Cathy McLeod

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I find the debate today very troubling in terms of what the government has been saying. I have not heard one Liberal stand and say definitively that this is wrong or unacceptable.

It has been 21 days now or longer, why does this minister not have a response? This is a very simple motion, with what should be a very simple definitive answer that the government supports the opposition 100% on this, that this is clearly wrong, that the murderer getting veterans benefits is wrong and that it will do everything in its power to stop it immediately. Why are none of the government members saying that? I certainly think their constituents expect them to.

[Natural Resources, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, first nations communities were depending on the Trans Mountain to provide jobs and economic opportunities.

Forty-three first nations have economic benefit agreements. They now have to look at budget cuts to important programs, and at cutting back in terms of many of the things they had hoped to do next year. This is because of the Prime Minister's failure.

Others, indigenous businesses, now have contracts on hold.

How long is the minister willing to deprive these 43 first nations of jobs and economic opportunities? What is the plan?

[Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to add my comments to this very important debate on S-245. I would like to note the comments of my colleague for Lakeland as she kicked off the debate. She very articulately laid out this project, the time frames and some of the history. I will not redo what she said but I hope to add some new comments to the debate which should be reflected upon.

Even though the landscape has changed since this initial private member's motion in the Senate was introduced, passed and moved to us, it still remains a very important bill for us to pass in the House. Again, the landscape has changed considerably, but we must and should pass it.

I know that in an ideal world we would not have any dependence on fossil fuels. However, we continue to have that dependence. It is not just the gasoline for our car or the jet fuel for the planes that fly us to Ottawa and back home. Over 6,000 products require the use of oil.

In the short and medium term, the world, not just Canada, will continue to rely on oil and its products. I do have a belief that there will be technological advances that will create some solutions.

Dave McKay, the president of RBC, said, “Canadians are polarized about oil and gas when we should be focused on how cleanly we can produce it, how safely we can transport it and how wisely we can consume it.” Those are very important words.

Alberta is working very hard on how to cleanly produce. The discussion we are having today is how we can safely transport and then it is up to every individual to look at how wisely to consume it.

The government has decided to put all its eggs into one basket. The tanker moratorium simply means that people from Lac du Ronge and Eagle Spirit have been cut off, with no consultation on the opportunities they thought might be there for their communities. Of course, that would be a northern route. This bill is currently in the Senate. Again, it cuts off opportunity to get oil to the sea water.

Bill C-69 has been called the “never build another pipeline again” bill. I tend to agree. Changes proposed in Bill C-69 mean that another pipeline will never be built in Canada again. That is a huge problem. We can look at what is happening in the States and across the world. We basically have landlocked resources. In the short and medium term, we will be uncompetitive.

Having a “no pipeline” bill is important. However, what people do not realize is this. Look at the rail traffic. I live on a rail line. I was at a ceremony this week for a change of command for the Rocky Mountain Rangers. Fifteen metres from us was a rail line, which goes straight through Kamloops. Tanker car after tanker car travel right through town and along the Fraser River. It had already come down the Thompson River while salmon were spawning.

When we talk about transportation safety, it is relatively safe. However, it is more safe to transport oil through a pipeline than by tanker cars, which travel right through the middle of town and along the spawning channels. We have had wildfires. We have seen the instability of slopes when rains come. We are having washouts. There is big concern about the enormous increase in the tanker cars that go through our communities.

This does not even address the issue that we hear all the time from our grain farmers and mining folks about the bottleneck on the rail lines. As the rail capacity increases for tanker cars to transport oil, we bottleneck our supply system, our supply chain. This is a huge problem.

Northern gateway and the TMX is really a tale of two pipelines, because it has been largely decision-making by the current government.

Northern gateway went through its process and it was approved by the former government. A court decision came out and it was very clear. The Liberal government received that court decision. It said that some things needed to be done to improve consultation with first nations.

The decision was received by the current Liberal government. Every time those members suggest that they inherited a flawed process, it is quite clear that it was not the process but it was the execution of the process with northern gateway. It became much clearer that they did not learn any lessons after reading that report, in spite of the fact that they said they had. The Liberals completely botched their execution with respect to the duty to consult on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The first decision said they could not simply be a note-taker. The Liberals had that information. What did they do? They sent someone to take notes. How is that looking at a decision and implementing it?

The minister stood up time after time and said that there was no relationship more important than the government's relationship with first nations. He said they were engaged, that they have had the best process ever, and yet his government did the exact same thing. Someone was sent to take notes and the government did nothing in terms of dealing with the issues at hand.

