Cathy McLeod

[Indigenous Affairs, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness falsely claimed that his government follows the law, but the fact is, the Liberal government is clearly ignoring the law when it comes to compliance measures in the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

Why are the Liberals telling band members that they have to go to court to get basic information that is available to all other levels of government?

[Indigenous Affairs, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on a Friday afternoon right before Christmas, the government gutted the First Nations Financial Transparency Act by removing all compliance measures. Without consequences, the law is useless and band members are now denied access to basic information.

How does the minister explain to band members that the Liberal government's commitment to transparency is empty rhetoric?

[Indigenous Affairs, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I remember that when the report was tabled in June of last year, which was a very significant day, no one had time to read the 94 recommendations or analyze them. At that time, the leader of the third party came in and said, “I accept all 94 recommendations. We're going to move forward with them.” Perhaps a third party leader can do that.

The government has a responsibility to analyze the implications and the costs of each of those 94 recommendations, and share with Canadians what that would mean. Will it mean a veto in terms of natural resource projects? Is the government giving up its right to have final decisions in terms of projects? Canadians need to know that.

It would not be fair for the government to not move forward in an open, honest, and transparent manner with all Canadians as we move forward. I agree it is an important process. The government has to be open, accountable, and transparent.

[Indigenous Affairs, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have this opportunity to rise during adjournment proceedings today.

This is in follow-up to my question of December 7, 2015. On that day I asked the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs to tell Canadians the full costs of implementing the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Not only did I not get a cost, which I had asked for, but I also asked if they had analyzed the implications. This is an important area that I felt we needed a more fulsome discussion of.

The commission, of course, was created by the Conservative government in 2007. A year later the former prime minister, the hon. member for Calgary Heritage, stood in the House and apologized to former students and their families for the Canadian government's role in the operation of the residential schools.

There is no doubt that the school system had a profoundly lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage, and language. There is no place, as has been noted a number of times, in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential school system to ever prevail again.

Of course, it took extraordinary courage for the survivors who came forward to share their painful memories. It is a testament to their resilience as individuals and to the strength of their culture. The scars are a long way from healing. The work of the commission is a step towards that goal.

The Prime Minister has promised Canadians a transparent government. He has promised Canadians that his government will implement each of those 94 recommendations.

While many of the recommendations are excellent and necessary, I believe the government needs to appropriately calculate and share with Parliament the full cost and implications of them with Canadian taxpayers, including for example the implications of our accepting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and what impact that might have and what the assessment is of that in terms of Canada's economic future.

The declaration calls on countries not just to consult and accommodate indigenous people on laws and projects that might affect them, as Canada has been doing, but also to obtain their full consent.

There are many legal minds who have suggested that this will give a veto. Implementing this declaration was in the minister's mandate letter. Is it the intention of the federal government to give a veto over specific development projects? Obviously, indigenous people have the right to be consulted, but I do believe it is important for the federal government to maintain its final authority. Otherwise there is no clear process to follow. Legislation and projects may be stonewalled indefinitely, whether they involve natural resources or tourism. These projects are vital as we struggle with difficult times. They are vital for our economy. We need to have clarity around what that means. We cannot operate with that level of ambiguity.

In addition, there were many far-reaching recommendations, from money for truth and reconciliation centres, to monuments, athletic programs, and CBC/Radio Canada.

Again, we absolutely need to move forward on these important recommendations, but there are some that perhaps need a second view. We need to share with Canadians fully the costs and the implications.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a similar question to one that I asked of the NDP. I know that we all believe that we have to move forward with reconciliation in our relationships with indigenous communities.

With respect to the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, would the member not agree that any government should not only analyze their implications but also provide all parliamentarians with the costs? I think we absolutely agree that it is important to move forward with many of the recommendations, but is that not a responsibility of any government?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up some very critical issues on how the new government is dealing with the economy. We all know that investors and money go where they are wanted. I listened with great interest about the environmental assessment process. As a government, Conservatives ensured that the environment was absolutely protected, but got rid of the unnecessary duplications.

I would like to use the example that the Kinder Morgan pipeline knew what the rules of the game were. It has been very actively going through the National Energy Board process, following what was in place for it to get to a yes or no or a yes with conditions. I would like to hear from the hon. member what it means to a company like that when the rules can, all of a sudden, be changed in a very arbitrary and unfair fashion.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as a fellow British Columbian, I would like to welcome the new member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

He talked about the need for reconciliation. I think all members in the House agree that we need to move forward in our relationship with first nations. There are 94 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the government has said that it will move ahead with all 94.

In our pursuit of reconciliation, will the member join me in calling on the government to release a full costing analysis of the implications of moving forward with all 94 recommendations? Many of them are excellent, but some would be leading us down a particularly difficult path.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the member on her appointment as Minister of Status of Women and her election in the riding of Thunder Bay.

The Speech from the Throne was particularly silent on natural resources and what we were doing and where we were going. I know that in the community the minister represents forestry and mining are incredibly important. I would like to hear her perspective on moving that agenda forward in spite of the silence from her government on things that are going to be very important to her constituents.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the very thought-provoking and articulate speech. He did, quite frankly, notice in the government's Speech from the Throne a lack of mention of the agricultural sector and natural resources; and of course, we sort of focused down in terms of pipelines.

The one thing that the Speech from the Throne does talk about is the need for deficit spending.

I would like to ask my colleague what the economic impact would be, if a pipeline goes through, on government spending compared to private-sector spending and what difference it would make for his province of Alberta.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is not one member in the House who is not horrified by the national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada.

As a British Columbian, the stories of CJ Fowler, the Highway of Tears, and the horrors of the Pickton farm have struck close to home.

In the past, we thought it was important to allocate resources and move forward with action on services and programs that have proven to be effective. The current government's pledge to have a national inquiry to hear directly from the families affected in their ongoing search for answers reflects the call from many across the country.

We offer our support to this initiative and for the government to fulfill its promise to these families. My sincere hope is that the national inquiry will bring the answers, closure and peace that these families so desperately need.