Linda Duncan

[The Budget, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member from Alberta raising that question. Absolutely, for my constituents and likely my colleague across the way's constituents, health care is top of mind in Alberta. There has been a lot of fear for quite some time, because of the Conservative government in Alberta, that they might have privatized or two-tier health care. It is very clear, and the government has said so in its own budget, it is going to be reducing the escalator from 6% to 3% into the future. That is a reduction in transfer any way we cut it. It is going to be based on the GDP growth. That is a threat to potential transfers.

The concern is our health care costs are rising. Yes, the government has been increasing the transfers and so it should, so any government should. However, where is the support for innovation? We keep doing all these pilot projects. Let us give some support to actually implement those innovations. Let us bring together the federal, provincial, territorial and first nations health ministers, and have a dialogue on bringing back an overall national plan on health care, a health accord like we used to have, long-term commitment with everybody's input on the future of our health care.

[The Budget, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's focus on the Minister of Finance, to tell the truth, I spread the blame across the cabinet and the backbenchers, including the backbenchers and the cabinet ministers from my province of Alberta. The responsibility falls on all the members on the government side of this place for failing to deliver on these important matters. They stood by and allowed the government to balance the budget by simply not transferring money now, but in two to four years from now, to address the most critical needs faced by my constituents and theirs, such as transit, health care, opportunity for education, giving our aboriginal Canadians equal opportunity within our country.

Yes, the Minister of Finance should defend his budget, but it is just as important that the other ministers defend how they are underspending in their portfolios and going in the wrong direction when it comes to priorities for our country.

[The Budget, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for LaSalle—Émard is a phenomenal representative in the House. It is an honour to work with her.

It is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 18, the 2015-16 budget.

With rising income disparity, the Canadian government is faced with clear choices: to implement fiscal measures to address that disparity, or not; and to choose to genuinely support economic diversification, or not. Disappointingly, based on the budget bill, it is clear the Conservative government has chosen the later path in both instances.

There is some good news for middle-class Canadians in this budget. As recommended by the NDP, there will be a gradual small business tax cut from 11% to 9%. Also recommended by the NDP is the extension of the EI benefit to care for sick or dying relatives, from six weeks to six months.

It is commendable that the government does sometimes listen to the opposition. Still, unfortunately, there is no willingness to restore the right to claim OAS or GIS benefits at age 65, as CARP, the NDP and many others have sought, and no action on the requested increase in CPP benefits.

While some appreciate the non-refundable tax credit for renovations for seniors and handicapped, according to the Canadian Alliance of United Seniors, only those with the means to pay upfront for renovations will benefit the most, meaning more would have benefited from a refundable tax credit. Those seniors fortunate to have invested in RRSPs and then converted to RRIFs will benefit from the lessened duty to withdraw amounts per year. Unfortunately, many have no RRSPs or RRIFs.

Bad news for struggling families is that the budget provides grossly inequitable tax benefits, including raising the annual limit for tax-free savings account deposits to $10,000 a year, which clearly will assist only those with that scale of surplus income. While many managed to contribute $5,000, doubling that is doubtful for the many facing record household debt. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects the cost at $1.3 billion this year alone and by 2060, a loss of almost $15 billion a year to the Canadian revenue. Thus there will be a loss to programs meeting the needs of most families.

According to Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail, the national conversation on personal finance has been hijacked by the tax-free savings account offer. Rising household debt, in his view, is the bigger issue. He has reported that while government is lauding its balanced budget, a record number of households are sinking in family debt. The growth in debt is exceeding salary and wages by a 163% ratio. The opportunity to contribute even more to a tax-free savings account is a luxury prospect for far too few.

Among the clearest evidence that the Conservative government chose to reward the wealthy is the spousal income splitting measure, a multi-billion dollar windfall for the 10% wealthiest Canadians. This year alone, $2.4 billion will be diverted from federal revenues for this privileged group. In each of the next five years, $2 billion more will be lost from revenue, with a grand total of a $12 billion loss from programs that benefit all Canadians.

