Cathy McLeod

[Indigenous Affairs, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise regarding a question I asked the minister several months ago. Although a lot of time has passed, I think the issue is even more relevant today than when I asked it at that time, which I certainly did not feel I got a satisfactory response to.

It was about the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. At the time, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations had just granted the commissioners a limited six-month extension. It is important to say from the outset that when the government decided to move ahead with this inquiry, all parties in the House said they would support it, but it was not unconditional support. It was a support in the expectation that the government would create success.

What we meant by success is so important. It was peace for the families, for them to be able to share their tragedies, knowing that someone cared and was listening to them and that perhaps even some of the cases would be reflected on again. The other important thing that we wanted to see was a positive path forward with action items. Those were important, and we truly are waiting. We will see if we get that kind of response.

The inquiry's original budget was $53 million and we wanted to know how it was spent. We wanted to know how much funding would be associated with the extension. Of course, we did not get any answer at that time, but last week in the supplementary estimates, we noticed that $38 million was added to the inquiry. The budget now stands at $92 million for the two and a half years. I cannot help but compare that with to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which had a six-year mandate, or perhaps three times the length of this inquiry, but did it with $60 million. We have $98 million for a two and a half year inquiry, and approximately $60 million that was spent on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We are still looking for some clarity. Why was $38 million needed for a six-month extension when the majority of the work, hopefully, was done in those first two years with the initial budget?

This is important because $38 million represents indigenous opportunities to do things. We have grassroots organizations across this country, especially our urban indigenous groups. Whether it is in support of their plan, whether it is a friendship centre, or whether it is some of the other urban aboriginal organizations, they are making a difference on the ground. What has happened to them? Their funding is on halt while the government says it has to put the programs on hold because it needs to do some more consultations. There is $38 million that is going to the inquiry for six months to finish this initiative, but meanwhile we have urban indigenous organizations that are actually doing the important work on prevention and yet are being told, “Sorry, we need to have some further consultations. Maybe next year we will have some funding for you.“

The government members promised to continue with important action while they did the inquiry and, quite frankly, they are failing.

[Bear Clan Patrol, November 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening, I walked with a Bear Clan Patrol in Winnipeg. It was heart-wrenching. The team of volunteers patrols the north end, providing support for the most vulnerable. In just a few hours, we encountered a sexual assault victim, domestic abuse, and drug abuse, but also heartwarming expressions of appreciation.

The Bear Clan Patrol was relaunched after the death of Tina Fontaine. It now has 1,400 volunteers and is helping 40 other communities set up teams.

The current government promised that while the inquiry into missing and murdered women and girls was proceeding, it would not pause on important action. Last year, a small investment from the indigenous services department quickly ran out. The money went to sharp gloves, flashlights and a very modest office space. However, instead of committing funding, the department has left the group out in the cold. The department officials say that they are busy consulting this year, so there is no money for a team with a proven track record.

I call on the minister to stand with the Bear Clan Patrol. Will the Liberals support the most vulnerable on the front lines?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughts on one area of the bill, a bill that is 850-plus pages. When parliamentarians stand to vote on the legislation, with the very minimal debate time we have had, people will be very unfamiliar with many parts of the bill because they have not been given proper scrutiny.

I asked one of the member's colleagues about division 19 of part 4 on additions to reserves. I would like to ask the member about divisions 11 and 12 of part 4 on the changes to both the First Nations Land Management Act and First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Could the member describe what those changes are and why they have been put in place?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, during the time allocation debate, I expressed concerns about the fact that I would not be able to have a chance to speak to this budget implementation act.

What I would like to ask my colleague is this. This is a big bill. It is a complex bill and in division 4, section 19 there is an addition to reserve policy. Can my colleague tell us with regard to that addition to reserve policy what is being changed from what it was previously and why that change is necessary?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in this budget implementation act there are three bills concerning important indigenous issues that should be separate and standalone bills.

First of all, when trying to go to the relevant areas of the document, there are no links. The document is so massive it takes 10 minutes to even get to one area of the bill. No hard copies were provided.

As well, we were shut down at committee when we wanted to look at the three standalone bills. After the mess the government made with Bill S-3, it is a travesty that the committee responsible for this area is not looking at these three pieces of legislation as standalone bills.

As the shadow minister, I will not even get a chance to speak in the House at second reading of this bill. This is absolutely shameful, and I would like the finance minister to stand up and justify how he can have three pieces of indigenous legislation not subject to proper scrutiny by the people best poised to scrutinize it.