The Liberals failed. They failed as plaintiffs. Six communities took them to court with respect to the duty to consult. More important, they also failed 43 communities that had benefit agreements and were looking forward to the opportunities that would come with the construction of this pipeline going through their territory.

About one-third of the pipeline goes through the riding that I represent, which includes many communities as well as many first nations communities, the majority of which had signed benefit agreements.

After the decision came down I met with a number of first nations and other communities. One group had to completely redo its budget. It had counted on the benefits from this agreement. This group had to wonder what it could slice and dice out of its budget because it was faced with brand-new circumstances.

I met with another group called Simpcw Resource Group. As construction happened, and in the past, this company had been responsible for returning the disrupted land from the construction of a pipeline back to its natural vegetative state.

Companies are planting trees as we speak, planning on the economic opportunities. Construction camps are being planned. Cooks were looking forward to opportunities. These are real people. These are real jobs.

The fact that the Liberal government could not look at a court decision that came to them in 2016 and do the job properly is absolutely shameful. It failed to execute. When the government says it had a flawed process given to it, it is absolute nonsense. The government was told what it needed to do in order to do it properly. Please, do not ever let them say they were provided with a flawed process. The court decision was absolutely clear that the process was appropriate, it was the execution that was flawed.

This are real consequences to real people. This matters. I hope that when people look at this they will look at it as a benefit for Canada, not for the benefit of a small area only. This would benefit all of Canada.

I encourage all members of the House not to just look at their concerns and interests but to look at the big picture, look at it for the benefit of Canada.

[Natural Resources, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the government's Trans Mountain failure has real consequences for indigenous peoples. Chief Ernie Crey of Cheam First Nation had this to say:

What we've negotiated will be lasting training and lasting jobs...Every day our young people come to me and say they want to get trained, they want a job, and they want to say goodbye to welfare....To us, it means millions of dollars to my band alone...

These are more casualties from the Prime Minister's summer of failure. When will the Liberals present a plan to get Trans Mountain built?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we note that the commissioners of the national inquiry for missing indigenous women and girls asked for a two-year extension, but the minister granted it six months. Why only six months? Because, to quote the minister, “it would be important for the government to have time to respond to the final report before we go into an election.”

Could the minister guarantee that this timeline is not political opportunism and is really going to give the inquiry the time to do the work that needs to get done.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, what we will be voting against is the creation of a process that has allowed for such limited scrutiny. The Liberals will be asking us to vote for a slush fund that is worth over $7 billion tonight. How can we, as parliamentarians, and the backbenchers as well, vote in good conscience for something that we know there are no proper checks and balances around? I would suggest that maybe some of the Liberal backbenchers should look at these issues and perhaps think very carefully about what they are voting for.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona speaks to the issue perfectly. It already is a challenge for the opposition to hold government to account. When the government creates these sorts of changes where we do not even have a proper and due process, it is even more critical.

I want to highlight the recent Auditor General's comments, where he said that the government seems to be measuring its success by the dollars it spends. One of the opportunities that we have when we bring ministers to committee is to say, “You say you are going to spend $7 billion. Can you talk about how that program is making a difference?” When the Liberals erode that down to seven minutes, because they want to violate our opportunities for debate in this House by bringing closure on bills or adjournments, it not only creates challenges but compounds the challenges.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the Liberals, who so appreciated both the former PBO and the current PBO in the last Parliament, did not listen to what they said. To be quite frank, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is intimately knowledgeable about the machinations of government, and especially Treasury Board. Therefore, I certainly would view their comments with a great deal of alarm. Again, both the current PBO and the past PBO raised a red flag, and the Liberals should be listening to that red flag.

[Main Estimates, 2018-19, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to the main estimates, and of course, the important vote tonight. I think this is one of the most important debates we have in this House. We are talking about spending a lot of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.

There are many good things the federal government can do for Canadians, but we need to be very particular about how we authorize and how we look at the government's plans for spending money, because every penny has come from citizens who work hard. When they give money to the government, it means that it is perhaps a hockey lesson their child cannot do. It is something they are foregoing with that money going to the government. I think as we have this debate tonight, that should be very clear.

Perhaps, by the end of the points I make, anyone who might be watching this debate is going to realize that the government is betraying its commitment to transparency and accountability. I am going to give a few examples of how that has happened. They have taken what was an imperfect system and made it a whole lot worse than it was.

First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the normal process at committee and how the government has degraded that normal process that used to happen, and then I will talk about the infamous vote 40.

