Cathy McLeod

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate that insurance companies need to have some input. However, what I articulated is that because of the privacy rules, no one even has a right to know, much less to look toward inspecting. Insurance companies are going to have adjust and adapt to the new reality.

This is about landlords having the right to some semblance of control over what happens. They might own a farm and say that it is perfectly fine with them if their tenants grow plants in their field. If it is one's own home, it is perfectly reasonable to do what one wants in one's own home. However, we are talking about landlords who have absolutely no control when hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage is done to their hard-earned investments.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely stunned by that question. Municipalities across this country have been begging for changes. This is not a provincial issue.

The provinces are very appropriately dealing with the recreational issue. The government realized that they needed the ability to deal with the recreational issue, which is a maximum of four plants, because some provinces are saying four plants is too many and others are saying it is reasonable. What we are talking about is potentially up to 120 plants, and the only group that can make this change is the federal government.

Did the member not think in terms of the landlords and the availability of housing? If he owned a home and saw the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he had put into his home possibly go up in smoke and he did not have insurance, how could he possibly sleep well at night knowing that he was imposing that on some of his constituents?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 18th, 2018]

moved that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (landlord consent), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and debate my private member's bill in the House today. I look at the two votes we just had which were unanimous. They were on items put forward by Liberal members and concern very practical matters that will make things better for Canadians. I certainly I hope this particular piece of legislation will be received in the same spirit of co-operation, because I am truly convinced that this bill would make things much better and solve a really significant and difficult issue.

What Bill C-330 would do if passed is amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for regulations requiring the consent of landlords to tenant activities in respect of controlled drugs and substances. More specifically, the enactment would require the written consent of any landlord on whose premises the production or sale of any controlled substance is to occur.

The bill is in response to the access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations, which came into effect August 24, 2016. These new regulations do not require individuals who wish to produce marijuana in their residence to notify or seek the consent of their landlords. The federal government failed to provide clear direction for landlords and insurance companies when it made changes to the medical marijuana rules.

Under the rules, Health Canada gives specific guidelines on how to safely set up a medical grow op, but when it comes to checking if the safety rules are being followed, the federal department is leaving that up to the municipalities. I think all of us who live in communities have had our municipalities express extreme frustration on this issue. According to the local development and engineering services director in Kamloops, the problem is that federal privacy rules apply, which prevent local authorities from knowing where medical marijuana is being grown. They do not get a list of addresses, so they cannot actually do anything proactively in terms of going out and inspecting the premises. It is a significant issue. There is no system to proactively check if tenants are growing the allowed number of plants according to their permit.

When asked about this issue, the health minister said the federal government's role is to ensure people who need medical marijuana have access. I want to pick up on that point. I do not disagree that people who need medical marijuana should have access, but I want to give an example. Some people need digoxin for their heart, but they do not have to actually grow foxglove in their home to get digoxin. If people need something that is medically necessary, surely to goodness we could find a better way than having them grow it in their home because they cannot afford it. We have found ways around antibiotics and drugs like digoxin. We do not require people to grow their own medication. The government says that we have to provide access, but who is looking out for the landlords who have put hundreds of thousands of dollars into their homes? They are having their homes destroyed because the federal government has not found a better way to provide access to needed medical marijuana. Surely we can do better than that.

This is important for people who might be listening, because there is a lot of talk right now about the new recreational regime. Bill C-45, which is before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, is a proposed regulatory framework for cannabis for recreational purposes. As I talk, members will see there is a huge difference between what is proposed for recreational use and medical marijuana.

With medical marijuana, the task force that was tasked with going around and making recommendations to the government essentially suggested that as the government moved toward legalization of marijuana and regulations the distinct system of the medical marijuana regime be maintained for medical purposes.

We have two very distinct systems. One is recreational, and that is Bill C-45, which is moving through the Senate. We also have the issue of medical marijuana, which has been around for many years.

The medical regime will allow people, including those under the age of 18, with the support of a health care practitioner, to have access to cannabis for medical purposes. They can purchase it from a federally licensed seller of cannabis for medical purposes. They can cultivate their own, if they are over the age of 18, or designate someone to grow cannabis on their behalf, which is called “designated production”.

