Linda Duncan

[Petitions, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling two petitions today.

The first is a petition from Canadians from Inuvik, Yellowknife, Fitzgerald, Serpent River, and Alberta. They are calling on the House of Commons to add the Slave River to the Navigable Waters Protection Act because the Slave River historically has been famous for its navigation.

[The Environment, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if a bill is tabled that increases funding for inspection and enforcement, I guarantee we will vote for it.

The government speaks publicly of balanced development and a new respectful working relationship with first nations. The reality is far the opposite. Incredibly, last week it downgraded environmental assessment rules to exempt in situ oil sands projects from any review or hearing. This exemption not only contradicts the information of its own scientists but abrogates constitutional duties to consult. Is forcing first nations and Metis to seek redress in the courts the Conservative vision of a new working relationship?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there are many businesses and consulting firms in my riding that would love to compete. However, the concern is whether they are now going to be competing with Europeans who are going for the municipal and provincial contracts. It is a double-edged sword. I know many of them would welcome the opportunity to potentially work in Europe.

The problem is that one of the biggest sectors in my riding is the energy efficiency sector. The Conservative government, in its wisdom, yanked the very incentives that would create the expertise not only for Canada but to go overseas. The government has also shredded any incentives toward the development of renewable energy expertise and technology in my riding and therefore businesses cannot compete in Europe. In the meantime, the Europeans have moved forward and are now going to be selling equipment to us. It is a sad day. It is time for the government to step up and put its money into building Canada's sectors so it can compete equally with the Europeans.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who does fantastic work on our behalf in the natural resources area.

The concern we have raised repeatedly is this. The government speaks of the fact that we have a great skills shortage and, apparently, there is some question about that. The experts are debating that right now in the media. If we have a big skills shortage and the government wishes to fill it with indigenous Canadians, then it has to give them basic education and skills so they can compete and apply for those jobs.

The second issue is that indigenous Canadians should have an equal right to any other Canadian to decide what they want to be educated in and what kind of jobs they want to pursue. They do not necessarily all want to be welders and pipefitters. A good number of them do, but a good number of them want to be doctors, teachers and parliamentarians. We remain deeply disturbed that the government is not removing this 2% funding cap on education.

An increasing number of indigenous youth are completing high school, but there is also a cap on assistance for higher education. Therefore, there are many frustrated people out there who would like to pursue other jobs.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to the latest tabled omnibus budget bill on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton—Strathcona.

I think many across western Canada will be discouraged that not much debate on this bill is being allowed because of closure, once again. What is of particular concern to those of us in the official opposition, and which I know will be shared by my constituents, is the fact that once again, we have a large omnibus budget bill, over 300 pages, that includes many policy and legal changes that merit discussion before the appropriate committee, an opportunity for Canadians and the appropriate experts to come forward and testify, and frankly, an opportunity to question the appropriate ministers.

Here we have many policy matters, including, for example, changes to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. Where are we are supposed to direct our questions? It is to the Minister of Finance. This is a complete perversion, frankly, of the proceedings in the House of Commons.

Once again, we are calling for this to end. We have requested many changes, but the government seems to persist and does not want debate. It does not want the engagement of Canadians in these important matters. We are doing our best to try to hold the government accountable on spending. That is our constitutional responsibility.

Before I speak to some of the matters in the bill, and because of limited time I will have to pick and choose, I would like to mention the things we do not find in the budget bill.

First and foremost, we see nothing toward addressing the inequities our indigenous Canadians have suffered over far too many decades. There is no mention of new dollars to end the 2% cap on first nations education and services. There is no additional money to expedite specific and comprehensive land claims. I find this dumbfounding. Banks have called for action on this. First nations have called for this. Provincial premiers have called for the government to step up to the plate with additional staffing and resources to expedite the land claims, including along the path of the proposed gateway pipeline. What do we see in this budget? There is absolutely nothing to expedite that process.

We have heard concerns from those who have already signed on to comprehensive land claims. Where is the money to finally deliver on the commitments made under those claims? Those Canadians would like to participate in the economy the Conservative government lauds, but they are not able to move forward and participate in the economy, because they are struggling just to get by.