It used to be that for the main estimates, the minister would come to committee. We would usually have an hour with the minister and an hour with the officials to talk to them about their spending and their spending plans. I am going to use the indigenous affairs portfolio as an example.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, as members know, has been split into two parts. What happened this year was that the government decided it would have one minister for one hour and the other minister for the other hour. It was quite interesting. We would have liked to have that televised, because it was important. We heard that there were ministers at many committees. There were four committees that had ministers for a two-hour session on that particular day.

What happened was that there were votes, so in our first hour, we actually had 30 minutes of time to talk to the minister and her departmental officials, and then there was another vote, and we only had 30 minutes for the second minister. What that meant, in reality, was that once the minister had given her 10-minute presentation, the official opposition had a grand total of seven minutes to question the minister on her spending plans. We had seven minutes for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and seven minutes for the Minister of Indigenous Services.

What does that mean? We had seven minutes to talk to the minister about Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, which has not been separated yet. We had seven minutes to talk about $3 billion for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and seven minutes to talk to the Minister of Indigenous Services about $9.3 billion.

How can the official opposition do an effective job when the government does not even have the courtesy of looking at what is happening and planning its votes and its need for adjournment and stopping debate? The Liberals plan them for times when they know that committees are meeting and ministers are there. They are eroding accountability. That is a significant concern, because to be quite frank, seven minutes is absolutely nothing for spending of almost $10 billion.

Of course, that does not include talking about the $1 billon that is in this very elusive vote 40. The President of the Treasury Board has stated that he is going to align the budget so that we have more information.

Let me tell colleagues what people have said about vote 40. We had seven minutes to talk about $9 billion. We had seven minutes to ask questions of the minister about $3 billion, and we really do not know what is happening with that $1 billion. The member is trying to proclaim that this is better for Parliament and good news to know that we are going to authorize spending.

Let me get into what a few people have said.

As an article written in The Hill Times reported, “If the $7-billion central vote passes with the main estimates on Thursday, former PBO Kevin Page says it represents 'a new low' for Parliament's financial oversight system.”

We have already talked about having a challenge in terms of proper oversight, and now we have a new system that further erodes that. I would like to give credit to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He said, “something irregular and abnormal [is] happening here in terms of the way the government is asking to approve spending”. That is pretty significant.

I will go back to the former parliamentary budget officer, because the Liberals certainly liked him in the past. In the last Parliament, they talked about the important work he did.

Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling on whether there was a legitimate process for the $7-billion slush fund.

The article continues that former parliamentary budget officer said by email that he respectfully disagreed with the ruling:

“Not all central funds are the same,” he said, noting the government proposes that this central fund asks Parliament to approve “new appropriations” in the latest budget. “This is a very bad precedent for Parliament.”

“Financial control and ministerial accountability are being undermined. This is a new low for our appropriation system,” he said.

“How can the Parliament hold the President of the Treasury Board...responsible and accountable for all authorities requested in the latest budget?” he asked, for money allocated for Indigenous people, veterans, and more.

Despite a 2015 campaign promise of estimates reform, Mr. Page said we are left with “the false pretence of reconciliation at great cost to accountability.”

I listened very carefully to the speech from the President of the Treasury Board, and he certainly cherry-picked positive comments.

The article continues,

...a Parliamentary Budget Office report last month suggested the approach is “somewhat novel,” because it asks Parliament to provide funding before it goes through the Treasury Board submission process, which scrutinizes intended...spending.

I was not there, but I understand that during a meeting of the government operations and estimates committee, which is tasked with some of this important work, the Liberals walked out. They would not participate in the debate. This is what they chose to do instead of talking about the new system and the estimates. In the time I have been in Parliament, I have never seen that from the representatives of the government on a committee. The Liberal members on that committee walked out. They did not come back to committee, and then, of course, the estimates were deemed considered. If this is the government's commitment to transparency, accountability, and dialogue, it is really quite shameful.

We have heard significant concerns. I could go on with quote after quote. As the article said, a Conservative senator from Newfoundland and Labrador in that other place “accused the government of promising an Australian model but offering nothing like it”. She said, “I feel like we’ve been led down the garden path”.

We have a system that has always been a challenge. The are significant dollars. These are important dollars. These are taxpayers' dollars. The government is spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars, and it is eroding the system and doing the exact opposite of increasing accountability and transparency. Tonight we should stand up and make that point very clearly.

[Apology for Residential Schools, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, Prime Minister Harper gave a heartfelt apology to former students and their families for Canada's role in the operation of residential schools. In it he stated:

The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities. Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities. First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.

Today, I am honoured to recognize the courage of thousands of survivors who told their stories. Their message is now being passed on in schools and communities across Canada.

We all must acknowledge this painful history and walk the reconciliation journey together.