Linda Duncan

[Youth and Democracy, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, popular opinion has it that Canadian youth are disengaged from the democratic process, yet from my experience our youth are playing an active role.

Let us take Nessa Deans as an example. She is an 11-year-old constituent who is enthusiastically participating in the political process at all levels. Nessa was named the youth winner of the 2014 Samara Everyday Political Citizen award for her efforts.

Claire Edwards, while in high school, successfully advocated for a student trustee position at the Edmonton Public School Board and now chairs the City of Edmonton Youth Council. She has been recognized with the Top 30 Under 30 award.

In the last federal election, University of Alberta students organized a votemobile service to help students access advanced polls.

Finally, at the service for Constable David Matthew Wynn, Keenooshayo grade 6 students sang this verse, lauding his support for the value of youth engagement:

We can make a difference in our world today
Together we can make our world a better place
When we work together, so much can be done
If all the children in the world would sing in unison.

[Amendments to Standing Orders, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this motion. I want to say right off that I appreciate the effort made by the hon. member to bring this matter forward. He is a very amiable member of this chamber, and I appreciate chatting with him from time to time on matters in the House.

I can fully understand, as I am sure everyone in the House understands, the frustration that would drive him to bring forward this motion. It is very hard for the independent members in this chamber, because they are not accorded rights equal to recognized parties. That is what our system is. Why is the system that way? It is not that there have not been a lot of changes proposed. New forms of interaction have been proposed by the government side--individual members at least--and by our party.

Certainly, the way we operate in this place can be improved, but I think it is really important for us to recognize our responsibilities. We are here because we were elected, and we were elected in certain numbers, which resulted in three parties being represented in this place, and in certain numbers. We are between 90 and 100 members. The government has considerably more, another 20 or 30 members, and the Liberal Party has a certain number of members. Then we have some independents who tend, from time to time, to stand up and say that they are a party, but in fact, they are independent members.

Everyone here wants to make sure that everyone has a right to participate, because they too were elected by their constituencies. However, as a number have said who have been debating this motion, it is very important that we recognize the system and the way this place operates.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer that this place operate by consensus, but that is a dream for the far future. It is our dream in the New Democratic Party that this can best be achieved through proportional representation. Some of the members of the third party say they like that idea. Other members of that party say they like first past the post, because perhaps they could be the commanding party in the next election.

I think we have to recognize that our system is the system it is, and the electorate brings us forward and we are here representing the constituents. In so doing, we can still change the system. We can try to improve it in some way.

One of the things we have tried to do on this side, certainly in our party, is try to be equitable in the way we represent our constituents. If others in this House had the opportunity to join our caucus, they would see a lot of the debate that goes on. One thing we have in common is that we agree that there should be gender balance. We agree that all regions of this country should have a voice in this place. We believe that both official languages should be represented in debates in the House, in question period, and in committee.

It is not always easy to bring that balance, but we certainly endeavour to do that, and we think it is a really important principle for this place that those basic principles be represented.

Unfortunately, while we know that the member means well and is trying to reform the place so that everyone has an equal, or at least a fair, voice, the proposals the member is bringing forward will not enable that to occur. Every member having a chance to ask a question per week would make it very difficult to provide any kind of cogent representation in question period.

It is very important to recognize that the official opposition has a very important role in this place. It is our duty in the parliamentary system to hold the government of the day accountable, so it is very important that we have the opportunity to be strategic. To do that, we have to have the freedom to decide who will be raising the questions of the day.

The certain aspect or concern the member has raised is committees. Certainly in our party, we can recognize his frustration. We have our own frustrations as the official opposition. I myself have been very frustrated by the difference between this government and the same party but in a previous Parliament, where there was much more toing and froing on what we would discuss in committee, how we would discuss it, and the witnesses who would come forward. We also discussed amendments when the bill was before us, or even in a report.

There are enough frustrations. I do not think we need to make it more complicated with lotteries and those kinds of systems.

We have, from time to time, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, actually supported some of the initiatives of the independents. For example, we defended the rights of the independents when the government moved to constrain the right of independents to table amendments at report stage. We have been very clear. We should be given greater rights in this place.

We also supported the amendments to Bill C-23 proposed by one of my colleagues from the Edmonton area, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, that would have allowed independents to form riding associations and engage in fundraising between elections. We are open to good proposals that come forward and to giving everyone in this place who is duly elected greater opportunities to represent, speak to, and engage their constituents and speak for them when they come to this place.

Again, we have endeavoured to provide the same kind of balance in committees that we have in question period. We endeavour to have both official languages represented through our party, to have a gender balance, and most important of all, to develop expertise, which goes back to the proposals for changing question period. It is very important that the questions we bring forward are based in knowledge, experience, and work at the ground level on the issues of the day that are brought forward either by the government or other members in this place.

