Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a broader response to my colleague's question.

Right now, the Liberals are out there encouraging Canadians to consult on a broad array of topics, including, finally, on another promise they made, to immediately restore federal environmental laws. Who on earth out there who cares about that is going to take seriously that the government actually intends to respond and make substantive changes?

This has had a much more serious effect on the attitude of Canadians toward the federal government than people may have considered.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I am hearing not just from millennials. I am hearing from all constituents. People of all ages came out to my forums, and people of all ages took the time to write to me.

I am deeply concerned. Of course, we know that a lot of millennials came out this time, not just to vote but to actually get involved in campaigns and to endorse candidates. They believed the Prime Minister, and they have to be broken-hearted. It is really going to break their faith in getting involved in the process ever again.

When the Liberals say they are going to talk about something else on democracy, who is going to want to be involved? This is a serious break with the faith of Canadians, and particularly young Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I never feel that my hands are tied in trying to represent my constituents. That is why I took the time to share here how exasperated my constituents are with the breaking of this promise.

I would ask the member if he is also making available to his constituents the petition that more than 90,000 Canadians have already signed that says that the Prime Minister broke his promise and needs to deliver on that promise to end first past the post.

What are we going to continue to discuss? I am sure that we, on this side of the House, feel free to continue to discuss, but on the other side, are they going to defy their Prime Minister? Are they going to stand up in this place and say that the Prime Minister, their leader, broke his promise and they want him to change his mind and deliver on that promise?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I am hearing a lot from the government side of the House yet again trying to change the channel, saying that we should forget about what was promised during the election and forget about what was promised in the throne speech, and talk about something else.

This is about a promise that was given. It is about a campaign focus. It is about what was written in the throne speech. I have heard from my constituents, and they want the Prime Minister to live up to that promise.

The Prime Minister repeated that promise hundreds of times in forums in communities across the nation. The media, since this change in course, this breaking of the promise, has been playing those back to Canadians. It is clear, over and over again, that this was to be the last “first past the post” election. It was heard over and over like a broken record. He committed in the last election, when a majority government was elected with less than 40% of the vote, that this would be the last election with first past the post. He officially committed that same promise December 2015 in the throne speech, which stated:

To make sure that every vote counts, the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

He could not have been more definitive if he tried. This was not a promise, this was not an undertaking in a throne speech to reach out to Canadians and talk about what they thought about the democratic process. It was not an undertaking to reach out and maybe think about a couple of things, and maybe replace first past the post or maybe not. It was a clear, definitive commitment in the throne speech.

He then appointed a minister specifically mandated to deliver this charge. It was common knowledge that to deliver on this promise, the government had to expedite the necessary legislative reforms so the new voting system could be enacted, debated, and in place before the next election. The Chief Electoral Officer was very clear about when that deadline was.

The government stalled. Despite calls by the New Democrats to expedite the promised reforms, the committed reforms, finally, in May, eight months into her mandate, the minister struck a committee of members of Parliament to “identify and conduct a study of viable alternate voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system, as well as to examine mandatory voting and online voting”, and to “report no later than December 1, 2016”.

While the committee was originally composed of a majority of Liberal MPs, saying we are all in this together but not exactly, in the end the government caved and agreed to a New Democrat proposal to have the representatives based on votes.

As Fair Vote Canada said on December 1 of last year, the first example of how the proportional representation system could work was the constitution of the electoral reform committee that was struck to end the first past the post system. In fact, the members worked together very well. They travelled together very well. They heard from a lot of experts and citizens. This is a prime example of how when there is actually a fair, proper system of selecting representations, good work is done.

Why was this important? Because how we elect representatives is a profound decision, impacting all voters, so the views of all voters would be considered and reflected in examination of any reforms in addition to this one.

The Prime Minister's minister implored all members of Parliament to reach out to our constituents and discuss how to proceed on this electoral reform to replace first past the post, and we did. We were co-operative little members of Parliament and we responded to the beck and call of the minister. We went across the country and held forums, had surveys, ten percenters, and we sought the input of Canadians.

This dedicated committee also spent the entire summer break and most of the fall diligently travelling to communities, consulting, listening to experts on alternative electoral voting reforms, and summarizing their findings. Many members of Parliament took it a step further and sought further written feedback.

The meeting I held in Edmonton on electoral reform was a standing room only event, with close to 300 participants. This is hardly an example of lack of interest in reforming the system to replace the first past the post.

