Cathy McLeod

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ludicrous.

I have already said that this was not in the budget bill of 2018. As I understand, it was not in the budget bill of 2017.

In terms of talking with the first nations, with respect to the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee, public servants are saying, “we have spoken with them personally and we continue to speak with them about the proposal.”

The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee executive is saying, “So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons.” “Out of nowhere” is what they said.

Again, to suggest that people are being engaged across this country and that this 802-page bill does not have some serious issues that should have had proper process is absolutely wrong.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with the time allocation on second reading, there was no opportunity to look at this issue at all. The finance committee had very minimal opportunity.

More importantly, we learned from the Senate pre-hearings that the communities that are impacted had no idea that this was coming down and that this was going to be tabled. That was absolutely in direct opposition to what the Liberals committed to doing, which is proper consultation. To be quite frank, I could see us ending up in court again, because the Liberals did not do their job and they did not talk to the people who are going to be impacted by this particular piece of legislation.

The Liberals are now trying to sneak it through in an 802-page bill without anyone paying attention, and this is completely contradictory to anything the Liberals ever promised Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly answer that question. Only Liberals could talk about imposing a tax that takes money out of people's pockets and about how much it is going to raise. It is going to be taking money out of people's pockets.

What I really want to focus on, and it was the focus of my speech, is the report stage amendment that talked about the government's commitment to first nations and its commitment to Canadians to not introduce omnibus legislation, not put into budget implementation bills anything that was not in the budget, and its commitment, again, to have full consultation with first nations before it introduced a piece of legislation that impacted first nations.

The government has allowed for none of that, and it should be ashamed of itself.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, often we say we are honoured to stand up in this House. However, today I am actually very disappointed to have to stand up in the House and talk to the amendments I have proposed, why I proposed these amendments, and how the current government has failed to live up to both its promises with respect to the 2015 election and its commitments regarding engagement with indigenous people before it puts proposed legislation on the table.

Members will recall that back in 2015 the government said there would be no omnibus legislation and that it would never table omnibus bills. It also said that if something was not in the budget it would not be in any budget implementation act. Those were commitments it made to Canadians across this country and it has repeated. However, what we have learned, like with its promises for a balanced budget and democratic reform, is that it is simply not following through on its promises. For some reason, it has managed to get away with people not calling it on that. However, I think it is time that Canadians realize that many of the things the government has said it is not following through on.

What has happened? We had the budget implementation act, Bill C-86, land on our tables and it was 802 pages. That is a significant size for a bill. I guess I should not have said, “land on our tables”, because the bills are not printed anymore and there are very few copies. However, it is really quite a massive implementation act.

We do not get a paper copy anymore. Therefore, as we try to look through and understand what is in this massive bill with the tools we are given, like we often do in this House, the government did not even bother to use a format in the budget implementation act that would link us to the sections we wanted to read. In the case that I am talking about, there were three particular areas that related to indigenous legislation, and I could not even get to read what was in the act in a reasonable manner. I had to scroll for minutes and minutes to get to where I needed to be. Therefore, not only do we not have a hard copy, but the government has made it virtually impossible to try and get to the sections of the bill that we need to get to without going through a very onerous process. Quite simply, it should be ashamed of itself because that is not acceptable.

What do we have in this particular bill? As I indicated, there were three sections, division 11, division 12 and division 19, that were specifically related to the indigenous changes.

I am going to focus on division 19, which enacts the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act. That was not in the budget of 2017. It was not in the budget of 2018. It was almost impossible to find, but is a significant change the government is proposing, and should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. I hope when people vote for the report stage amendments that the government will reintroduce it in the way it should have introduced it in the first place, as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will go to the indigenous affairs committee to review further.

The next thing that we spot is that it is in the budget implementation act, but it was not referred to the indigenous affairs committee. A motion was brought forward at the indigenous affairs committee saying that we should at least look at this so that we understand what the intentions are, what the government is trying to do, so that we could determine if there were any suggestions we needed to make through amendments. The Liberal majority on the committee voted that down. Therefore, division 19 has had virtually no scrutiny in Parliament. The second reading debate was cut so short that there was no time to even have a conversation about division 19.