What potential programs are lost or promises broken? There will be no new money for home care; no new national pharmacare program; no national senior strategy on health care supported by the Canadian Medical Association; no national housing strategy; and despite a decade of promises, zero dollars to create critically needed, affordable child care spaces.

Despite the great hullabaloo, actual delivery of the monies for many programs is being delayed for up to two to four years, well past the next election, which is perhaps not a minor factor in enabling a balanced budget this year. The government is simply delaying major expenditures into future parliaments, despite the critical need and in face of the fact that the cost for delivery will inevitably rise, particularly for infrastructure.

Ninety-five per cent of Canadians think investment in public transit is important. Commitments to long-term transit funding was called for and then welcomed by the FCM and the mayors. However, an increasing number of municipal leaders are now expressing concern that no clear monetary commitment has been made to entrench a permanent transit fund or a proportion of federal dollars transfer. Far more is needed to address the critical and growing need for public transit. The government is forcing cities to pursue private financing agreements through P3s, whether they like it or not.

Concerns with infrastructure funding are even greater, as funds over the next three years will be cut by 87%. Only 25% of the money is to be allocated to cities before 2019. No new money is budgeted to assist municipalities in complying with the new federal regulations on wastewater and therefore, there will be implications for the environment.

The $150 million announced for mortgage relief for social and co-operative housing will enable repairs. That is welcomed, yet over the next 25 years, $1.7 billion in housing funding will expire, putting social housing in jeopardy. No new money is committed for new affordable housing and there is no commitment to a long-term stable funding program for housing.

Economic diversity is the major topic in my province these days. The government has a clear choice to make in the path it chooses to diversify our economy. For manufacturing, the budget offers some limited support, including extended accelerated capital cost write-offs for another 10 years. Astoundingly, the Conservatives are decreasing transfers for western economic diversification despite widespread calls in my province of Alberta to end the over-reliance on the oil-based economy. Many long-tenured oil workers seeking assistance for work are saying they want out of the boom-and-bust roller-coaster ride of the oil sector.

EI claims in Alberta are 72.9% higher than last year. There is a 30% increase in EI claims the past two months straight. Alberta is experiencing the highest unemployment rate since 2009, projecting almost 20,000 jobs lost alone in drilling activity.

Limited immediate support is offered to our universities, colleges and technical schools for science, research and education, despite the contribution they make not only to direct employment, including for students and in creating our workforce of the future, but also as contributors to the economy in advances in science, research and education.

As with many programs, the budgeted $46 million new funds for the granting council budgets will not actually flow until 2016 or 2017. There is a continuing trend to limit federal research and innovation dollars, including the NSERC grants to those who garner matching industry partners or for projects that create long-term economic advantages.

That undervalues the contributions of the universities and technical schools in my riding to pure scientific research, to breakthroughs in combatting disease, including diabetes, to addressing pollution, and to developments in physics, chemistry, and so forth. The $1.33 billion for the Canada Foundation for Innovation research is spread over six years, and is delayed again until 2017-18. As this fund simply keeps being reannounced under new names, it is not clear how much of the money is actually new money.

Only $3 million is assigned to the Council of Canadian Academies, which has done stellar work on our behalf. Preference is given to innovative enterprises garnering endorsements from favoured major corporations. For example, western economic diversification has favoured the defence industry over support to the burgeoning renewable sector.

So many apply each year for support to provide summer employment for students, including many university research jobs. So many are turned down. A small increase could provide valuable work experience for our youth.

Other concerns voiced to me about how the government is delivering a balanced budget include the decision to withdraw $2 billion from the contingency fund. People ask me what happens if there is another major flood or record forest fires in Alberta or other provinces or territories. There is a decade of cutting front-line services. More bad news, not clearly revealed to Canadians, includes the imminent cuts to health care transfers starting in 2016-17, moving from the 6% escalator to 3%.

In the brief time remaining, I want to mention there are no new benefits for veterans, no money for missing and murdered women, and no new money for aboriginal education or benefits.

Despite the continuing claims of responsible resource development balancing development and environmental protection, there is zero money to support the participation of Canadians in major resource project reviews. Climate change is not even mentioned in the budget. That is absolutely reprehensible. Even the oil and gas sector is asking the government to step up to the plate and address our climate issues and to address the fact that it has not dealt with first nations claims.