There is no additional money for an inquiry into missing and murdered women, despite the pleas from indigenous families across this country. It is just a travesty that there is still no money for this inquiry, which even the UN is calling for.

There is no commitment of additional monies that will likely be needed to complete the truth and reconciliation review and the release of data.

There is no money for our universities and technical schools in crisis, even in Alberta. We face the travesty of deep cuts to our universities and technical colleges at a time when, supposedly, the current government supports training so that all Canadians can participate in this burgeoning resource economy. However, they are being sliced. Where is the federal government? It could be helping with that. Where is the new money to reduce tuition so that all Canadians can have access to advanced education?

There is a lot of talk about helping consumers. What is the highest cost most Canadian families face? It is their electricity and power bills. Canadians have pleaded to bring back the incentive and support for home energy retrofits and retrofits for small and medium businesses so that they can compete. There is nothing in this budget to assist those consumers.

On pensions, despite the fact that almost all premiers now are onside to beef up the Canada Pension Plan, which unions are behind, as are the majority of Canadians, there is nothing in this budget.

Agriculture is one that really saddens me. Every time we stand up to speak, we get all of this talk back about the glories of how all Canadians are going to be able to benefit from CETA, the proposed new trade agreement with Europe, yet the Conservative government, in its wisdom, killed an 80-year-old program that gave assistance to small and medium farmers in the Prairies. The program had provided special research to make sure that on these sensitive lands, one could farm sustainably.

There were community pastures where small and medium farmers could graze their cattle. It was a successful program for both enabling the sustainability of the pastures and for these important members of our economy to continue contributing their tax dollars.

What did the government do? The government shut down those programs. Not only did it shut them down, it sold off the bulls that were provided to provide for more cattle. The government would not even provide feed during the interim period until the farmers could get away from the harvest and put bids on the bulls. I met with many of those farmers this summer who told me that they are being forced to sell off their herds. How is that helping Canadian farmers contribute to the economy and potentially benefit from this trade agreement?

Those are just some of the many matters missing from the budget bill, which supposedly would help all Canadians participate in the economy.

I would like to speak to Division 7 of Part 3, on disposal of the Dominion Coal Blocks. These lands in British Columbia have been the subject of a lot of controversy lately. There is an agreement on these lands between the Government of British Columbia and six first nations in British Columbia. Those first nations want to undertake forestry activities and have economic opportunity.

It is the understanding that some of these lands will not be sold off for metallurgical coal, to be shipped to China, or for coal gas methane. Instead, some of these lands are supposed to be protected for a future Flathead national park or wildlife preserve.

I am looking forward to some clarification in the House as to first, the first nations that will be directly impacted by these decisions, and second, the citizenry who have been negotiating in good faith with the government on setting aside these lands for the benefit of all Canadians.

The second issue I want to speak to is the phase-out of accelerated capital costs in mining. I simply have a question I look forward to having answered by one of the members of the government. The government says that it wants to incent and encourage mining entrepreneurs to create jobs and income in Canada, particularly in the north. I am looking forward to an explanation as to why these particular accelerated capital costs are being phased out. The government has committed, through the G8, to phase out and reduce its incentives and benefits to the fossil fuel industry, but I remain puzzled by this. Our party supports the mining sector, and we look forward to having an explanation for that one.

The third area is the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act. Very simply, the government is shutting down a fund established in negotiations with all of the communities along the Mackenzie whereby they could be compensated for any impacts that were social or economic in nature. It was a fund that was specifically apportioned to individual communities. I look forward to an explanation as to why, unilaterally, the government has chosen to shut down that fund, to put those monies into general revenues, and to give the minister total discretion in how to disburse those funds. It does not sound like co-operative federalism with the Northwest Territories and the people of the north.