There used to be limits on how much cannabis could be stored. The Liberals tried to align the recreational and medical regimes, but they took away the limits on what can be stored, which had been in place before.

When the Liberals put out the new regulations around recreational use, they talked about four plants. I think they did that because they knew they would be heading into the difficult territory we have seen with the medical regime. It is four plants. It can be regulated. The provincial authorities have the ability to regulate. For example, strata condominiums can say whether one can have dogs or cats. There is an ability for provinces to create some regulations around the four-plant designation. I believe some provinces are saying no to the home grow and others are saying yes. The government recognized that with any more than four plants it would be heading into very difficult territory, but there was no consideration given to the issue. It is only the federal government that can solve this issue with the medical marijuana. The provinces cannot do it nor can anyone else.

It is important to note that with a medical licence, people can grow their own and be designated to grow for someone else. There is a maximum of four licences to grow cannabis in one residence. For example, a 1,500 square foot apartment could have up to four licences. What does that mean in practical purposes? If one has been prescribed three grams per day, that means one could have 15 plants indoors, six plants outdoors, or a combination of indoor and outdoor plants. However, it is not uncommon or all that extreme that a person may have a prescription for seven grams a day. I remember the government moving the limit for our veterans from 10 grams to three grams. Again, seven grams is a number we can use. If there is a licence to grow for four people at seven grams a day, a person could have an enormous number of plants indoors. It could be up to 120 plants growing indoors if someone had four licences for seven grams. It is an incredible amount.

I will recount the true story of someone who came into my office, and this was part of the genesis of the bill. He shared his story with CBC in February 2017:

Longtime landlord Darryl Spencer was left scrambling for insurance after discovering a tenant was growing dozens of medical marijuana plants inside and outside his rental house.

When the landlord told his insurance company about the perfectly legal grow-op, his coverage was cancelled, leaving him with no insurance, few rights and a big cleanup bill.

Spencer says the downstairs tenant in the Kamloops, B.C., rental property got a medical marijuana licence that allowed him to legally grow as many as 60 plants without his landlord's permission or knowledge.

This was his retirement savings plan, by the way. He had decided to put his money into a revenue-making rental property. There were 60 plants there without his knowledge.

The article continues:

A call from a concerned neighbour prompted Spencer, who is also a retired fire inspector, to check out the home he's rented out to different tenants for a decade.

He discovered a mess of extension cords, fans and bright lights packed into a room filled with dozens of marijuana plants. The upstairs tenant, a woman with a small child, was complaining about heat radiating through the walls and electrical breakers going off....

...landlords have little recourse if a tenant is growing licensed medical marijuana. They don't even have the right to know it's happening. Yet it's landlords who are being denied insurance

They do not have the right to know what is happening when a tenant is growing medical pot.

Spencer told Go Public, “I was worried about the fire hazard. That was my first thought because of the extension cords, the use of electricity and that something could catch fire.”

When he notified his insurance company about his tenant's grow-op, Gore Mutual cancelled his coverage.

“They wouldn't cover claims to do with medical marijuana or air quality contamination,” he said.

Gore Mutual Insurance said that it “does not provide coverage for marijuana grow-operations regardless of their legality because this type of operation in a residential building presents inherent insurance risks.”

The article continues:

Those risks, the company says, include “a greater likelihood of water damage, mould, fire, vandalism and burglary.”

Under most basic home insurance policies, marijuana-related damages or anything that companies believe is “high risk” is not covered.

This is a view that is shared by many insurance companies, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

“While regulations may allow for the legal growing of marijuana for medical purposes, it does not change the structural risk grow-ops pose to homes and condos.... The operation of a grow-op, whether legal or not, is still a high-risk activity.”

That was from Andrew McGrath, spokesman for the Insurance Bureau, in an email to Go Public. The article continues:

Gore Mutual Insurance told Spencer it might reinstate his coverage if he got rid of the tenant and took specific steps to ensure the house was safe to live in.

He actually had no ability to get rid of this tenant because of the laws of the land. He actually had to tell his tenant he would pay him to leave. That was a significant cost for him.

The article states:

The insurance company also wanted air and soil testing, plumbing and electrical inspections, and the house checked for mould.

Spencer did it all, while searching for another insurance company that would cover him right away. None would.

