gases, the higher the price. Sooner or later, that cost is going to be imposed on consumers. His government promised cap and trade but did nothing. His government put in place a home energy retrofit program and then cancelled it and used the money to cover its deficit.

Does the member not think it is time that measures be taken at the federal level to work with the provinces and territories to address climate change through programs like home energy retrofits?

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing this motion forward. I have a question for the member for Carleton. I have noticed that the request for documents from the government had a rather narrow scope. The member is wanting information on what the impacts of imposing a carbon tax to Canadian families might be. Would he also consider amending his call and asking for information on the costing of the failure to take action to address or mitigate climate change, as well as the costs in delaying that action?

It is important that we look at this in a holistic way. I am sure the member is aware that most nations around the world have committed at Paris to take action to reduce. The International Energy Agency has called upon the current government, and all governments, to move toward investments in clean energy and reducing greenhouse gases. Therefore, I wonder if the member would give consideration to broadening his request for information from the government to also include the other side of the costs, those of not taking action on addressing climate change.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I know there have been severe cuts to the funding to maintain and protect our national parks, and there has been history of cutting the funding for the naturalist programs. Could the member speak to the importance of increasing funds so people can appreciate and understand the natural character of our parks?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and it is a pleasure to work with him.

My question is this. I know there is a lot of consternation and talk about ecological integrity. I visited Grasslands National Park and spoke with the warden, who said they are now hiring trained biologists. They have added lands that have been grazed and developed, and they are working hard to find out if, in fact, they can return them to natural grasslands. In other words, it is going in the direction of biological integrity.

Part of biological integrity is protecting the waters that are also part of national parks. I know that my colleague from the Conservative Party shares my concern that the federal government needs to step up and do more to protect our fresh water. Would he like to address the aspect of protecting those areas for future generations?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I myself have worked for probably over four decades trying to protect the North Saskatchewan River valley.

I absolutely give acclaim to the federal government, initially the Conservative government, for looking toward a new kind of park in Canada, national urban parks. Most of our population in this country are moving toward urban areas, and they need green spaces. They often tell my colleague the Minister of Infrastructure that infrastructure should also include our green spaces, and have asked what efforts the government is taking toward the protection of those areas.

Would the member support my recommendation that this should not be a one-off, that it is important that the current federal government put resources aside to establish similar parks across this country, so that those living in urban areas can also enjoy nature?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed previously spending time on a committee with the hon. member.

I am becoming very puzzled by these motions, today's opposition motion and the Liberals' motion, Motion No. 103.

We are already missing out some religions, and I thank her for mentioning Buddhism. What troubles me is that some of my colleagues are mentioning indigenous faith, yet both motions deal only with religions not faiths. It is becoming now so broad as to become almost senseless. Are we proposing that the committee study this for the next five years in order to cover everything that is supposed to be in there?

It is important for us to keep in mind what Islamophobia means to some, and that is a severe fear of the Islamic faith and it is that level of severe fear that is driving people to do not just hateful but very dangerous and life-endangering activities. That is what is spurring the need for a discussion. It may be when we talk about those kinds of incidents against those in the Islamic faith, and in my city also a history of actions toward those of the Jewish faith, we need to look at whether our institutions are capable of responding appropriately and preventing these measures. However, I am worried about this becoming a partisan debate between parties about who has the best motion.

Surely, as many have said, can we not come together and amend this motion so we can just move forward with both and get down to the crux of this? That is for people in all of our communities who are fearful for their lives because of this hate-mongering activity.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage everyone here, in addition to the many proposals being made for us to navel gaze inside various committees, to we reach out to religious communities in our constituencies and help them come together and discuss these matters. That is going on in my riding, and I am very proud of the religious beliefs to do this together.

I wonder if the member could address a couple of questions I have. Can I presume that the call is also to consider supporting our call for additional action to protect Canadians who are being turned away at our southern border because of either their race or their religion? Does he also think this is maybe a matter for other committees, including justice and human rights, since he wants a review of hate crime reports?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very heartfelt and well-founded speech on the bill. As she says, we need the federal government to respond to this national health emergency crisis. We also need, as a way to prevent this and as she mentioned, investments in affordable housing and harm reduction safe injection sites. That is what my mayor, Mayor Don Iveson, is calling for in the city. Right now, the cities have to pay for the protection measures that are in place to have police respond. Therefore, they are to be given naloxone kits but also the analysers which cost a lot of money.

What additional measures, in addition to passing the bill, could the federal government take to ensure people are no longer living at risk and people who are resorting to drugs feel there is some kind of mental health support available for them?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alberta for her presentation on the bill.

I find it hard to find anyone in my city of Edmonton who sides with the position she is taking. Some years ago, the Conservatives brought forward a bill in response to a court direction that they actually take action to establish safe injection sites, because in the opinion of the court, having heard experts, they actually save lives.

The Canadian Medical Association's Dr. Haggie, then the president, in responding to that court decision said:

While for some this is an ideological issue, for physicians it's about the autonomy to make medical decisions based on evidence, and the evidence shows that supervised injection reduces the spread of infectious diseases and the incidence of overdose and death.

Dr. Stan Houston, who is a renowned doctor in Edmonton, strongly supports this. He says there are lots of reasons to support safe injection sites, including reducing hepatitis C and HIV.

More than 87 organizations in my city have called for the federal government to support them on establishing these safe injection sites, so I am wondering what evidence the member has to show, if she thinks it should be evidence-based, against the establishment of safe injection sites.