Why is there no support for any businesses, communities and first nations wanting to pursue a cleaner, more affordable, sustainable future? It is a matter of choice.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, but I noticed one area that the member failed to mention, which is the tens of millions of dollars spent by the Conservative government promoting the oil and gas sector in the United States. In one year alone, $40 million was spent on ads in subways.

The Conservatives may be able to defend that by saying they are standing up for a particular sector, but if we take a look at what some of their messages are, we become concerned. One was that Canada is one of the few major suppliers of crude oil in the Gulf coast taking concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is not a lot of truth in that ad. They also stated that America and Canada have the same the greenhouse gas reduction targets. That might have been true a few years ago, but the Prime Minister has been clear that is absolutely not the case anymore. One thing that the Gomery commission pointed out was that it wanted annual mandatory audits and value-for-money evaluations of all advertising campaigns. When that campaign was analyzed, it was found that there was no understanding what the message was, other than that Americans and Canadians were friends.

Could the member speak to what the value for money was in spending taxpayer money promoting one singular sector and not others?

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member from my beautiful city of Edmonton and that he concentrated his remarks on the need to inform our veterans about services available to them.

However, we need to recall that the money the government has been spending on advertising has not solely been on informing veterans of their rights and opportunities to be better treated when they return from service. A lot of this money has been spent on simply advertising the Conservative Party under the guise of building Canada, economic action plan. What I found particularly reprehensible is the millions of dollars that have been spent on simply promoting one economic sector, one industrial sector, the oil and gas sector in the United States of America, and reportedly with very little result, having reviewed the usefulness and the deliverables on that advertising, yet not one dime has been spent on advertising the opportunities to diversify our economy, including promoting our burgeoning renewable energy and energy efficiency economy.

I would like the hon. member to respond to why they are not switching to diversify their ads instead of comparing themselves to the lowest common denominator.

[NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to support private member's Bill C-624. This bill would change one verse only in the English lyrics of our national anthem. It would replace the words, “True patriot love in all thy sons command” with “True patriot love in all of us command”. That is with the intent of ensuring gender inclusiveness. The French version is not affected.

The New Democrats strongly support gender equality. The proposed legislation introduced by the member for Ottawa—Vanier reflects a long-standing goal which has been firmly supported over the years by initiatives by NDP MPs, including Judy Wasylycia-Leis, Svend Robinson, and most recently the member for Vancouver East. Since 1980, no less than nine bills have been tabled proposing this very change.

Tradition is certainly important, but Canadian values of gender equality and inclusiveness have moved beyond mere sentiments and are now principles firmly entrenched in Canadian law.

We join in singing our anthem to express a common love of our nation, its values, principles and accomplishments. When the English lyrics of our national anthem were written in 1908, women had not yet been granted the vote. Much has changed since with women finally recognized as legal persons granted the right to vote, the right to run for elected office, and with a majorly expanded military role.

I am proud to be a member of the caucus with the largest percentage of women. I am equally delighted that over 50% of the New Democrat candidates in the current Alberta election are women inspired to run by a strong and eloquent female leader.

While this symbolic change is important, we recognize that gender equality will only truly be actualized when governments address the gender gap in accessing education and employment opportunities through universally accessible child care, pay equity and a national strategy to end violence against women.

While the French lyrics of our anthem remain as written in 1880, the English version has changed many times. In 1913, the original neutral and inclusive version was altered from “dost in us command” to “in all thy sons command”. As our anthem was made official by statute, changes must now be made by Parliament.

In 2010, the Prime Minister committed in the throne speech that the anthem would be rewritten to make the language more inclusive, and then he reneged on this undertaking. Many calls have been made since to recognize the modern role of women in our anthem, including notably by Sally Goddard, the mother of the first female military member killed in Afghanistan.

Canada claims to be a world leader in terms of the proportion of women in its military and the areas in which they can serve. According to the Department of National Defence website, the Canadian Armed Forces are highly regarded as being at the forefront of military gender integration. According to the department, women can now enrol in any CAF occupation and professes that all career opportunities are based solely on rank, qualifications and merit, not gender.