He went for quite a while with no insurance. I remember that he came in and chatted with me in my office. He was devastated. He was absolutely beside himself seeing his life savings potentially completely at risk.

As I noted, he finally paid the tenant to leave, then he did all the remediation that was required. Of course, he is out thousands and thousands of dollars.

We talk about availability and affordability of housing in this country. When we have potential landlords who are terrified that if they rent their homes they will have no recourse, and they still do not in terms of this medical marijuana issue, I think they rightfully are saying that they are not going to rent. They will take their homes off the market or sell them. Therefore, this is an issue that has ramifications for more than individuals and their finances. It has significant ramifications for the availability of affordable housing.

Go Public covered the story. Eventually Spencer did all the work and managed to cover things off.

I do not think anyone is appreciating the cost to landlords of people growing medical marijuana. According to the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, it can be absolutely prohibitive.

What I am asking is that we get support to get this to committee. I appreciate that people who have a need for medical marijuana need affordable access to it, but surely, at the same time, we cannot be jeopardizing the hundreds and thousands of dollars of investments by people across this country who are being absolutely devastated by this particular structure of a regulation.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that if there is transport by train, if they are concerned about bitumen in the ocean they need to also be concerned about bitumen in the rivers, which is much more likely when there is transport by train than transport by pipeline. We actually want to prevent these. However, here we are fighting the NDP and the Green, both in the province of British Columbia and throughout Canada. They fight against the pipeline when it is going to go to refineries, but they do not worry about all those tankers going down the St. Lawrence. We have not heard a peep about those. Now there is not a peep about the pipeline; it is all about the ocean.

I do not think it really matters what it is, they are simply going to argue against it because they do not want oil extracted from the oil sands for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are absolutely incredible. When it is energy east, they say that a pipeline cannot be built because it is going to be terrible for our environment, but they ignore those ships going down the St. Lawrence from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Now they are not complaining about the pipeline, but all of a sudden there is an issue with the oceans protection plan. They simply do not want oil extracted, period. That is their problem. They say no to everything. They are giving up opportunities for these communities to be self-sufficient. There have been negotiations that they have approved and they want to move forward.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

I am glad to have the opportunity to stand up on this emergency debate. I am not glad that we have to have it, but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on such an important issue, an issue that is critically important to people in my riding.

It was shortly after I was elected in 2008 that I first remember being briefed on the plans of Kinder Morgan in terms of its expansion. I have been elected now for almost 10 years. Over those 10 years, and not just since the Liberal government came into place but eight years previously, I have watched the extraordinary efforts of the National Energy Board, the federal government, and the company itself as it went up and down the pipeline to every single community in its consultation process. It has been tireless in working with these communities.

Tonight we are hearing a lot in terms of indigenous rights and titles, and I would like to focus a lot of my comments in that particular area.

It was about two years ago that I went on one of our national TV shows. The person ahead of me, who was a band member, said that this pipeline would never be built and that his band was against it absolutely. He left, and there was a little bit of time before I was to talk. I asked the person hosting the show why they were only bringing on the few communities that were dead set against the project and telling the national audience what a difficult project it was going to be and that it would not be supported. Why were they not talking to the people in my riding?

I never did get a good answer. I was willing to put forward names of communities that were working towards resolution, but never, certainly two years ago, did I see any effort put into educating Canadians about the communities that were very interested. However, we certainly had significant coverage of the communities that were opposed.

I can understand why many Canadians would think that there has not been consultation and that rights and titles are not being respected, because that is what they see in the media and in the paper, so what I am hoping to do tonight is give voice to those communities who are the title and rights holders.

This is not the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. These are not people far afield who have decided that they do not want this project to go through. These are the people who are the title and rights holders of the territory that this pipeline is going to pass through.

I have a relationship with many of these people and I reached out to them tonight through social media, which is a great resource in terms of private messaging. I asked if they would mind if I shared some of their thoughts and some of the public and private posts. Each one said, “Please do.”

I will start with a first nation councillor, Don Matthew, who retweeted an article the other day saying that communities deserve consultation. He agreed absolutely, and that they have been given that.

One-third of the pipeline will go through his community's traditional territory. They have had meeting after meeting, and this community took it to a vote. He said that there was not 100% consensus, but 85% of the community that will have one-third of the pipeline go through it voted to accept and endorse the pipeline as well as the agreement that came with it. He said that his community was a member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, but that it is not the decision-maker on this particular issue. This is their community, and they are the title and rights holders.

