Cathy McLeod

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last week we passed a bill with over $50 billion in expenditures. Would the member agree that more than four and a half hours of debate and some parliamentary committee work might have actually had the benefit of improving the bill?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that the design of this program was very flawed. The Liberals need to act on that. It was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Nor was it in their first piece legislation, and they could have fixed it at that time. Even walking down Sparks Street can break one's heart to see small business entrepreneurs who have had shops for many years. Yesterday, one of them had a liquidation sign in its window.

One business in my riding was open again, but the owner was not sure if the business would survive. That program was critical and it really anticipated by small business owners.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point. I look again at landlords' support for our small businesses and the rent program for which landlords needed to apply. That program as been a disaster. It has created huge issues throughout the country. It was a much-needed support for small businesses, but it was designed improperly.

We need to have conversations in the House. The Liberals are not going to get everything right and that is what Parliament is for, that is what committees are for. Certainly, it is very inappropriate for the parliamentary secretary to say that the opposition has been obstructing when the Liberals have had important bills go through the House in record time. In fact, last week a bill worth almost $50 billion was approved without proper scrutiny. That is not right. The Liberals should reflect on that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals have very few willing to defend their position. The hon. member has had a lot of say, but we do have Liberal members doing their maiden speech in the House.

It is time for us to take our jobs as parliamentarians seriously. When bills are introduced in the House, there is a process. There is a committee process with expert witnesses and that is what prevents mistakes. When the Liberal government keeps introducing legislation and wanting to ram it through without proper scrutiny or a committee process, that is when we end up in trouble. Why would we have a Parliament if all the government wants is unanimous consent to ram every piece of legislation through at its will?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House, as opposed to participating virtually, as we debate the Speech from the Throne. I am very pleased to be here.

I want to start by acknowledging how very challenging these last seven months have been for so many. I look at the people working in the hospitals and long-term care facilities and front-line workers everywhere, including people delivering groceries. It has been seven months and it has not been getting any easier for many of them. We know they are getting tired and we want to express our immense appreciation for what they are doing. I also want to recognize that many individuals and businesses also continue to face extraordinary challenges.

Regardless of the disagreements we might have in the House, I think it is fair to say that we are united in the agreement that we must do the best we can to support Canadians during this time. In these unprecedented times, it is healthy to have vigorous debate and at times disagreements on the best path forward.

About one year ago, we were on the campaign trail. Just a few short weeks later, the current government was given a new mandate by the people. It was a minority mandate, because the Canadian public did not have quite as much faith in the Liberals as they had in the previous election. There was an important message in that election for the Liberal government to hear, but I am not sure the Liberals heard it.

Since that time, we have had two Speeches from the Throne, but we have had no budget. We have had over 80-plus days of the morning show on the Rideau porch. The Prime Minister would come out on his porch and announce spending and extraordinary new measures. During that same time, we had 14 sitting days in the House. Let us think about that. We had a Prime Minister announcing extraordinary new programs during an unprecedented crisis and we had only 14 sitting days. The bottom line is that we heard about billions and billions of dollars, with very minimal debate.

That is how mistakes get made. By bypassing Parliament, committees and process, the Liberals will make mistakes. That is why things like the loan program for businesses was such a disaster. The Liberals did not look to the brainpower, to the people and the experience within the Parliament, to take that extra bit of time needed to do things properly. That is on the government. It was 80 days of the Prime Minister on the porch and 14 days in Parliament with minimal debate.

I went back to read a number of Speeches from the Throne as part of my process of thinking about what I would say today. I went back to 2008 and 2011 and I saw very workman-like speeches. They were very orderly, workman-like, telling Canadians what the vision and goals of the government were.

Then I went to the Speech from the Throne in 2015 from the current Liberal government. What it said was that the Government of Canada “will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.” Right now a committee is looking into some challenges of the current government, the WE scandal, and the government is doing its very best to shut that committee down.

That speech also said, “notable are the things the government will not do....it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.” What did the Liberal government do in the middle of a crisis? It prorogued. No one believes it was anything other than to avoid the WE scandal and further testimony about how the government was helping Liberal friends in this time of crisis.

I found it absolutely stunning that when we finally came back after the prorogation period, we had a fast-tracked bill. Again, there was no committee debate. Was this 2015 promise just for 2015 when the Liberals had a majority or was it a promise for what the Liberal government wanted to do?

However, the Minister of Environment had the nerve to say to the media that we had to fast-track the bill because we had to get help to Canadians. I remember reading this and thinking about fast tracking the bill. We had five weeks in which we were ready, willing, able and we would have done anything to do proper scrutiny of the bill to ensure it was done right so we would not be in the same position we are with the bills we have seen, such as the rent assistance program.