One of the interesting things is this. The government has said there is no relationship more important to it than that with indigenous peoples in Canada. It has also committed to a consultation process before it introduces legislation. It committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which ensures that, when laws are going to impact indigenous peoples in this country, the government will have a robust consultation process before it introduces any legislation.

I will talk about what happened as the Senate was doing a pre-study on this particular division.

Susan Waters, the director general, lands and environmental management branch in INAC said, “The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.... The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee are very much aware; we have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal.”

Chris Henderson, the executive director of Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, said:

We are concerned about this proposed legislation simply by the fact that nobody from the government ever asked us if we want the act, and also in terms of how will this act improve the land conversion process under the 1997 TLE framework agreement.... Now, with this proposed new ATR legislation, nobody from the Government of Canada ever came to us or our member First Nations to ask us, first, do you want this ATR legislation; and, second, what impacts will there be if we do propose legislation? We were never asked those questions. So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons. At this point, it's somewhat premature to ask us if we want it because, again, we were never asked to begin with if it's something we asked for.

What we have in division 19 is a change, and it could be a significant change. However, we do not know how significant it is, because we have not had the opportunity to have it referred to committee to do our due diligence in terms of bringing witnesses forward. There is no question that the government has absolutely failed. I bet if I went across this country and asked chiefs if they knew about the new addition to reserve legislation that was hidden in the budget implementation act, they would be very puzzled and very concerned.

Really, how does that meet the government's commitment? It is another case of the government continuing to stand up and say the nice words but when it comes to doing the work, it just does not get it done. This is why it was such a mistake to put this into the budget implementation act.

We looked at Bill S-3, which was a stand-alone piece of proposed legislation. The government said not to worry, it had it all right, it was a response to a court case, we heard from the officials and it looked like it might be a reasonable path forward. What we found when it got to committee was that it was actually a mess. People who came to us in committee said that it was a problem and that it was a mess.

I hope the other two divisions are fine, but they have not had the scrutiny of divisions 11 and 12. There is the First Nations Land Management Act, which is very significant, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which is again pretty significant, on organizations and operations. However, nothing has been done.

I think it would be important for the Liberals especially and all members of the House to say that we promised we would not do this, but we did it. We have some testimony over in the Senate, and it should lead us to be a little concerned about what we have done. We need to actually support the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and do some proper process in terms of making sure that we are going to move forward with a piece of legislation that is going to get the job done. Otherwise, again, it is another broken promise and another failure of the Liberals.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 26th, 2018]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 675.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 676.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 677.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 678.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 679.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 680.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 681.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 682.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 683.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 684.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 685.

[Criminal Code, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to lend my voice to the debate. The purpose of the bill is to require a court, when imposing sentences for very serious crimes, to consider it to be an aggravating circumstance when the victim is an aboriginal woman.

Like many of the speakers before me, I agree that we all must acknowledge the unacceptable and tragic reality that aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of violent crime. There are many actions the government must and should take as part of the solution. Part of the solution lies within all of us, whether it be as communities, municipalities, provinces, or the federal government and first nations alike. We have to tackle this issue seriously. However I do have some concerns, like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, that this legislation would not move us in the direction we need to go.

I also want to note the very difficult stories, the poignant examples, that the member for Winnipeg Centre shared with us.

It is important to ask certain questions. Would this legislation have made a difference in those particular circumstances the member talked about? Would it act as a deterrent? Is it constitutional? Would it result in fairer treatment of victims?

Our justice system is about protecting rights and punishing wrongs. Our laws are intended to provide order in society and a peaceful way to settle disputes and to express the values and beliefs of Canadians.

The preamble of the bill talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to all individuals equality before and under the law and the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. That is part of the essence of the issue when people wonder whether the bill is charter compliant. It talks about equality for individuals under the law and equal protection.

The bill has also been discussed in terms of the Criminal Code and its sentencing provisions. A court that imposes sentences must take into account evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or any other similar factor. Those are aggravating circumstances that are already in the Criminal Code.

