Linda Duncan

[Petitions, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from Albertans, asking the government to stop the cuts to the CBC, an important national institution.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I present a petition from Edmontonians asking the government to restore the old age security age of eligibility to 65 years.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Edmontonians calling on the Government of Canada to stop the devastating cuts to Canada Post.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today, I have three petitions from Edmonton residents.

Two of the petitions are calling for increases in the Canada pension and Quebec pension. The petitioners are concerned that retirement security is one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians, but the cuts to OAS slashed $11 billion from seniors, who are now required to wait until they are 67 years old.

They are calling on the government to expand CPP and QPP and to restore the OAS entitlement to 65.

[Committees of the House, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the dissenting opinion of the official opposition to the report by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on cross-Canada benefits of developing the oil and gas industry of the energy sector.

New Democrats recognize the importance and major contribution of the oil and gas sector to Canada's economy. However, as Canada's official opposition, we favour an approach to parliamentary committee studies that offers objective and balanced analyses, contributing to sound resource management.

We are appreciative of all of the witnesses who took the time to share their perspective and expertise. The majority report provides a reasonable summary of the testimony. Regrettably, the testimony was constrained by the limited scope of the study as proposed by the government, which prevented a net benefit assessment of the oil and gas sector. Few witnesses were invited to testify on current or potential risks, or costs associated with the sector. Consequently, the majority report fails to provide meaningful or balanced direction for public policy.

The government has espoused that responsible resource development requires balanced consideration of both economic development and environmental protection, as well as enhanced consultations with aboriginal peoples, yet, by design, this study was limited to a narrow review of economic benefits of the sector. Inclusion of testimony by a broader range of witnesses on associated risks or challenges faced by communities, aboriginal peoples, and workers could have offered more credible and constructive advice for sound and balanced federal policy. We were denied the opportunity of even posing questions to witnesses on these broader challenges.

In the 21st century economy, a progressive, realistic, and responsible policy must also factor in the true costs of resource exploitation and apply a policy framework addressing those challenges to ensure sustainability.

[Employment, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, another diligent investigation by Ironworkers Local 720 has revealed yet another major violation in the temporary foreign worker program in Alberta's oil sands. This is the third case of an oil sands operation replacing 100 Canadian ironworkers with temporary foreign workers. What is equally reprehensible is that the investigations continue to be led by the ironworkers, not the government. When can these workers expect the minister to finally start investigating and punishing these blatant violations and actually protect Canadian jobs?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of being in committee and hearing the Minister of Natural Resources address our committee about what his priorities were. We were told that the government had been clear that projects would not proceed unless and until it had been proven safe for workers, communities and the environment.

If nuclear and offshore oil and gas are so safe, why would we have to put any kind of liability requirement on it? We know and it is known around the world not to be safe. Serious questions have been raised in the community, particularly post-Fukushima and post-BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that the limits the government is imposing on liability fall far below the amounts of liability. Essentially what the government is saying is that the industry should go ahead, that it will limit its liability and that the public of Canada will cover it.

What is reprehensible is not so much that the Conservatives have limited debate in this place, but we are fast-tracking the review in committee before we even have the bill. There will only be two meetings to debate this. We will have probably two hours to talk to experts in these huge areas. The public will not have the opportunity to participate because these hearings will not go out to the public, to the coastal communities, to the Arctic coast and to the communities adjacent to the nuclear facilities, including the proposed waste management facilities.

The only place where the public would have an opportunity to hear the issues, and we the members of this place can raise the concerns that members of the public raise with us, is here. The Conservatives in their wisdom have decided they do not want to hear those concerns.

Why does the minister not want to hear from members of Parliament and why does he not want to hear from Canadians about their concerns with the potential far too limited liability?

[Petitions, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Albertans, again. Petitioners are very concerned about the fact that the laws regulating animal cruelty are very weak. They are calling on members of this place to support Bill C-592, an act to amend the Criminal Code to prevent and respond to cruelty to animals.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Alberta. They are calling on the government to require the labelling of genetically modified foods on the basis that Canadians have the right to know what they are eating.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions and I will be very brief.

The first petition is from Albertans. Petitioners point out that Canada is the only OECD country without a national public transit strategy and that there is an $18-billion gap in transit funding. They are calling on the government to put in place a Canada public transit strategy.