The final matter I would like to speak to is with respect to the changes to worker health and safety. It is deeply distressing that there has been a decision to take away the issue of defining dangerous work from a definition that has been provided in legislation. It provides a broad scope of work that a worker may consider dangerous. The worker then, under legislation, has the right to refuse to work. Instead, the government is assigning total power to the discretion of the minister to narrow that down. Why is there that great concern? It is because the government has been prosecuted and convicted of violating its own health and safety laws and is awaiting sentencing of up to $100,000 and probation. Is this the way the government responds to its atrocious actions in failing to have basic health and safety protections in place for Canadian federal workers?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thorough and cogent speech on this matter. It is regrettable that we do not have more opportunities like this, given the closure.

The current government says that its top priority is creating jobs and the economy. Conservatives have alluded from time to time to how they think this is a prime opportunity for indigenous Canadians to become involved in the economy, yet in this budget we do not see one single measure to enable that to happen. Time after time, the first nation, Metis and Inuit communities tell us that they need their land claims settled, they need the government to deliver on its commitments on the land claims and they need the government to provide fair and equal funding for education so they can have the skills and knowledge to apply for the jobs that would give them a fair income.

I wonder if the member could speak on how this budget seems to serve the needs and desires of only some, but not all, Canadians.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little stunned to hear my hon. colleague from Alberta across the way, who ran on a platform to rid Parliament of the Liberals, a platform of open, transparent and participatory government, while every move the Conservatives have made has removed those promises from the way they govern.

I am a little stunned to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary say that debate in Parliament is a filibuster. We simply want the opportunity to debate a budget bill. That is our primary responsibility. It is to hold the government accountable on spending. That is why people elect us to come to the House of Commons.

We have to remember that only 38% of citizens elected the current government. The remainder elected us, the opposition, to hold the government accountable on spending. We are simply doing our due diligence.

I guess it has gone from bad to worse. I find it absolutely stunning that not only are the Conservatives now invoking closure so early in this very important debate, which frankly is a lot about law and policy and not just monetary measures, but in fact they did not even have a briefing because they did not have interpretation on the first day.

So here we are doing our best to have a cogent debate on a bill, and the Conservatives are not assisting members of Parliament whatsoever.

[Rail Transportation, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the 2005 CN derailment dumped 700,000 litres of bunker C fuel into Lake Wabamun. The current rail disaster, shutting the main line and the highway in Alberta, is happening only a few kilometres from Lake Wabamun.

In just one year, the government has allowed a 3800% increase in dangerous rail traffic, with zero community notice and zero community consent. What is this, the Wild West? When will the government take its responsibilities for rail safety seriously?

[Respect for Communities Act, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech on this bill was very honest and straightforward. It was very refreshing and very appreciated.

I wanted to build on my colleague's response to the former question. I have had discussions with doctors, particularly those who have been working in my city of Edmonton, on trying to deal with the problem of addiction and trying to seek safer places even within the community to deal with the problem of drug addiction, which is evident across the country. The member spoke to the issue of what the doctors are telling me, which is that it is pretty hard to create a path toward detox and better health alternatives if people are hiding in back alleys, getting HIV and avoiding prevention and rehabilitation.

Could she speak again to the issue of what the experts are finding in their analysis of B.C.'s InSite program that, in fact, it may well be the best path toward better health alternatives?

[Respect for Communities Act, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her presentation on this matter.

I have taken the time to actually talk to medical specialists and others who are concerned about this issue and who are trying to find better ways to prevent health decline from drug use and prevent communities from being harmed by the illegal use of drugs in their communities and their back alleys.

A good number of Canadians across the country, and in particular doctors, are pursuing this very carefully, looking at evidence elsewhere and carefully examining the experience that occurred in British Columbia. Resoundingly, they are finding that the proposals for medically supervised safe injection services are going to be the best route to go.

They argue that this approach would be better for overdose prevention in that it would be better to be injected in clean places than in back alleys. It would be better for the community because it avoids the presence of needles and disreputable people in backyards, because it prevents HIV spread, and because it enhances the opportunity to work directly with those who are addicted to drugs to help them reform.

Could the member advise if she supports the actions by these doctors and the concerns with the direction the government is going?