I would close by saying that I commend the efforts of the member in bringing the motion forward. He has taken his one spot to speak to a motion in this place to bring forward parliamentary reform. My hope is that the government will finally listen to our proposals and that we will bring together all the representatives in this place to come forward with procedures and policies to make sure that we actually work better together and co-operatively in the interest of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, December 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to thank the minister for his comments on this matter. Yes, he has brought forward a number of changes to the electoral system, which Canadians were very upset about and expressed their disdain for. Some of them we are able to beat back, but not others.

I am disappointed that the minister chose not to discuss whatsoever the motion before the House today. He speaks of responsible government. I would remind him that my ancestor, a Father of Confederation from New Brunswick, reluctantly became a Father of Confederation because he wanted responsible government in this country.

Doug Bailie, president of Fair Vote Canada, has soundly supported proportional representation. He said that it is not a system, but a principle. He says that it better supports our system of responsible government by better ensuring the majority in this House reflects that majority of voters.

If I look at the outcome in Alberta, as a member previously mentioned, I see that in the last election, Conservatives won 66.8% of the vote but 96% of the seats. The NDP received 16.8% of the vote and only 4% of the seats. Saskatchewan is even more skewed. The Conservatives won 56% of the vote but 93% of the seats.

How, then, does the minister think that his system, which he says he is willing to amend, will better represent the views of Canadians? How can he speak against the reforms that we are bringing forward?

[The Environment, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all members in this place agree that Canadians should be able to raise their families in a clean, healthy environment. Regrettably, what is lacking is the political will in the Conservative government to actually extend that right to Canadians and their communities.

What is particularly galling is that two decades ago, Canada committed to do exactly that. Under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, Canada must ensure that Canadians are given a voice in all decisions impacting their environment, yet the pattern of behaviour by federal governments since has been to declare those grandiose commitments in international arenas but fail to act on them back home.

To make matters worse, the government rescinded even the meagre environmental rights and duties once accorded under federal law and did so without public consultation or consent. To remedy this, I once again tabled the Canadian environmental bill of rights. My bill would impose clear duties on the government to protect our environment, empower Canadians to hold the government accountable, and allow the public to participate in all decisions impacting their environment.

In the public interest, I implore the Conservative government to comply with its commitments, restore the rescinded environmental measures, and make Canadians' right to a clean and healthy environment a reality.

[Corner Gas: The Movie, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I hear there actually is a lot going on in Dog River, Canada's favourite fictional small town.

Tonight marks the Ottawa premiere of Corner Gas: The Movie, after a super fan-based Kickstarter-funded debut in Saskatoon.

I am delighted to share that the entire cast of Corner Gas is returning after their six amazing seasons of the show. It all began with Brent's first words, “Want me to fill it up?”

People from all walks of life have connected with the characters, which is what makes Corner Gas so popular, including fans in more than 20 countries.

Canadian star Lorne Cardinal, or as fans know him, Davis Quinton, said in Saskatoon, “The audience loved it. They laughed where they were supposed to, teared up where they were supposed to, and gave a standing ovation at the end.”

I invite all of my colleagues in this place to join me tonight at the showing to find out what is going on for Brent, Lacey, Hank, Davis, Karen, Wanda, Emma and, of course, Oscar.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say right off the bat that I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is responding to my question. However, this gives me the opportunity to speak of other failings of the government.

I have risen in the House countless times, making a plea on behalf of the first nations in northern Alberta for the Minister of Health to finally deliver the long awaited health impact study of the oil sands. To this very date, the government has refused to do any health analysis of the impacts of the oil sands.

When I look at the amount of money that the hon. member has said is committed, and if we divide that by the number of projects and the number of first nations, it is about $15,000 per project. That is laughable. If we look at the amount of money that is spent by the proponent for appraising a vast array of highly technical information, it is shameful.

I hear no response and no recognition of the serious concerns raised by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a question that I put to the government back in October I felt was very important and merited another go.

The question arose from a concern identified by the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In her report, she said she had heard testimony from first nations that the federal government is ignoring its duties. First, it is failing to engage first nation and Métis peoples in the environmental impact assessment and monitoring of their oil sands; second, it is ignoring its duty to collect important traditional ecological knowledge; third, it is failing to consult first nations, thereby making it harder for first nations to participate in decision-making on projects that potentially impact their rights and interests.

It is important at the outset, in reviewing this matter, to give the government the opportunity to again consider the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that it has endorsed.

Article 27 of that UNDRIP says:

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

Article 29 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.

We noted the announcement of the government, particularly by the Minister of Natural Resources, of the new MPMO office to be based in Vancouver, supposedly to engage aboriginal peoples in major projects, more specifically major projects for energy development proposed by external parties, but what about the duty to consult and engage first nation and Métis peoples on their own plans and priorities for their peoples and for their lands and resources, including traditional harvest, medicines, knowledge of wildlife, and land use?

