Cathy McLeod

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I had it wrong. The Liberals have not introduced none; they have introduced one piece of legislation, and we supported it.

We heard tonight the justice minister saying how much work has to be done, how much is undone, and that is what my comments are about. If there is so much work to be done, why is it not before the House already? Yes, there was one piece, and we supported it. I do accept that I should not have said there was none, but I really think there is a lot of work to be done and obviously it is not getting done.

[Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Chair, tonight the House of Commons is stepping back from its usual business and taking a few hours to discuss the experience of indigenous people in Canada's justice system.

For the past week, Canadians have engaged in an intense, emotional discussion about the outcome of the trial concerning the death of Colten Boushie. There have been protests across Canada and passionate debate among many concerned with justice. This sad situation has touched a nerve with all Canadians.

The outcome of this trial does not change the fundamental facts of the situation: A young man's life has ended, tearing him away from his family and his closest friends. I think every member of the House can agree that this was a tragic situation. First and foremost, our thoughts, prayers, and condolences are with Colten's family and friends.

I lived in a community where there were an indigenous and a non-indigenous community side by side, and we did have some challenges over the years. However, I learned from those challenges that the job of our leadership is to try to calm people and create a sense of unity rather than a sense of division. It is certainly incumbent upon all of us to help these communities in Saskatchewan heal. We have to continue to have difficult conversations that unite rather than divide, and do so with respect and recognition that we are all working to build a better Canada.

When we have difficult situations like this, we should always be open to ensuring that more Canadians have trust in the justice system. Of course, we also need to acknowledge that we have a system that has been built and improved over decades of careful work. Conservatives have always been ready to listen to voices seeking change in our justice system, especially for the benefit of victims and their families.

In office, our previous Conservative government passed over 30 pieces of legislation to keep Canadians safe while putting the rights of victims ahead of the privileges of offenders. We also created the federal victims strategy and the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We provided significant resources to the aboriginal justice strategy and the indigenous courtwork program, which enable indigenous communities to take a greater role in the administration of justice in Canada.

We introduced Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, which made important reforms to jury selection laws to allow for a larger jury if the judge thought it was necessary. The same bill helped to protect the identity of jurors.

We authorized the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the first law to entrench the rights of victims of crime into a single piece of legislation. As the former attorney general, Peter MacKay, said when the legislation was introduced, “every victim deserves to have an effective voice and to be heard”.

I remember when we were developing that particular piece of legislation. There was a very tragic case near the riding I represent where an 18-year-old girl had been brutally murdered. The court process was continuing, but the family was able to participate in Mr. MacKay's process so that they could share their experiences and hopefully help make that particular piece of legislation better.

I acknowledge that trial many years later. It is still going on. It was 2011 when the daughter was killed. There was an automatic presumption that the parents were suspects because they were family. They experienced some very difficult moments. At the round table, I remember them talking about not being able to say goodbye to their daughter because they were in the RCMP office. It was profoundly impactful to hear them talk about not only the very difficult loss of their daughter, the murder of their daughter, but also the immediacy of the RCMP process. It was an awful experience for them, and it informed the Victims Bill of Rights.

We had 30 pieces of legislation. In contrast, we know that the current government has not passed a lot of legislation. There were a number of articles out a while ago comparing the Liberals' record of actually getting legislation through the House to our record. To be quite frank, in two and a half years, the Liberals have failed to table any legislation to improve Canada's justice system. We are hearing that they have to do something, but they are two and a half years in. They do not have anything on the table yet for us to look at.

We have to wonder if this is even a priority for the government. There is scant mention of justice issues in past remarks and in the mandate letters, and nothing in the Prime Minister's speech to the UN. Recently, since this tragic case, the Liberals have referenced the 2013 report by former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, but until this week, it was never acknowledged or put out there as something they were going to look at. We have all heard media reports that some form of legislation will be coming in the near future. It almost has the appearance that the Liberals are scrambling to tack on some changes to jury selection, and it almost seems like an afterthought. All of a sudden they are quoting a report that they have not talked about in their time in office.