Women have been involved in Canada's military service and have contributed to Canada's rich military history and heritage for more than 100 years, which of course makes it additionally reprehensible that we would have reverted to this discriminatory language. It may be a surprise to many Canadians that the largest number of women served during the Second World War and many performed non-traditional duties.

Since 1971, in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, the department has expanded employment opportunities for women in the military. With the passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women's military roles were again majorly expanded. Presently, women serve on a number of global operations ranging across the spectrum from peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance operations, presumably in Nepal today where our deeply heartfelt feelings are with the people there, through to stability, security, and peace enforcement operations.

According to the Department of National Defence website:

Although the CAF do not keep track of the gender of deployed personnel, it is safe to assume that eligible women are likely to be serving on the majority of our missions.

The history of Canadian service women is an important part of our national military heritage and their achievements contribute to the full and equal inclusion of women in our society and national institutions.

Be they men or women, regardless of race, religion or culture, CAF members share a common goal—protecting the country, its interests, and values while also contributing to international peace and security.

Canada is a world leader in terms of the proportion of women in its military, and the areas in which they can serve. Among their allies, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are highly regarded as being at the forefront of military gender integration.

The Conservative member for Richmond Hill, in speaking to this bill, said that the government backed off on its announced change because its 2013 poll showed major opposition, yet a 2015 poll found 40% strongly supportive of the amendment and 18% somewhat supportive of making our anthem gender neutral. Only 13% expressed strong disapproval, a significant shift in opinion from two years back.

It is time that our national anthem reflected the true role served by Canadian women in building and protecting our nation.

[The Environment, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Albertans have called for action on climate change, yet the budget commits nothing. Instead, the government has clawed back spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency. It refuses, stubbornly, to impose greenhouse gas standards on oil and gas. It has ignored the calls by Albertans to diversify our economy away from reliance on oil revenue.

Why zero investment in this budget for a diversified, clean energy economy for Alberta and Canada?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 2nd, 2015]

With regard to the Western Innovation Initiative (WINN) for each fiscal year from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015, year-to-date: (a) how many applications were submitted to Western Economic Diversification Canada’s (WD) WINN initiative; (b) what is the total amount of funding awarded, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) federal electoral riding, (iii) date the funding was approved, (iv) date the funding was actually provided to each successful applicant; (c) what outreach activities were used to acquire potential applicants and what are the details of individuals or entities invited to briefings organized by WD; (d) what is the success rate of funding applications, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) federal electoral riding; (e) what is the average amount of funding granted, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) federal electoral riding; and (f) what are the requirements imposed by WD for financial commitments by other sources in order to qualify for a WD award?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Grand Chief Steve Courtoreille of Treaty 8 First Nations wrote to the Prime Minister. The letter speaks for itself:

The behaviour and mannerisms displayed by your Minister during the [March 20] meeting in Calgary can only be described as rude, demeaning, blaming, and condescending. ...

We cannot and will not work with someone who exhibits such blatant disregard for First Nation people.

As such, we demand the immediate removal of [the minister]....

Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his minister's actions?

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we have a much bigger review, not just of the personnel who are available on the government side to be inspecting and issuing orders for the protection of the public, given this increased traffic in hazardous materials. It is absolutely important that the federal government step up to the plate and deliver the kind of review that the Alberta government did, way back in 2004.

We would be well advised, certainly the members of the committee would be when they start looking at this bill, to look at the abject failure by all the federal agencies to respond to that spill, in their obligations to protect the fishery in Lake Wabamun and to respond in a timely way to the first nations, which they absolutely did not do, and also to get a handle on the fact that if even in Alberta, the oil capital of Canada, we were not prepared to respond to a spill of this nature, how on earth are we going to be capable of responding to that kind of spill of hazardous substances in any other place in Canada?

We need a much bigger review, and not one just tied to these narrow pieces of legislation that are tabled. It is time for a thorough review of our readiness to actually respond and prevent these kinds of disasters.