Cheryl Hardcastle

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking in the House today about what Canadians understand and the fact that Canadians are watching, I wonder if the member could highlight once again for Canadians exactly what is happening. Some of the recent comments by the hon. member from the governing party do not delve into what really is happening and what Canadians are concerned about.

I wonder if my colleague would discuss some of the issues with regard to parliamentary oversight in the counterpart Five Eyes nations and some of the shortcomings that our committee actually mentioned, which were about appointing the chairperson. Does he think there is a risk with no trust from Canadians if the books are not handed over to the government and other information that has been withheld? Maybe the member could expand on some of those shortcomings.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is loud and clear that my hon. colleague is very confident in how this committee is going to proceed. However, Canadians watching are very disappointed in how the government supported Bill C-51. They were promised during the election campaign that the amendments were going to be addressed. However, the bill that has come forward to address this has such shortcomings.

It was mentioned that some experts validated this committee. I want to point out that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, and the Canadian Bar Association all testified that the oversight committee must not be restricted in its ability to access necessary information. It is really confounding that this committee will move forward and that has been rejected up until now.

Could the hon. member shed some light on why the government rejects expert evidence that access to information is absolutely necessary for this committee to function the way that is envisioned by the government?

[Persons with Disabilities, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the DisAbled Women's Network notes the rates of sexual, physical, and verbal violence across Canada are at least three times higher for young women and girls living with disabilities, and violence prevention agencies are simply not given the proper resources. Women with disabilities have been completely forgotten.

On this International Women's Day, will the government commit to taking leadership to address the enormous gaps in violence prevention policy and program delivery for this vulnerable population?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her very intriguing and inspiring speech. We know that Harper's cuts to the corporate income tax rate did not boost investment in Canada. They did not lead to promised job creation, and they cost the government $12 billion annually. Now, in hearing my colleague say that Canada could be a leader I think of the countless Canadians who are hopefully nodding their heads and agreeing with that; Canadians in precarious work, persons living with disabilities, persons who are struggling with a diagnosis and trying to research Lyme disease. There are countless ways that we could be using this $12 billion. I would love to hear more about the member's ideas on where Canada can be a leader on the international scene.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is very alarming to sit on this side today and hear the lack of understanding about Bill C-23.

I live in a border community. People in my community have family members on the other side. People in my community, on a daily basis, have to commute for work. I understand about pre-clearance. It is working. It exists today. We have pre-clearance. We have a pre-clearance arrangement.

Bill C-23 is about adding additional powers to our U.S. counterparts on Canadian soil. Canadian immigration lawyers are warning us that without amending aspects of this bill, it will be excessive powers.

Do you agree that there will need to be amendments to this bill to ensure that Canadians have rights on Canadian soil when being questioned by U.S. counterparts in customs?

[Government Accountability, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of the current government's broken promises.

My riding of Windsor—Tecumseh hoped the Prime Minister would deliver on promises for mail delivery, first nations, Bill C-51, and climate change. They were not the only ones. Canada's foremost environmentalist, David Suzuki, said the Prime Minister is “an out-and-out”, but then he uses a word that is unparliamentary but it means “misleading Canadians”.

Will anyone on the Liberal benches stand up and demand that their government start practising what they used to preach?

[Persons with Disabilities, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to hear two days ago in the chamber the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities declare she was fully committed to implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that she was working toward ratifying its optional protocol.

We have been waiting for a disability act that is serious about accessibility and inclusion, and goes farther than unenforceable guidelines and voluntary standards, one that provides real oversight to the implementation process and the means for persons living with disabilities to seek redress should the government fail in its obligations to the convention.

The minister's promises leave me very optimistic, and I do not doubt her passion and integrity. I am, however, skeptical about the government's ability and indeed its willingness to follow through on the commitments it makes.

Therefore, I look forward to assisting the minister in fulfilling her objectives, as it is my heartfelt conviction that the goal of a more inclusive and accessible Canada should transcend partisan politics.

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member's opinion about moving forward instead of positioning ourselves in a way that does repulse ordinary Canadians. Since we do have ordinary Canadians at heart here in this whole issue, how we can move forward enthusiastically is a little ambiguous.

I am hearing that maybe there is a chance for us to move forward with some other options that the Conservatives would embrace now. Particularly, it was the Conservative government that cancelled the home energy retrofit program. That would have reduced emissions at the same time as reducing energy costs for ordinary Canadians.

Am I hearing that this is something on which we could all collectively look forward to working productively, together?

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should start with a rant as a crazy cat lady.

I respect my hon. colleague so much for the work he has done, the thoughtfulness he has put into his speech, and his understanding of the environment.

I have family members who were highly traumatized by the losses they experienced in the Fort McMurray fire. However, it is very disconcerting to know that people have lost their homes not only due to the actual destruction by the fire, but also because of the toxicity levels. Some people cannot go back into their homes for 30 years.

We heard a member ask if another member knew what photosynthesis was. Can we maybe go into the depth a little more of the basis for this carbon pricing initiative?

[Persons with Disabilities, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe that any legislation resulting from the government's accessibility tour starts with the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The measures resulting from consultations must deliver more than voluntary standards and awareness-raising activities. They have to support implementation. Will the Liberals do what they promised during the election and implement these important measures?