The next community I will talk about is Whispering Pines. Again, it is a significant area that the pipeline goes through, and this is what Chief LeBourdais had to say. Again, I do not presume to say things; what I am going to say in the House is on behalf of the people, in their quotes.

This is from an interview he had today with the media. He said, “We put a lot time and energy into negotiating this agreement. You know, we wanted Kinder Morgan to respect our jurisdiction. We wanted the federal government to respect our jurisdiction, and they did.”

He went on to say, “When the feds came and said 'we are here to help', we said 'no, thank you.' We asked them to leave, and invited Kinder Morgan in. It wasn't just us; there were 11 communities along the pipe. For the first five years, we met with Kinder Morgan trying to figure out the rights entitled to the pipeline. When our lawyers couldn't agree on who owns the right of way, we decided to negotiate some mutually beneficial agreements.”

He talked about the environment. He said that these were difficult conversations. He said, “At one meeting, Ian said, 'What do you want?' We were frustrated. We kicked our lawyers out of the room, and he said, 'What do you want?' I said, 'I want you to respect my jurisdiction. I want you to invest in my community, but most above all, I want you to keep the oil in the damn pipe.' The answer from Kinder Morgan was, 'That is what I want: to respect your jurisdiction, help invest in the community, and keep the oil in the pipe.”

From that place, they went on to negotiate an agreement. They met a number of times. Again the communities said yes, they supported this particular agreement.

He said, “It's fascinating for us to watch these people who weren't there in the beginning talk about our agreement and our jurisdiction. It kind of annoys us.” For people who sit here and presume to talk to the title and rights holders about what has been negotiated and the fact that they have not been consulted, he said that is incredibly disrespectful and annoying.

If they did not have the pipeline go through, he said, “It will be the same old, same old: same pipe, same jurisdiction; no jurisdiction, no benefits, no economic benefits, no fiscal benefits, and no increase in tax benefits. What we looked for personally on my side and what I wanted in the agreement was the economic benefits, jobs. I wanted to put my youth and my middle class, my working class guys on the pipe, and get them out of Alberta and North Dakota where they are working.”

He went on to have some significant conversation around the additional environmental protections that they thought were very important and that Kinder Morgan agreed to, again working directly with the title and rights holders. He said, “When people ask how we can support the pipeline, I ask, 'Did you get gas today?' When they say yes, I say, 'Then you have to support it also.'”

That particular interview went on for about 10 minutes, but it was significant. For anyone who is wondering what has been happening on the ground for the last number of years, it was not the government not doing its job, not the company not doing its job, not the communities not doing their job. There was hard work put into coming up with agreements that were going to benefit everyone.

The Peters First Nation said that it has lived with the pipeline for over 40 years seated at the base of their mountain above their homes, and went on to talk about the pipeline and its being the safest way to transport. We all know right now there is only so much capacity on our rail lines. The more we transport oil by rail, the less we have in terms of capacity for getting our lumber and wheat products to market. Not only is a pipeline safer, but it is freeing up capacity to keep our supply chain going that is going to keep our country solid and moving forward.

People have talked about Chief Ernie Crey, and he is saying that the cancellation costs hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, training, employment, and business opportunities. We have here the communities along the pipeline most impacted saying that these are good things. They worked hard to get to a place where they believe this can be done in a way that will benefit their people, in a way that is going to be environmentally productive.

The final thing I would say is that one chief was asked about the meeting that happened, and he said, “Well, we looked upon it a little bit disappointed because we expected some kind of resolution. That is what leaders are supposed to do, right?” On that note, we should all look at ourselves as leaders and create some sort of resolution because that is what we are here for and it is what we are supposed to do.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 29th, 2018]

With regard to the 2017 British Columbia wildfires: what are the details, including findings, of any economic assessment which the government has done in relation to the impact of the wildfires?

[Taxation, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last year my constituents went through the worst B.C. wildfire in history. In the aftermath, residents tried to salvage what they could, harvesting some of the wood on their property. It is now tax time, and the capital gains from selling their wood are putting them into a higher tax bracket. We have seniors losing their OAS and GIS. Months ago, we asked the finance minister to create a simple fix. We have not even had the courtesy of a response.