[Points of Order, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I too will try to keep my comments to just a couple of minutes, but it is important to intervene. We are talking about the NATO Parliamentary Association. If we look at what the purpose of NATO is, it is to safeguard freedom and security of all its members, collective defences at the heart and a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among members. It goes on to talk about the values of NATO. What happened last week was absolutely, totally inconsistent with what the spirit of NATO should be about.

When the meeting was adjourned, there were buses full of people leaving because they thought the meeting was over. Then the desk was stormed and it was taken over and reopened by the Liberals. As someone who left the meeting, it was not until the next morning that I even heard the meeting continued, that it was reopened illegally and there was more to it. As a member of the association, there is no question in my mind that there was a serious breach of what was appropriate protocol.

[Canada Revenue Agency Act, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to have a few minutes in the first hour of debate and I am now honoured to have the opportunity to continue my thoughts in this second hour of debate. In the first hour, I talked about what an elegant solution my colleague put forward in terms of organ donations, which is to have it on our tax returns and then the information going to the provinces. It is an inexpensive solution. It is an elegant solution that is not going to impact what is provincial jurisdiction or what is federal jurisdiction.

I talked about my experience as a nurse in rural communities. Many times, people were severely injured in accidents. We wanted to transfer them quickly and it was difficult for families to make those decisions. They were dealing with the very difficult situation of a loved one who was traumatically or fatally injured and did not know what their wishes were. From my experience, that helps me recognize how important it is to have those conversations up front. As we do our tax returns, what better time to think about those sorts of issues.

I put out householders in our community and I like to highlight some of the different private members' bills that have been put forward in the House that I think are particularly compelling. I sent out a householder that arrived on people's doorsteps a few weeks ago. If anyone thinks that their community is not on board with this, I do not think I have ever had such a positive, strong response to a private member's bill. I had people writing and phoning my office to ask how soon can this happen and say what a fantastic idea it is. As we look at our vote in the House, we can be quite reassured that Canadians from coast to coast to coast see it as a positive option.

I want to make a quick note. When people do their tax return, they would indicate what their wishes are; this is called consent. I want to contrast that with another issue, where government is trying to extract information from people. Right now we have an issue with Statistics Canada where it wants to have all individuals' private banking information, line by line, e-transfers, the times people went to Costco, how many times they went to Shoppers Drug Mart and so on. It is asking the banks to do basically a data dump with all that private financial information. I contrast where I have had an overwhelming response to that issue also where people are saying that is their data and their information and Statistics Canada cannot touch that without their consent.

There is a lesson to be learned here. When we ask Canadians to make a difficult decision, but it is their decision and the government is facilitating the decision, which is what is happening in my colleague's private member's bill, where people are making a decision around being an organ donor or not, and they want their wishes to be translated to the province, that is something that Canadians get behind.

When something imposes our personal information going to a big government bureaucracy, there is an incredible amount of mistrust. As we are looking at these two very different issues, it becomes important to recognize that Canadians typically want and rightfully need to give consent for these sorts of issues.

I hope when it comes to the vote as we finish the debate, I will then be able to do my 2019 tax return and have the opportunity to check that box. Many people would be very grateful to have a seamless way to add their names to the list.

[Carbon Pricing, October 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, life is very expensive in northern Canada, and residents simply do not have an option to hop on the O-Train or the Canada Line. The cost of housing, the cost of infrastructure, the cost of food and heating their homes in the winter is extraordinarily expensive. Two hundred communities have diesel only, so the Liberals' little 10% rural addition is nothing.

What are the Liberals going to do? Why are they imposing a tax on northerners that is going to do nothing but make life more expensive?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, October 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government has insisted that it has to rush this bill because of court imperatives and in response to a court decision. My colleague has clearly articulated how that is not accurate. Could he share with us what the courts actually said Liberals had to do and how this bill does not align with what is supposed to happen as we move forward?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, October 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that what we are debating today is time allocation.

I want to go back to 2015 when the Liberals made a number of commitments. They promised electoral reform, and what happened? They ditched it. They promised to get back to a balanced budget and the budget would balance itself, and what happened? They blew through $20 billion, so there is no plan to get back to a balanced budget. On ethics, they promised an open and transparent government, and what happened? There has been a rotating door to the Ethics Commissioner, with the Prime Minister, for the first time ever, being found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. They also promised to respect Parliament.

How is not coming to an agreement with the opposition on the time that is required to debate, which is a simple thing to do if it is broached in good faith, respecting Parliament?