Cheryl Hardcastle

[Petitions, December 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition regarding Canada being an active signatory to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

That being said, there is a petition with 5,000 signatures from across Canada. The petitioners are concerned for the situation of U.K. citizen Jagtar Singh Johal. He was abducted, forcibly, by Punjabi police. He is receiving poor treatment, and has also been refused medical treatment.

We are encouraged, through this petition, to add our collective voices with our counterparts, who are also signatories to the convention, so we have justice and fair treatment for this gentleman.

[Salaries Act, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for allowing us to see a bit more of what the real inspiration behind this is. We had a pay equity issue, and from the comments he has made, we can see that this is really covering up what has been a responsibility gap.

I have listened to the member justify this. He does not have to justify to me why a minister of state for status of women becomes a minister. What I find disingenuous is that there is no ministry of state. There are no departments being added. Therefore, for the member to suggest he is surprised that the NDP is a bit shocked by this hypocrisy is alarming to me, because another part of the explanation we just heard is about all of the synergy required.

For regional development, the member said we need to build on the distinct competitive advantages of communities to have a real regional impact. I find it alarming. I wonder if the member can maybe talk a bit more about this. Does he realize that this bill is removing the possibility of appointing a regional economic minister specifically, while he is justifying at the same time these ministers of state not having departments so they can work together? It is counterintuitive. I am wondering how he is justifying that in his mind.

[Canada Revenue Agency, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying she would like to reassure all Canadians who receive the disability tax credit that the eligibility criteria have not changed. However, a memo from her office says, “This is to inform you of updates to the current LST procedures and verses relating to adults with diabetes.” This means the eligibility criteria have, indeed, changed.

Why does she continue to insult Canadians by insisting updated procedures means they have not changed?

[Taxation, December 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is a leaked CRA memo that shows that eligibility for a disability tax credit has indeed changed for type 1 diabetes, spiking benefit rejections to 70% in 2017. Advocacy groups are saying that either the CRA lied to them or the minister has the wrong information. Remarkably, the minister continues to deny that changes have occurred.

No more talking points. Will someone over there show some integrity, stand up, admit the mistake, and correct it?

[Human Rights, November 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Elena Urlaeva has fought against state enforced labour in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan for nearly 26 years. Every autumn, over a million Uzbek citizens are forced by their own government to leave their regular jobs and go to the fields to pick cotton, a large portion of which ends up in global supply chains and in our linen closets.

After all these years, Uzbekistan is finally changing course on this practice, mostly due to Elena's brave efforts. Elena has received multiple death threats, has been beaten, locked up, and confined to psychiatric hospitals. Still she continued to protest outside of court rooms and continued to take her camera into the fields to document abuses.

Elena is one example of the incredible bravery that inspires human rights defenders all over the world. Their sacrifices continue to bring about profound change. On this International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, I celebrate the achievements of such remarkable women.

[Cannabis Act, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify this idea of what some police chiefs may or may not believe.

I have many family members, including children, who are in law enforcement. Many people reflect a lot of the emotion that sometimes goes along with this issue. The idea of mandatory minimums and a war on drugs approach is not as effective as had been envisioned at one time. As a matter of fact, a criminal record for this non-violent offence is a social determinant of health.

I wonder if the member has had a chance to consider what the public health approach might be, because we need effective solutions moving forward.

Would the member agree that we need to have a regulated environment? Would he also agree that a public campaign should include how to keep children away from this product? What does he think would be the most effective way for us to do that as we move forward with this?

[Taxation, November 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we keep getting told in this chamber that nothing has changed, and people are still eligible for their disability tax credit.

However, we receive calls every day at our constituency offices about new rules that are rendering people living with type 1 diabetes, autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and developmental disorders ineligible for the disability tax credit, despite having receiving it for years.

Families are desperate for help. When will the government stop making excuses and fix this problem?

[National Security Act, 2017, November 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments on how important it is for us to have responsible legislation that moves forward in the best interests of Canadians' civil liberties and their security.

As we know, we are asking for a piece-by-piece repeal of Bill C-51. We have pointed out that there are certain measures the Liberals would like to keep. We would invite them to make their case and work with us to defend the rights of Canadians.

Having said that and in light of the earlier question, does the member think it is important for us to be concerned with new legislation in ensuring transparency and real-time oversight?

[National Security Act, 2017, November 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for sharing some very practical points about why we are opposing Bill C-59 as it is proposed today.

One of the things I want to talk about is this issue, which was also discussed by our colleague, about civic engagement, people who are active in their communities giving messages to government, to people like us who are in office. This overly broad definition of activity that undermines the security of Canada was flagged by the Privacy Commissioner. It makes good sense to me that we repeal this entirely and start from scratch, taking the important points that have merit and fleshing out legislation on that.

Could the member talk a little more about our concerns with the Privacy Commissioner and in exercising civil liberties?

[Department of Employment and Social Development Act, November 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned comments and the question, which is what is enthusing us here today. We know there is huge potential in this kind of access, and we can envision a time when there would be even more opportunities. However, right now, the fact is that people who are already vulnerable are struggling to access programs.

This is what compelled me to want to bring this private member's bill forward. This kind of approach is so profound that I cannot even describe it. All of us in this place who are doing our jobs in our ridings know this. Speaking to people directly in our ridings, we know that the interface of government at this level is something we could be doing a lot better to address. It would be an absolutely amazing transformation as well.