I talked about the number of measures that we brought forward over 10 years, and I want to talk about the ones the Liberals voted against: ending house arrest for serious offences such as sexual assault and kidnapping; tougher penalties for those who produce, traffic, and import date rape drugs and those who sell drugs near schools; ensuring that state sponsors of terrorism are held accountable for their crimes; ensuring that public safety comes first when dealing with individuals found not criminally responsible; the protection of indigenous women under threat of domestic violence. I could go on.

These are things that were focused on protecting the victims, and the Liberals have a history of voting against them. We worked hard to ensure that justice is served swiftly and the rights of the victims are put first.

With this record in mind, if and when the government finally decides to table some legislation in response to this tragic situation, we will take the time necessary to consider it and its effects. This is what Canadians expect us to do.

At this time, we need to respect the independence of the judiciary and ensure that we do not undermine the crown's ability to seek an appeal of this verdict, should it intend to do so. It is not the role of parliamentarians or ministers to assign guilt in this case or any other. It would not deliver justice to the victims or to society at large.

There can be no political point scoring in this case. There are no winners, only grief and sadness. There is a mother without a son, a brother gone, a friend lost. There is a man with the death of another on his conscience, a memory that will not be erased. There is an indigenous community feeling once again that it is left in the cold, its needs and its sense of justice forgotten by the rest of us.

This sad turn of events has moved Canadians and escalated some of the most fundamental debates in our society today. As the official opposition, we will play our part in these discussions, fighting, as we always have, for a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

[Rights of Indigenous Peoples, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition and the Conservative caucus in response to the ministerial statement.

The Prime Minister and the government have just informed the House that they intend to move forward with negotiations with a broad range of stakeholders, most specifically and crucially, Canada's indigenous communities and peoples on the construction of a new framework for indigenous rights in Canada and the relationship rooted in those rights. This, of course, is a noble and important goal. The rights of indigenous peoples in Canada for too long were ignored, maligned, or bent in the pursuit of other interests, and it is incumbent on all of us to continue moving forward in the spirit of reconciliation.

It is unacceptable that in a nation such as Canada so drastic a disparity should exist between indigenous communities and their fellow non-indigenous citizens. When communities lack even something as essential as drinking water, there is still much important work to be done, and quickly.

The road to reconciliation has not always been easy. Even with the best of intentions, we sometimes falter. Yet, as many in the House know, successive governments have also taken important steps forward to correct and make amends for the diminishing of the rights of Canada's indigenous peoples.

I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House are proud of the previous government's record in this regard. It was, of course, a Conservative government that first made important steps for Canada to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a manner fully consistent with Canada's Constitution and laws, almost a decade ago.

Under a Conservative government, there was a significant awakening in Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, exemplified by the apology to the former students of Indian 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 all Métis veterans at Juno Beach, among other milestones. The contributions and challenges of Canada's indigenous peoples were, and must continue to be, recognized and addressed.

In particular, the recognition of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission combine to create the lens through which so much of our current work is now focused. They remain watershed moments for Canada's relationship with its indigenous peoples.

Together, all parties agreed to a new path for Canada, one wholly devoted to appreciating the depth of this country's diverse aboriginal cultures.

For nearly 10 years, it was a Conservative government that did take action to improve the lives of indigenous peoples in Canada, in partnership with their leadership, communities, and industries.

The challenges were significant, but we did make progress. Economic development, job readiness, housing, child and family services, education, access to safe drinking water, land claims, governance, and sharing benefits of natural resources development were core principles that provided the foundation for a new relationship.

One of the more crucial elements to the plan was the extension of human rights protection and matrimonial real property rights to first nations on reserve. Those were important steps to ensuring that Canada's indigenous peoples saw themselves reflected in the same human rights protections afforded to any other Canadian citizen, with an emphasis particularly on women. No protections or initiatives are more important to any government than those having to do with recognizing the rights of every person who calls Canada home.