Frankly, it is unclear how an office in Vancouver will facilitate improved consultation with Alberta first nations and Métis in consideration of their traditional knowledge and customs, despite the fact that the government has claimed this office will enable better engagement of first nations in both provinces.

It may be noted that the Federal Court, some years back, held that the former federal minister of the environment, Jim Prentice, erred in law in determining he had no duty to consider the rights and title of first nations in making decisions on critical habitat for species at risk. This case particularly had to do with the right of the first nation peoples in northern Alberta to the protection of the habitat of the caribou and bison, which is part of their traditional harvest.

Sadly, it appears the court directive is not being observed or respected, and the Alberta and B.C. first nations continue to be forced into the courts to uphold their constitutional and treaty rights, or, in the case of the current National Energy Board review on Kinder Morgan, being forced to resort to protest and ultimate arrest.

I am looking forward to hearing a more extensive and detailed response from the government on how it is going to respond to this concern that was raised by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

[Poverty, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years after the House pledged to eliminate child poverty, and despite the oil boom, more than 140,000 Alberta children are still living in poverty. Almost half of the food bank users in my city alone are children. Many come from low-income working families, who struggle to pay rent, utilities, and child care on their meagre wages.

Why is the government refusing a request for deeper investments in child care and housing to ensure a better quality of life for all of our children?

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the position of the government on this particular piece of legislation and remain puzzled by its obstinacy against the amendments that my colleagues have brought forward.

What puzzles me is that when we are talking about other issues, for example, child care or support for the family, the line from the Conservatives is always, “We do not want big entities to decide the fate of our families”, yet here they want big government to decide whether or not farmers should or should not have the right to keep their own seeds and share them.

I can remember back in the 1970s when I was working on dialogues on the preservation of agricultural land and of the agricultural economy in Alberta, it was the time of a big scare in India. There was a single strain of rice and the harvest was a disaster.

Therefore, I am wondering about this one-sided mindset of protecting the big corporations that want to sell just one seed, instead of encouraging our farmers to keep their heritage seeds and share those. Why is the government not listening to the farmers on the importance of having diversity in crops?

[Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more to be said on this motion.

I certainly commend my colleague for bringing forward the motion and for being a strong force in his Innu community in this place. I appreciate his expertise in criminal law from his practice in that area representing his people very well. I appreciate that he has brought that knowledge to this place and has shared a lot of that knowledge in this motion he has brought forward, which is based on his personal experience and the frustration of his community members regarding having a voice in major energy projects.

The member's motion is essentially calling for the Conservative government to step up to the plate and finally support a genuine process for the engagement of Canadian communities, including first nation and Métis communities, in decision-making on major energy projects. This includes the potential impact on human health, the ecosystem, employment, and economic development.

The member has three key messages that I think are important and that surely everyone in this place would support: that citizens should have a central place in the decision-making process, particularly when projects might impact their health and environment; that there should be respect for the historic commitments made by the federal government to first nation peoples; and that we should ensure that economic development is in tune with citizens' perception of their territory and that they, and not people who live far from the site of those projects, genuinely benefit from that development.

It is very important to note that the call for greater action by the government is not something that just my colleague has raised. It has actually been voiced by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In his report just this fall, he slammed the government. He determined that the federal government has been clearly ignoring its duties to ensure that first nations and Métis are engaged in environmental assessment and monitoring in major energy projects, in particular oil sands projects. The commissioner determined that, first, the government has failed to collect and consider important traditional ecological information. Second, it has ignored its duty to consult. Third, it has made it harder for aboriginals to participate in decision-making on major energy projects impacting first nation and Métis lands, water, and people.

My colleague has raised some skepticism about the concept of social licence, and I think that is a fair comment. Each time we reach some kind of consensus that we need to move forward with, the terms “participation”, “consultation”, “social impact assessment”, and “social licence” often become perverted because those principles are not really applied in good faith. The member's call to the House is that we need to agree that we are genuinely committed to enabling a constructive voice for Canadians in decision-making on major energy projects. We should go beyond the brief mention of a concept and give some reality to it so that it actually includes genuine environmental impacts, social impacts, and local impacts. That consultation should be a precondition in deciding if a project is in the public interest.

We hear members on the other side talk about how we have a perfect review process. They say that all they need to do is consider what is in the public interest. However, what is the public interest? If we are not genuinely considering the issues and concerns of the locally impacted people, how genuinely can we really say we are considering the public interest in making decisions to accept or reject a major energy project?

I look forward to continuing to speak on this at a later date, and I appreciate the time to at least rise briefly in support of my colleague's very important motion in this place.