Will the government do what it said, stand by the victims, and commit to fixing this failure today?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 26th, 2018]

With regard to the 2017 British Columbia wildfires: what are the details, including findings, of any economic assessment which the government has done in relation to the impact of the wildfires?

[Tsilhqot'in Chiefs, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canada's Conservatives to mark a sombre milestone in the history of British Columbia and that of Canada. We hope that today's apology and exoneration will address some of the pain that still exists within the hearts of the Tsilhqot'in people.

Here in 2018, we may ask ourselves what an apology can achieve. Moments such as this cannot change behaviour from another era or fix the past. We can, however, recognize the clear lasting and profound impact that former actions have had and the scars that have not been healed.

We join in apology and recognition today to acknowledge how our shared history can create understanding in the present and co-operation in the future.

More than 150 years ago, before Confederation, and at a time when Canada was a land equally steeped in opportunity and in conflict, the Tsilhqot'in people found themselves face to face with newcomers to their homeland. As has happened so often throughout history, collisions between indigenous people and new settlers can lead to misunderstanding, fear, and violence.

The Tsilhqot'in, facing a new presence on their homeland that was accompanied neither by meaningful outreach nor diplomacy, did as many of us would have done. They sought to protect their communities. Open war was declared and the pivotal moment in the conflict saw confrontations between the Tsilhqot'in and a group of workers near Bute Inlet. The Tsilhqot'in began a campaign to remove settlers from their lands, lands that had been arbitrarily declared open and free for access by arriving European peoples.

As the war dragged on, an agreement was struck between the Tsilhqot'in and colonial representatives to meet to discuss diplomatic terms. In a clear act of betrayal, the Tsilhqot'in leaders, who had arrived unarmed to the meeting, were arrested and taken into custody. They were tried for murder.

On October 26, five of the Tsilhqot'in chiefs were hanged and a sixth in the following year. They were Chief Lhats’as?in, Chief Biyil, Chief Tilaghed, Chief Taqed, Chief Chayses, and Chief Ahan.

The purpose of today's ceremony is to mark the exoneration of the Tsilhqot'in chiefs. Neither criminals nor aggressors, they may be regarded by all as having done what many of us would have considered normal and just: defended their lands, their communities, and their families, defended their way of life.

Canadian governments of all kinds can demonstrate a record of continued progress in relations between indigenous people in Canada. Certainly, we were proud of some of the strides that we made as the last government in terms of a relationship with first nations, Inuit, and Métis. Those strides often came with a sorrowful and respectful recognition of wrongdoing on the part of Canada and our forebears.

None, of course, better exemplifies this commitment than the apology to the former students of the residential schools. There was also the historic creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the apology for relocation of Inuit families to the high Arctic, and the honouring of Métis veterans at Juno Beach, among other milestones, but the work clearly has not ended and it must continue.

It is appropriate that we work today toward a better understanding between the Tsilhqot'in Nation and Canada. The Tsilhqot'in people of today contribute to the shared prosperity of beautiful British Columbia, a place so many of us are proud to call home. Their historic suffering has been recognized and remembered by successive provincial governments.

As the words inscribed on what is today the site of the execution of those Tsilhqot'in chiefs tells us, we must “honour those who lost their lives in defence of the territory and the traditional way of life”. We recognize the inconsolable grief that has echoed through their nation and reverberates even today.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision of 2014 recognized aboriginal title for the Tsilhqot'in Nation, an important moment for their nation, but one that also recognized them as a centuries long steward of their beautiful land.

I personally have enjoyed first-hand the majesty of the territory, mountains, rivers, and valleys, the abundant wildlife, and of course, the unique and fascinating wild horses. As the wildfires ravaged through the land last summer, we can understand what a significant impact it was to the Tsilhqot'in people, another loss to overcome.

Conservatives also hope that today's apology is an important step for an improved relationship so that all residents of the Tsilhqot'in can live side by side in harmony and enjoy mutual prosperity.

We thank and honour the presence of the Tsilhqot'in Nation here in the House of Commons today. This is a place where we can help define Canada for this generation and the next. We hope that today and in the future it can also be a place that the Tsilhqot'in can regard as a place of progress, reconciliation, and co-operation.