Under the previous government, there was significant progress made toward fulfilling and protecting the rights of aboriginal peoples, especially in filling existing gaps affecting the rights of indigenous peoples living on reserve.

Section 67, as we alluded to, of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed to ensure that indigenous people in Canada have full access to the protections of the Canadian Human Rights Act when living on reserve.

The Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act was enacted, providing spouses on reserve with basic rights and protections that any Canadian would expect. In so many instances where the act took effect, the primary beneficiaries were women and children.

We also made great strides in the reconciliation and fulfillment of aboriginal rights through the negotiation of modern treaties and the settlement of land claims. These initiatives were all crucial for real and lasting progress and, as is the hope of everyone in this House, a prosperous future for indigenous peoples. It is a record not just of goals achieved but of goals designed to be achievable, to deliver results in the lifespan of a government elected over and over again because it could be trusted to get things done.

Allow me to reiterate that much good work has been done in consultation and in partnership with indigenous leaders to improve every aspect of indigenous life in Canada, not just to improve but to promote, to champion, and to hold up to the world a Canadian example of how all sides can work together to make that future even brighter. Of course, it always must be coupled with the recognition that we are far from perfect. It is heartening to hear the Prime Minister say that any steps forward the government takes in the creation of a new framework for indigenous rights will be done in full consultation with indigenous communities, leaders, and others.

If I were to point to any concern with the Prime Minister's promises, it is that the government has too often fallen short of them, even in its brief time in office. There is always room for improvement when it comes to Canada's approach, and that is true regardless of the government of the day, but the current Liberal government in particular has had significant difficulty in delivering on the lofty commitments it makes. It has been unable to adhere to its own standard of openness and transparency, despite arguments to the contrary. Community members have been deprived of basic financial information by the government. It is unable to hold its leadership to account and this is not democracy. The government is on track to fall well short of some of the deadlines it set in the most recent election when it comes to promises made.

We all must recognize that there can be no true and lasting reconciliation without considering economic reconciliation, empowering indigenous communities to share in the wealth that Canada is so capable of creating for all of its citizens. We can and will urge the government in its consultations to consider what impediments exist to the financial success of indigenous communities and how they can be removed, thereby ensuring long-term prosperity rather than reliance on short-term solutions.

Finally, the government must take up the leadership role it has so far studiously avoided and address the challenges facing the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Members of this House will be watching closely at the proposals brought forward by the government. We will be testing them rigorously against standards of what is achievable in the short, medium, and long term. We will be looking to see if the talk around the table is going to lead to meaningful action on the ground that will make a difference in the quality of life of indigenous peoples.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world where indigenous and treaty rights are entrenched in its Constitution. That is a responsibility we should be taking very seriously, not one on which we should ever stake a simple election promise never to be achieved or revisited. We look forward to engaging on the ideas brought forward by the indigenous communities across the country, and working together with the current government to deliver actual results.

[Business of Supply, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there are two realities. One is that, in Canada, we obviously care very much about the environment and we want appropriate environmental regulations. However, red tape and increasing regulations, such as the carbon tax, that are perhaps not in step with the United States and other areas make Canada an increasingly uncompetitive country for companies to do business in. If we talk to mining experts, look at the investments into mining, and hear the president of Suncor Energy expressing concern, we see that we are becoming a very over-regulated, packed in red tape, unappealing place to do business.

[Business of Supply, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this member did not listen to my speech. I talked about how this was a welcomed project. The NDP is being very irresponsible in this debate, because it is trying to escalate the tensions around an approved project that the government has said is going through. The NDP is trying to create huge distress, and it needs to look at what it is doing and support the decision made by the government and recommended by the National Energy Board.