We heard about the horrific murder of Betty Osborne. From what I gathered, it was racially motivated and therefore the aggravating circumstances should have applied in that case.

Another important fact is that the bill states that sentences should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Would this change be perceived as fair by all women who are impacted by violent offences? This is one of the areas in the bill that I do have a concerns about. When an individual who has suffered a horrific assault such as sexual assault goes to court, she expects the justice system to treat her fairly, whether she is non-indigenous or indigenous. This is going to be at the root of the issue here.

Both an offender and the family of a murder victim have the right to expect the full force of the law to be applied when someone is found guilty. They should not feel that the offence against their loved ones, against themselves, meant less if they were either indigenous or non-indigenous. Every victim must matter.

The government talked about transit drivers and policemen. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the difference is that a transit driver or member of the police, or health care workers for that matter, is providing a service for the public. That should be considered when an offence is perpetrated against them. That is perhaps a different circumstance than saying that the sexual assault an individual experienced is less or more of an offence depending on their ethnicity. That is where the principles of sentencing will be a challenge. That is an issue on which I think we might end up with some charter challenges.

I will go back to my original comments. Would this legislation act as a deterrent? No person who perpetrates these offences is going to say it was an aggravating offence and therefore choose his or her victims differently.

I do not believe that is going to happen, so I do not think there will be any deterrence as a result of this legislation. Of course, we all want prevention, so hopefully, out of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we will get some solid suggestions and an action plan for going forward.

Will the legislation act as a deterrent? I do not believe so. I do not think it will help us on the path to solving this problem. We talked about whether it is constitutional. We need to check the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. Would it result in increased fairness in the treatment of victims of these horrific crimes? I suggest that perhaps it would not add to increased fairness and treatment.

Everyone in the House is committed to dealing with the overrepresentation of indigenous women and girls in these murders, assaults and sexual violence, but we also need to make sure the actions we take will have an impact with respect to the intended outcome.

[An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services, November 23rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I note that on the the New Democrats official social media site, they have put out a comment that what the Liberal government is doing is much worse and much more draconian than anything the Conservatives did. I know they objected in the past to some of the measures we took, but they have identified the Liberals as being way out of line.

Could the member talk a little more about how egregious the Liberal government is and how it has gone further than anything Conservatives did in the past?

[Agriculture and Agri-food, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of recent lofty commitments, the government has increased the burden on our businesses. In my riding, Absorbent Products, a three-decade-old family business that manufactures food grade additives for use in animal feed, has been fighting with CFIA officials for over two years. They have introduced arbitrary new regulations that will imperil not only the owner's operations in Canada but his ability to export to foreign markets.

How can the Liberals claim to be helping business, when they are forcing people like the owners of Absorbent Products out of my riding?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Service Operations Legislation, November 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the last Parliament there were many strikes that were averted. We have fine mediators who do great work. I know of many cases where our ministers made sure the strikes were averted by the work they did at the table, sleeping in the port, and really getting the job done. When on occasion we did have to introduce back-to-work legislation, because it was having critical impacts on the economy, we did it, but we allowed for gruelling debate in the House. This government is not only doing back-to-work legislation, but it has put forth a motion with much less opportunity for debate. Its draconian measures are much worse than anything we ever did in terms of back-to-work legislation. We allowed for debate. How can the minister justify it? It is draconian.

[Indigenous Affairs, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will again reiterate that we all want to see this report in the House and the change that was promised. I acknowledge that I continue to be concerned. As we watched the inquiry, we saw personnel, whether it was chief executive officers or commissioners, leave.

Most importantly, the parliamentary secretary talked about money spent here and money spent there, but across this country, urban indigenous organizations are truly making a difference. I will use the Bear Clan again as an example. In the first hour I spent with them, there was a sexual assault that they very capably and compassionately dealt with. They were told that the government would not have the $100,000 they might need, because it is doing more consulting.

He talked about a lot of programs, but, quite frankly, the organizations I am hearing from are not seeing it on the ground.