Linda Duncan

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the issue of nurse practitioners. I do not know if he has had the opportunities I have had in my life. For example, I worked in Yukon. One of my friends is a nurse practitioner in one of the small towns in Yukon. Over time nurses were given expanded powers to do various things, like stitch people, and so forth.

Who will have the responsibility for enabling a patient who is seeking medically assisted death to have access to a physician and who will pay for that patient to go to where there is a doctor, or for the doctor, or doctors, to go to where the patient is in isolated communities?

[Rail Transportation, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Safety Board is reporting more accidents, runaway trains, and other serious, preventable accidents, yet Transport Canada is delaying tougher measures that could stop not only disasters like Lac-Mégantic but 500 runaway trains over the past two decades. Transport inspectors and rail workers have called for strengthened controls and stepped-up inspection and enforcement. So far there has been nothing.

When will the minister stop talking and start taking action to make our rail system safe?

[Legal Aid, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, access to justice is a basic democratic right. In the opinion of Legal Aid Alberta president Suzanne Polkosnik, access to justice should be considered an essential service. That must also include access to legal counsel.

Yet, a growing number of Canadians are forced to represent themselves due to underfunding of legal aid. In Alberta, the demand for legal aid is increasing, due to a financial downturn and rising unemployment. Many people earning less than full-time minimum wage are being denied.

Federal support for legal aid has not been increased in almost a decade, and has not kept pace with the population growth. Federal dollars allocated to Alberta provide a mere eight days of legal aid. Yet, demand for legal aid increased with the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and tougher immigration laws. Yes, it is reassuring that the government has promised to restore the court challenges program to protect charter rights, but a far deeper financial commitment is urgently needed to ensure every Canadian is accorded equal access to justice.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what is troubling me is the number of tweets being sent out by the public, which seem to be undermining even the heartfelt apology by the Prime Minister, who has admitted that his behaviour was untoward in this place and against the recognized rules of the House.

There are two really important things on which there is unanimity today. One is that Prime Minister acted in an untoward way, and he has apologized for that. The second is that we need unanimity on the fact that we need to have the rights and privileges of all members in this place. I do not think we can move forward until we go in that direction.

I do not know what kind of message the members on the other side are sending out to the public. I do not expect that they should take any responsibility for what people tweet, but we need to be unanimous in saying we would like proper behaviour to return to this place. It is very important that we work in a cordial and reasonable way, even if we disagree.

None of us should send the message that we do not accept the apology the Prime Minister gave. He agrees his behaviour was wrong and he has sincerely apologized. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that not all members agree and maybe have not accepted the Prime Minister's apology. My colleagues have accepted the apology.

I wonder if my colleague could speak about these two actions that need to occur so that we can move forward and work on the important work of this place.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the same question to the hon. member who just spoke that I put to the Prime Minister. I was very disappointed that he did not respond.

The hon. member just spoke of the importance of decorum in this House. We all understand that what we saw last night went beyond the definition of decorum. It was essentially seen as an assault, not necessarily an assault on my colleague but certainly an assault on the Conservative Party whip.

What troubles me is the member seems to be suggesting that if we returned to a sense of decorum in the House, everything would be fine and we would all be the same. I will put the question to her that I put to the Prime Minister which he refused to respond.

There have been a lot of problems in this place this week because of the actions taken by her government, such as Motion No. 6 which would take away all of our rights and privileges to participate reasonably and properly in this House to represent our constituents.

Will the member speak to that matter? It is very important that that be one of the matters addressed if we are going to move forward and work collaboratively on good legislation on behalf of Canadians.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for clearly a heartfelt apology.

However, I noticed in his comments that he got to the heart of the issue, which I thank the leader of the official opposition for raising today as well. It is important for all of us here to understand why things have become so heated in this chamber. It is important that the rights of all the members in this place be respected, not just to be free of physical assault, but to be free of having their rights and privileges assaulted.

I noted that the Prime Minister has correctly said that Canadians' concerns deserve to be heard fairly and effectively, and I am wondering if, as part of the apology, he will consider reversing the decision to take away our rights and privileges so that we may all participate here equally in this chamber.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate about the position of various doctors in the country. It has come to my attention that Dr. Peter Zalan, president of medical staff at Health Sciences North in northern Ontario, has stated that he is very disappointed with the bill. He has said:

For me, Bill C-14 is a disappointment. It proposes to keep illegal the resolution of intolerable suffering that is not at the end of life. It will make it impossible to deal with dementia when the afflicted person is still competent. If ever there is a need for Medical Assistance in Dying, it is for conditions like dementia and intolerable suffering when the end of life is not in sight.

I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that, like Dr. Zalan, a number of medical practitioners are saying that the way the bill is being presented, which lacks the clarity in the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, will make life more difficult for physicians when making determinations of when to assist their patients.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very eloquent speech and her comments on the bill. I appreciated all the speeches today. I am glad we are finally talking about the legal and charter aspects, rather than the emotional ones.

I wonder if the member could follow up on the question by the Conservative member. What I think is wrong to say is that this bill or the Supreme Court decision represents a shift in moral ground. Neither this bill nor the decision of the Supreme Court in any way imposes any moral decision upon anyone. It simply recognizes and upholds charter rights. I think that is a very important difference.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to that.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on the bill all along, including coming to my constituency and sharing his knowledge from his experience on the special committee and on the justice committee.

One of the big concerns in my constituency has been the inability to give a direction in advance. Could the member speak to the fact that the bill would not allow for giving directions in advance so when one became incapable of doing that, one's wishes would be fulfilled?

[Temporary Foreign Workers, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of temporary foreign workers were forced to leave Fort McMurray because of the fire. They are now living in great uncertainty. They have no alternative income and no family to fall back on. Many have lost their documents, including work permits and permanent residence applications. They do not know if or when their jobs will continue. They do not know if they will be sent home.

What is the government doing to help these temporary foreign workers?