Cathy McLeod

[Dairy Industry, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion continues. We have the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs proudly going to the UN and proclaiming that the Liberals are going to implement the UN declaration without reservation. We have the justice minister who then says, “Sorry, it's a little bit unworkable and a little bit simplistic, and so it's not really going to work”.

Perhaps National Chief Bellegarde would not use the word “veto”, but we can imagine when we go into communities across this country that they have significant expectations about what this will mean. To be quite frank, they are not getting important messages from the government on how we are going to move forward and what the difference is going to be between consultation and accommodation, and on free, prior, and informed consent. Moreover, industry does not know either.

Therefore, I think the government has tremendous of work to do. I ask the parliamentary secretary again to please try to clarify right now what this difference is going to mean for communities across this country.

[Dairy Industry, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I follow up on a question I asked a while ago, I think members will understand why it is really important that we get clarity and see leadership from the government. This was a question I asked on May 16 to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I asked her if she could clarify, as part of the government's implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, if they would have a veto over job-creating projects.

We have a current duty to consult and accommodate, and the language of the UN declaration is “free, prior and informed consent”. That is significantly different language and it is very new to the Canadian landscape. An article in the The Globe and Mail read:

At stake is what power First Nations and other aboriginal communities will exercise in decisions over whether projects such as mines, pipelines, hydroelectric dams and transmission lines get approved and built.

We could add a number of things that would also be included, such as tourism, construction of roads, sewage systems, schools, airport expansions, hospitals, and much more.

We tried to ask the government to clarify on numerous occasions what the difference is. We did that in committee and in the chamber. Indeed, the media has also been asking that question.

Our committee asked the Minister of Indigenous Affairs on March 10. We did not get a clear answer. We asked the Minister of Natural Resources on April 21, and we did not get a clear answer. The committee did not get a clear answer from the Minister of Environment either on May 12. As recently as Sunday, the natural resources minister refused to answer Evan Soloman's yes-or-no question regarding the wording of a veto.

The Prime Minister actually took a clear stance when he was trying to win an election. It was during an APTN virtual town hall. He was asked if “no” would mean “no” under his government. He responded, “Absolutely”. By February, the APTN reported he was backing away from his pledge. In May, the Minister of Justice said the government would adopt UNDRIP without qualification, but recently she said this was “simplistic”, “unworkable”, and can't be done word for word.

The Prime Minister and his government have created confusion. They have left communities in the dark and industries in the dark. To be quite frank, this is not fair to anyone.

This week I spent some time at the Pipeline Gridlock Conference in Calgary. The Canadian aboriginal business leaders were looking to improve dialogue on pipelines and ways to support approval. There was really mass confusion, so I am hoping tonight that I am going to have a response that is going to very clearly articulate the difference between “consult and accommodate” and “free, prior and informed consent”, and if indeed this means veto, yes or no.

[The Environment, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about improving the lives of indigenous Canadians, but their actions are telling a very different story. They do not realize that food costs are already double in the north. A loaf of bread and a litre of milk cost double what we pay down here. This new tax is going to find its way into everything they buy every day.

I have a more simple question. Have the Liberals done their homework, and will they table the costs that this will create for every indigenous community in this country?

[The Environment, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have forgotten the reality for remote, indigenous, and rural communities. Their food comes in by boat, by plane, and by ice road, and many of the communities use diesel-powered generators to keep the lights on. Communities that can least afford it are the ones that are going to be most impacted by this carbon tax.

How can the government justify raising the high cost of living that is already there for our rural and remote communities?

[Orange Shirt Day, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Orange Shirt Day. This was launched in the province of British Columbia and was created to educate students and communities of the history and legacy of Canada's residential schools.

Most of us in the chamber remember our first days of school very fondly, our new clothes and shiny shoes, and we would go off with pride. The experience for Phyllis Webstad, who was six years old when she began attending St. Joseph's mission school in Williams Lake, was nothing like many experienced. On her first day, her new orange shirt, a gift from her grandmother, was taken away from her. This profoundly affected her for many years.

Today, we need to continue the important work we started with the apology in the chamber and recognize the legacy of the residential schools. I hope all members in the chamber will stand and recognize Orange Shirt Day in Canada.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the benefit of the financial transparency act was that it allowed band members to monitor and understand how their money was being spent. A perfect example was in Kashechewan, where there was an alleged theft of $694,000 from the breakfast program.

Band members with easy access to financial information would have noticed the lack of scrambled eggs and orange juice at the table. Would the minister explain to the people of Kashechewan why they do not deserve guaranteed access to the basic financial information that every other Canadian enjoys?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when NDP members ask questions about the legislation, they talk about how the secret ballot is a bad thing. In my experience and from my information, the secret ballot is both good for the employer and the employee. Decision making for some people on whether they want to join a union is a private decision.

Is the secret ballot something workers should have the right to enjoy when they are making such a difficult decision? Could the member please clarify?

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Liberals, I hear the word “transparency” time after time, but when it comes to action, they fail utterly. I want to give the House a couple of examples.

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act allowed band members, for the first time ever, to see how their chiefs and councils were spending their money, in the same sense that my constituents can see my expenses. The Liberals took a good piece of legislation and put the ability to see that information back into the dark.

We really still do not know what that little bag of cash is that apparently is going to be paid back for moving expenses. Again, the Liberals talk about transparency, but we have no idea what the extra bag of cash is.

For union members, it is an issue of transparency. Without having to go begging for the information, union members have the ability to have the audited financial statements of their unions.

Why do the Liberals say the word “transparency” so often, but when they have the opportunity to do something, they fail miserably?

[Canada Labour Code, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest, and I also noted her comments that we cannot compare voting for an election to voting for a union. I wonder if she realizes that there are times, in any sort of movement toward unionization, that we perhaps have the employer, but also employees, who have very strong feelings on moving in a particular direction, how torn the people in the workforce can get, and how divided they can be over this issue of whether they are going to unionize. It can be very difficult to not have the ability to have a secret ballot.

I would like the member to stand and tell employees from across this country why they do not deserve a ballot on something that is perhaps a very personal issue to them.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail recently published an editorial and called UNDRIP “drip, drip of Liberal native rights policy”. The Minister of Justice has gone from promoting the declaration on the world stage at the UN to saying at home that it is simplistic and unworkable. She is saying one thing on the world stage and saying another thing back in Canada.

Is the confusion being created by the minister deliberate, or does she not know what she is doing?