[Business of Supply, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that was an absolutely ludicrous comment. The federal government has a responsibility. The pot has been stirred because the government has not stepped up to the plate. I have watched the process because it has been very much part of the riding I represent. For years, long before the Liberal government took over, there were conversations with first nations and other communities throughout the riding, with a huge amount of work being done and progress being made. Yes, it culminated in an assessment report by the National Energy Board, which was thankfully accepted, unlike what was done with northern gateway or energy east.

[Business of Supply, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to join the important debate today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

It has already been stated, but I want to talk first about the importance of our oil industry to Canada and to the world. Canada has 170 billion barrels of oil in reserve, and it is the third largest in the world. These economic benefits are shared across the country through services and supplies. I would like to give the House a quick example.

British Columbia's services and supplies in one year are $1.3 billion. There is a company, for example, Watson Gloves that sells work gloves especially built to withstand the rigorous operating conditions in the oil sands. This is but one example of a Canadian company that benefits from the industry.

In Ontario, it is $3.9 billion. Berg Chilling Systems is an equipment manufacturer that develops custom engineered chilling, pumping, and heat recovery equipment for use in natural gas production facilities. In Quebec, it is $1.2 billion in total. GHGSat is an innovative aerospace company working with oil sands producers to develop new satellite-based GHG emission acknowledging technologies.

These are just three examples of many companies across this country that are benefiting from the oil sands.

It is important to point out that these companies are all about technology. People have looked at natural resource companies and said they are just taking their supplies and sending them to market. However, for things like GHG emission monitoring with satellites, that is being done by innovative companies with technology that is supporting the oil sands.

The world needs more of Canada, not less. Canada is probably one of the most environmentally sound extractors of oil in the world. In my view, I would send our product to China, as there are many other countries that might supply the product with less environmentally sound practices. Whether we like it or not, we are going to need oil in the immediate and probably mid-term future. Someday we will probably make some advances in technology where our need for oil will be somewhat reduced, but in the meantime, we would be absolutely foolish not to take advantage of the opportunities.

What is the situation? We have heard we have a landlocked resource. We are unable to get our product to markets and that is to the severe detriment of the Canadian economy in terms of tax revenue going to the federal government and in fact all levels of government.

A lot of work has been done. We tried very hard to find ways to get pipelines to tidewater. The northern gateway, for example, was one, but the Liberal government just slashed that idea. We can look at energy east, where the government made the conditions so onerous that the company walked away. To be honest, that is an incredible shame.

We are losing investment. The president of Suncor just the other day said it is getting too tough to do business in Canada. We know that money goes where it is wanted. We know that investment goes where it is wanted. We are creating an environment where it is difficult to get anything done in this country.

We do have a project here. We have a project that has been approved and a company that, to be quite frank, has been very patient for many years. It's the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline goes through the riding that I represent. Many hundreds of kilometres of pipeline goes through my riding. This pipeline was built before I was born. I moved to Kamloops in 1999 and we were probably not even aware that it existed. We knew there was a pipeline but no one paid any attention to it. People did not worry about it. They knew there were opportunities for local jobs. They knew that it was providing the gas stations with, ultimately, the product they needed to fill their vehicles.

I heard the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talking earlier about rail versus pipelines. If oil is transported by rail, it is right along the salmon fish-bearing streams, and the chance of an incident with rail is much higher than the chance of an incident with pipelines.

The other thing no one talks about is that as rail transport of the product increases, the opportunity to move other supplies and goods is lost. We often have conversations with those in the wheat industry and many others who are having trouble moving their product to ports because of the capacity of our rail system. Therefore, not only is rail perhaps a little more concerning in terms of transfer but it also takes enormous capacity. I suggest that our rail system is pretty close to capacity. At least, where I wait at the tracks where the two lines meet, it certainly seems to be at capacity.

