Cathy McLeod

[An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, April 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will have noted in my speech, one of only two speeches on this bill before there was time allocation, that I indicated that we support this bill in principle.

There is one area of concern. I would like to know if this bill has been assessed in terms of both charter and constitutional compliance. Is the minister willing to table those opinions?

The one concern I have heard expressed is that if first nations did not assume control of jurisdiction, this legislation would compel the provinces in an area that was constitutionally theirs. It is something that has been raised. It is an important question.

I support this bill, but we all need to know if this bill is constitutionally compliant and respectful of provincial jurisdiction if an indigenous community does not assume control of child welfare.

[An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, April 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very appropriate quote, “Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” Perhaps we should say that the government's lack of planning should not constitute time allocation every time it is in a rush.

Whether it was Bill S-3, which had major flaws, or the indigenous children's language bill, for which the government had to table drop 20 amendments at clause-by-clause, Bill C-92 is another bill that will not get proper debate. The government is rushing it through the system because it just could not get it done.

Why is the government not willing to provide the appropriate time for us to identify what I am sure will be significant and major flaws in this legislation?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will not restate what has been stated so many times, that of course this budget is again not meeting the Liberals' 2015 campaign commitments to balance, but I am going to target one area that people were interested in but are now a little disappointed about.

I had someone reach out to me and say, “Listen, I am in my thirties. I would really like to get into the housing market. I do not have an RRSP that I can take $35,000 out of. That is number one. Number two, I am in a market where to find something under $500,000 is going to be a very significant challenge.”

The most important question he asked, which I could not answer, was, “Number three, if I enter this new program, is it an interest-free loan, or is the government going to have equity in my home? If so, is it going to take the equity out at the end?”

I could not answer that question. I am hoping my colleague can, because it is one of the important measures that Liberals are heralding in this budget.

[Committees of the House, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we will be tabling a dissenting report. We feel this report, by the majority Liberals, lacks a number of important details. This includes a comprehensive overview and an understanding of the impact their policies have had on the growth in the north, including the moratorium in the Beaufort Sea and the impact on carbon pricing with respect to development moving forward.

We feel the report has many gaps and we will be tabling a dissenting report.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I have the same question again. The member talked about respecting indigenous rights and the rights of the people in the area to make decisions. We now know that part 2 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities. That is in no other piece of environmental legislation, and it was not done either in consultation with the territories and indigenous communities or in Parliament. It is an order in council allowing the executive branch to take on powers it has never assumed before.

Therefore, how can he argue on the one hand about respecting and on the other hand say it is perfectly fine when it suits the government's interest to arbitrarily impose something like a moratorium?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am hoping that one of my Liberal colleagues can actually answer the question, which I have asked a number of times. What they have done in part 1 is say that the former Conservative government did not respect rights, although certainly, there were a lot of conversations. What we were trying to do was not to diminish the ability of the communities to have influence. We were actually trying to remove red tape and complications from the process. That is part 1. If the Liberals want to criticize what we did in part 1, it is their right to do so.

What the Liberals have done in part 2 is a direct contradiction of what was done in part 1. They have given the federal government, without consultation with first nations, enormous power, not seen in any other legislation, to end development. If it something to facilitate projects moving forward, the government is against it. However, if it is something that gives the federal government power to stop projects, it does not seem to have any issue with it.

I would like the member to tell me how he can align the extraordinary power the federal government is taking in part 2, something that has never been done before, without consultation with indigenous communities and territorial governments, and justify it to the people, in light of what he said about part 1.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if anyone else in the House finds it a bit ironic that the Liberals are voting wholeheartedly for both parts 1 and 2. They criticize the former Conservative government, saying that we did not do the proper consultation process, even though it was supposably part of the treaties that were going to be available. It was part of the McCrank report, but there was some concern.

They criticize us for what we did in part 1 in the past, yet what they are doing in part 2 is equally as bad or worse. What they are doing is giving the federal government powers it has never had before to completely deny a project on the basis of national interest. This is without consultation. It is consistent with what the Liberals did regarding Beaufort. It is consistent with what they did regarding the moratorium for tankers. It is consistent with them and northern gateway.

I would like to ask my colleague this. Where is his consistency? How can he criticize a former government regarding its consultation with indigenous peoples and its resolution of the process, yet in part 2 have something that, in my opinion, is far worse with respect to trodding on rights?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about the importance of indigenous consultation, but what it is not reflecting on is that in part 2 of this particular bill, the federal government would have the ability to be arbitrary in terms of shutting down energy resource development projects.

The more important question is why it is more important for the government to debate this bill today, which would shut down energy resource projects in an arbitrary way for indigenous communities, than to debate what it says is its most important priority, which is the child welfare legislation.

The Liberals clearly believe that the federal government having the arbitrary ability to shut down energy processes without indigenous consultation is more important to debate today in the House than something it has told indigenous communities it would get done, which is the child welfare legislation.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague talking about the importance of consultation and collaboration. Does he not realize that the bill would give a new power to the federal government, which has never been there before, in terms of its ability to prohibit and issue orders when in the national interest and to actually do a complete ban?

The bill does not talk about the government's need to collaborate. It does not talk about consultation. It gives the federal government new powers and authority to completely override both the territorial governments and indigenous governments. Does that not create any concern for the member, given the nature of his speech in which he talked about the importance of collaboration?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to a broader issue. The government has consistently talked about what its priority bills are in terms of moving forward, but our time is getting very short.

The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of stalling on Bill C-91, the indigenous languages legislation, and on Bill C-92, the child welfare bill. They have said that it is absolutely critical that we move forward and get them done. They like to lay the blame for their lack of House management on the Conservatives.

We fully anticipated that we would be talking to the important child welfare legislation. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that his government seems to have priority legislation but does not seem to be able to get things through the House in a timely way. The government ends up cutting off debate on every single piece of legislation that comes along due to its poor House management. This is just another example.

I thought we would be talking about Bill C-92, but we are talking about a bill the government introduced six months ago and that has been on the floor for only a short time, and suddenly we have time allocation.