I then reached out to constituents with a survey. More 280 took the time to respond, in depth, to our extensive survey on electoral reform. A large majority supported a system where every vote must count. A little over half called the adoption of a proportional representation system the route they would like to go. A lot of people also said that they would also like to have a referendum, and we agreed to a referendum but a referendum on proposals to actually replace first past the post. That was another promise broken.

Right up until February 1 this year, the Prime Minister and his minister claimed to still be committed to delivering on this promise and commitment.

On February 1, the Prime Minister sent his newest democratic reform minister out to break the news that he had decided to break this commitment. Worse, it was revealed that he had gone further and actually deleted an important part of the mandate for the Minister of Democratic Institutions, specifically saying that she would not pursue electoral reform. That was simply astounding.

The Prime Minister now claims that Canadians suddenly do not want electoral reform. Why did they come out to all those meetings? Why did they write those letters? Why did they call for reform if there were no consensus? How does he explain the hundreds who came out to the very town halls for which his minister called?

How does the Prime Minister explain the hundreds of Canadians who participated in the special committee consultation process? Again, how much did that cost? How does he explain his broken promise after 80% of the public and 90% of the experts called for proportional representation? How does he explain the hundreds of Canadians who took the time to send written views? Does he still believe that suggests a lack of interest? How does he explain the over 90,000 Canadians to date signing a petition calling for him to deliver on his promise for electoral reform to end first past the post?

The only conclusion Canadians can draw is that because the Prime Minister's preferred reform, which incidentally would ensure a Liberal majority into the future, was not supported by Canadians, he decided to break his throne speech commitment. There is no other conclusion that anyone can draw.

It is well known that many came out to vote specifically and to vote Liberal based on the good faith that the Prime Minister would keep his word that he would end first past the post. With the little time I have left, I would like to share what some Edmontonians have said since this decision was made.

Here is a letter to the Edmonton Journal, February 3:

What a betrayal of the 9,093,630 (51.8 per cent) voters who elected no one in the October 2015 election. You must believe that 39 per cent of the votes is a legitimate majority. I guess I am expected to pay all my taxes, but elect no one. Some democracy.

We already see the cynicism building, and it is unfortunate.

An editorial in the Edmonton Journal on February 3 said:

Breaking your signature election promise to “make every vote count” is bad enough. But for Prime Minister...to announce he was breaking his vow to overhaul how Canadians vote by slipping the announcement into the mandate letter he sent to his new Minister of Democratic Institutions — suddenly a lame-duck portfolio — smacks of a cowardly breakup by text message.

Do the members of the government not understand how Canadians feel about how they are now being treated? Where are we supposed to find the continuing trust in any of the promises and commitments by the Prime Minister and the government?

We first saw the breaking of the promise of providing comparable, equal access to services to first nations children and families. We will get to it eventually. Then we see the breaking of this promise, which is written in black and white.

I look forward, as do my colleagues, to an apology for this break of faith.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I will let my colleague have the next question.

I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton for his enthusiasm. Unfortunately, one thing the government does not seem to have enthusiasm for is expediting action on triggering investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I commonly hear the phrase when I talk to my constituents, and they tell me they are getting tired of hearing the i-n-g-s. We are thinking, we are planning, we are talking, we are consulting. I mentioned tonight that the International Energy Agency is saying we need to expedite the move toward investments in the renewable and energy efficiency sectors to create jobs.

When is the government of the day going to finally plan, and start moving toward actually delivering some of the promised investments in those two sectors?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, what troubles me is this evening we have heard a number of speakers from the Conservative Party, and I have yet to hear a single proposal to address the unemployment or how to ensure that Canadians, including Albertans, are going to participate in the new energy economy.

It is not even just Canadians who are saying this, but the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency represents the big fossil fuel industry. It represents the major governments of the world.

Statistically, more than double the number of jobs are provided in installing solar energy, more than double in installing wind than even in natural gas. If this debate is about trying to create employment for Canadians, why is there no discussion whatsoever about diversifying our energy sector so that we can provide jobs for the future for our children and grandchildren?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, as my former colleague raised, it has always been in the policy of the New Democrats to push for value added in all of our resource sectors.

Between my city and Red Deer is a major petrochemical industry. We need to support that. In the conference that the Minister of Natural Resources spoke at on Monday, we had representatives of that sector.

However, to give a different perspective, value added is also appreciating the skills base that the workers in the fossil fuel industry have that they could apply to other sectors so we can have a continuation of well-paying jobs.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I regret to say this, but I do not believe the member heard a single thing I had to say.