This pipeline has been in place for many years and people did not really pay much attention to it, so what has changed? All of a sudden, there seems to be a dedicated movement. There has been a lot of talk and research done, where foreign influences work with environmental groups to shut down our oil sands. I would ask everyone why they are working to shut down Canada's oil sands and not focused on other areas, such as perhaps ships coming in from Saudi Arabia or what is happening in the U.S. It seems there is a targeted, intense effort to shut down our oil sands and to stop any pipeline project. We clearly need to ask ourselves what is happening in Canada and come up with a few answers.

I had quite a debate the other day with one of my NDP colleagues on Nation to Nation on APTN. She said that first nations did not want this project. I said the NDP does not want this project and that she should not speak for all first nations when she says that. That it is absolutely irresponsible. There are 51 first nations who have signed on and want this project to proceed. These 51 first nations have signed community benefit agreements, which will be a source of revenue for their communities.

To be frank, the NDP is saying these people should not have this opportunity. Reconciliation has to include economic reconciliation. Time and time again, whether it is the northern gateway, the moratorium ban with Eagle Spirit, or the drilling ban up north, we are depriving many indigenous and first nations communities of opportunities to have these benefits. Again, 51 first nations have signed agreements, including many in the area that I represent, and they are looking forward to the jobs that will become available and to putting their equipment to work. The NDP is very irresponsible when it makes blanket statements that first nations do not want this.

I think sometimes those in Vancouver and Burnaby forget about how important that existing pipeline is to their lives. If that pipeline were to shut down, they forget how it would affect the price of gas and the jet fuel that goes to the Vancouver airport. It is an important and critical resource for Vancouver also. To suggest that it does not benefit Vancouver and Burnaby is a big concern. Most citizens in Burnaby take public transit or drive cars, so where do they think that resource comes from?

The request being made today is very reasonable. Two provinces are embarking on a trade war and small business owners are going to be hurt in this process. It could be the person who makes gloves in Vancouver, it could be winemakers, or it could be the hard-working people of Alberta who have struggled for the last couple of years with a significant economic downturn. Real people, real families, and real jobs are being hurt and the Prime Minister is letting it happen rather than intervening and being a cheerleader for what he has approved. Last week, the trade war escalated and he was down in the U.S., from what I understand, jogging and buying Levi jeans. That was not the place for him to be.

This is an appropriate and reasonable request and Conservatives look forward to a response from the government that provides a clear, articulate plan going forward.

[Marijuana, February 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-330 would require landlords' consent before medical marijuana plants could be grown on their property. Under the existing regulations, a tenant with a medical marijuana licence can legally grow plants without notifying their landlord. Compare this with the new recreational rules where provinces are recognizing that there is harm or potential harm, and places like British Columbia are going to require landlords' consent.

However, this principle does not apply to medical marijuana users. There are no mechanisms for landlords to prevent grow ops for medical purposes on their property. For example, unlike the four-plant limit for recreational use, in some cases, there could be three or four people living together and they may be authorized to grow 40 plants or more in a house. I have had many property owners who have invested their life savings into a rental property contact me because their property was destroyed by such grow ops.

This is simply wrong. I urge all members to support my private member's bill when it comes up.

[Indigenous Affairs, February 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we have been counting and it has been 25 months since the minister gutted the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Band members continue to be forced to take their leadership to court to get access to basic financial information. The Liberals met for a year with the AFN, a year. Their so-called new fiscal framework does nothing to improve accountability for the vast majority of first nations.

When will the minister stop ignoring band members like Charmaine Stick, Harrison Thunderchild, and so many more, and actually come up with a plan?

[Indigenous Affairs, February 6th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, no one is saying that this inquiry should not continue. It now has support of all parties in the House and was a key election promise by the government. We are saying it is time for the Liberals to listen to the red flags, and respond to those red flags and the very important voices of groups such as the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I would like to know why, in spite of the fact that there are two ministers and two parliamentary secretaries who are responsible for the indigenous file, tonight as I ask this important question again, they are not here to answer those questions.

With all respect, it is time for the minister who was part of the establishment of the inquiry to listen to these flags and to take action.