Cathy McLeod

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Muzzled.

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we spend a great deal of time talking about the importance of Atlantic Canada having representation, but one of the pieces that we have not picked up on perhaps as clearly as we might have is that the Supreme Court, of course, has always been a bilingual institution. The Liberal government talks repeatedly about diversity and the many sorts of realms. As the opposition critic for indigenous affairs, looking forward to having an indigenous member on the Supreme Court of Canada, I see that requirement of functional bilingualism as a big change. In the past, obviously it was a preferred capacity that the person should have, but to require it is a change.

Does the member not believe that he is cutting off many very appropriate candidates from our indigenous communities and others who have not had the benefit of learning French as either a young child or as an adult? In actual fact, I think it is about 22% of Canadians who are functionally bilingual. Are the Liberals not creating a lesser diversity with the change they are making, which perhaps has not attracted as much notice to date?

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate all morning and to be quite frank, the Liberal position is getting very confusing.

In August, the Liberals talked about having applications from across the country. I think they probably heard from Atlantic Canada fairly loud and clear that they have some significant concerns, in terms of the convention of having representation from Atlantic Canada.

Today, we are hearing they are going to support our motion, but then we hear a lot of words around that being only part of diversity. In the motion it is pretty clear to me that the short list should be all Atlantic Canadians and there should be an Atlantic Canadian who is chosen from that short list. Would the member confirm that indeed is the case when they support the motion?

[Indigenous Affairs, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is on another swanning trip at the UN, where he is sprinkling taxpayers' dollars around like fairy dust.

Meanwhile at home a new study has shown indigenous Canadians are losing limbs, their vision, and even dying from diabetes, a preventable, treatable disease. This is totally unacceptable and immediate action is required.

When will the Liberals stop neglecting business at home and ensure appropriate programs and medical care are available for indigenous Canadians?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the government’s pledged investment in primary and secondary education on-reserve: (a) how are funds to be distributed; (b) when are funds to be distributed; (c) to which reserves are funds to be distributed; and (d) what new accountability measures have been introduced to ensure funds are spent for the purpose designated?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: what was the total cost incurred by the government for any related spending in the period from February 29, 2016, to present, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) travel, (iii) accommodations, (iv) room rentals, (v) meals, (vi) all other expenses?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the statement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on June 7, 2016 regarding audited statements of First Nations governments: (a) what is the process followed by Departmental staff once a request for audited statements has been received from a member of a First Nation; and (b) in what ways have First Nation band members been made aware of this process?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on May 10, 2016, that the government intends to adopt and implement the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) did the Minister undertake consultations prior to reaching this decision; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) which stakeholder groups were consulted, (ii) which individuals from these groups participated, (iii) where did the consultations occur, (iv) what travel costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (v) what per diem costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (vi) what accommodation costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder; (c) did the Minister receive any unsolicited views from stakeholder groups, and if so, from which stakeholders; and (d) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians related to this decision?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has an excellent report on the uptake of Canadians and how the TFSA has been a very important vehicle for them. Again, whether it is for young people perhaps who want to save for their first home, whether it is people in the middle class who are looking to save toward retirement, the argument that because they cannot put $10,000 a year in is not a good argument. There are some years where people can put in $10,000. To have that limit has been a very important vehicle for all.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that we agree with the NDP, but my colleague has some excellent questions. We talked earlier about the math problem the Liberals had with the execution of their middle-class tax cut being $8.9 billion, over a billion dollars a year of math problems. They also have a definition problem. They have never been able to clearly articulate what the middle class is and why they are defining and giving the biggest benefit to those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. I am sure most Canadians if asked if that were the middle class would clearly say this is not what they expected in tax cuts and in revenue neutral.