It is the actual oil field workers who are begging our governments to start investing in the new energy economy. Everybody knows the new energy economy is coming. They want to have a piece of the pie.

I did not say anything to demean the fossil fuel industry. I spoke about the support for the coming industry. As the minister has said, Albertans have shown they can use innovation to develop the oil sands. The geothermal industry and a lot of economists are now saying to use that same innovation and the same support to move into the new energy economy.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, first, the government could start delivering the money that was promised. In the last budget, we had commitment after commitment, but gosh darn, when is that money going to flow? It may be starting in 2017. Where is the urgency?

As our colleagues from the Conservative Party say, we have so many people out of work, and not just in Alberta but across the country. Where is the sense of urgency?

We are a member of the International Energy Agency. We support the creation of jobs, supposedly. Let us deliver those resources. Let us have a just transition strategy. Let us start investing in our technical schools. We have five of those in Alberta. For heaven's sakes, there is a waiting list.

There is so much the federal government can do. Do not sit on the money; start delivering it.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, as members in this place have said, Statistics Canada has reported unemployment in Alberta the highest in 20 years. Approximately 12% of those between 15 and 24 years old are still looking for work.

The downturn has not just impacted workers in the fossil fuel sector, though. It is impacting communities reliant on those sectors. It is also impacting the renewable sector. The question that must be asked is this. How many more decades will we rely on a boom and bust economy until we finally implement an economic policy and the necessary measures for a more stable and sustainable future, not just for Alberta but for the whole country?

I hear this constantly from my constituents, including those working in the oil and gas sector. They are tired of this boom and bust economy. They raised this with me at the door in the last election. They want their governments to invest in a more diversified economy, including a more diversified energy economy.

A starting point could be to finally pursue a broader approach to energy generation and use than energy from and jobs involved in fossil fuels. The Minister of Natural Resources told an energy forum this week that everyone knew what was going on, that we were in an energy transition, and that the agenda worldwide had changed dramatically. Why the narrow frame posed by the Liberals for tonight's debate?

As clearly expressed by the International Energy Agency, and surely no one in this place can disagree with it, as we belong to it and so do all the big energy producers, “We see clear winners for the next 25 years – natural gas but especially wind and solar....in practice, government policies will determine where we go from here.”

The International Energy Agency advises that the way forward is government policies shifting significantly to support deployment of renewables and energy efficiency, coupled with the fact that the costs of both are declining. It says that the Paris agreement is a major step forward, but can only be achieved with policies that accelerate further low carbon technologies and support the next frontier for renewables. It agrees that investors need clarity and certainty from policy-makers, but government must not just maintain but heighten its commitment to achieve energy security and climate goals.

What is interesting is where the support is found in our country for this recommended shift in government investment. One example is iron and earth. This is an initiative by oil sands workers who are boilermakers, electricians, pipefitters, ironworkers, and labourers committed to incorporating more renewable energy projects into their work scope to ensure a more sustainable energy future for Canadians. Oil sands workers say their skills match well with those needed for the renewable and energy efficiency sectors, but they need federal investment to upscale the energy sector workforce, to expand manufacturing capacity for renewable energy, to support contractors and unions wishing to transition to the clean energy economy, and to integrate renewable technologies into existing energy projects.

The Government of Alberta, to its credit, is investing in pilot projects using geothermal for conventional oil and gas. A growing number of experts say the time may be right for geothermal to assume a higher profile, especially in oil-rich Alberta.

It is also important to recognize that it is not just the oil and gas sector that is suffering. Media reports today say that the solar industry in Alberta alone cut its sales by 50% for residential installation. It is not because people do not want it. It is because the governments are dragging their heels on the incentives.

While provincial incentives are starting to roll out, where is the promised federal action to incent renewables? We need heightened action from the federal government. We all agree there must be a period of transition to ensure jobs for the future. The emphasis has to be jobs. Where is the federal just transition strategy?

The Conservatives budgeted for support for renewables and energy efficiency, then they cut that spending to cut their deficit. There is no appreciable increase in spending by the current government, but we have promises. Where have we heard that before?

The Liberals continue to fast-track energy projects absent genuine consideration to energy alternatives. The strongest commitment heard from the Liberals to date has been the call of the Minister of Natural Resources for a “gradual shift” to cleaner renewable energy. Canadians need more. We need, as the International Energy Agency said, heightened investment, heightened support, so we can have jobs for the future.