They did indicate that they wanted to trust their government. The Liberals say that they want Canadians to trust them. I do not know about other members, but as we hit ethical scandal after ethical scandal, I think that trust is eroding in many ways.

I did not mention democratic reform, but that again was a strong commitment by the government.

After reading this Speech from the Throne, I am left with a some doubt on whether the Liberals will do what they say they will do. They have a propensity to recycle their broken promises. Their promise on child care goes back 20 years, which is an awful long time. Their promise on pharmacare has been there for a while. The Speech from the Throne focused a little on the current issue and a whole lot on recycled, broken promises.

On what is most important to Canadians right now, the Liberals have said that their number one pillar is to fight the pandemic and save lives. I think everyone in the House can agree with that, but we have to look at the execution of this. Who sent all our PPE equipment either to the dumpster or to China? Who failed to keep our stockpile up to snuff? Who failed to look at what other countries were doing with respect to rapid testing? Who failed to close the borders in an appropriate time and accused the opposition of being racist by suggesting we should close the borders? It was the government. However, we need to look forward now.

We now know that everyone expected a second wave would come. We knew that there was a bit of a window to prepare for that. What did the Liberals do about fighting this pandemic and saving lives?

The Liberals will set national standards for seniors, because those are the people who have been most impacted. A recent article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal talked about the issues with seniors, and standards were not one of those issues. They were issues of ensuring protective equipment, training personnel, licencing inspections and capital improvements. Those things would prevent issues in a second wave. Did the government make a move? I know it is the responsibility of provinces and territories, but did the Liberals say to the provinces and territories that a second wave was coming, that they wanted to support them, what could they do to help, was it just about money or were there other things they could do to help? If a second wave hits these seniors homes, part of it is on the current government.

For indigenous people, they were very specific 10 months ago. The Liberals would eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories on reserve by 2021. In the speech, they say they will make additional resiliency investments. What does that mean? I think most first nations know what eliminating all long-term drinking water advisories means, but do they know what additional resiliency investments are?

I find much to be concerned about with the government's current approach. Certainly, from our side, we would have great difficulty supporting this Speech from the Throne.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see a fellow colleague from British Columbia deliver, virtually, a very thoughtful speech. She is one of the first former Liberals who has acknowledged the importance of a fiscal anchor. I wonder if she could talk a little more about her thinking around that fiscal anchor. We know that we are giving critical support right now, but it is frightening in terms of what ultimately will be our fiscal challenges and situation.

[Orange Shirt Day, September 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to join from my home in Kamloops in recognizing Orange Shirt Day.

Like many across Canada, the first day of school for my children meant new shoes and new clothes. They returned home excited at the end of the day to share stories about their new teacher and who they got to sit beside. For many residential school survivors, the first day of school was often a day of horror and pain.

Orange Shirt Day was launched in my home province of British Columbia, and it is based on the heartbreaking experience of Phyllis Webstad. She was six years old when she began attending St. Joseph's Mission School in Williams Lake. On the first day, a bright new orange shirt that had been a gift from her grandfather was taken from her. She wrote, “The color orange has always reminded me of that [day] and how my feelings didn’t matter, how no one cared and how I felt like I was worth nothing.”

As stated in the residential school apology, the Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far away from their communities. Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities. First nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of the children died while attending residential school and others never returned home.

The fallout from the residential schools continues to create tragedy and trauma. Clearly, Canadians continue to see horrific acts of racism toward indigenous people, whether it be in our hospitals, as we saw in the very troubling story this week, in our justice system, in education or far more.

Orange Shirt Day began in 2013 to educate students about the history and painful legacy of the residential schools. It has spread across the country in these few short years, now involving thousands of students and bringing this message home to their families and their communities. We join them today on the journey of reconciliation.

Every child matters. Their traditions, families, communities and dreams matter.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister has been patting himself on the back for what he believes has been a quick response to the pandemic. Clearly, the Liberals are saying where there is a will, there is a way. As of today, we have 61 long-term drinking water advisories with two more that were added over the weekend.

The government has tossed aside its promise to have projects completed by March 2021. Where is the Prime Minister's will?

Canadians have been told to wash their hands frequently to fight this pandemic, so indigenous families are asking how they are supposed to do that without clean water.

[Health, September 24th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, almost to the day, a dear friend died of a drug overdose. Kamloops has seen more people die of illegal drug overdoses in the first half of 2020 than in all of 2019.

In the throne speech, all the government did was acknowledge there is an opioid epidemic. It gave no hint of a plan. There was one sentence, when more than 1,000 people in B.C. have died. There are heartbroken families. Fentanyl is being smuggled unchecked and there is no plan from the Liberals.

How does the government justify such neglect?

[Privilege, July 8th, 2020]

Madam Chair, I will make this quick. I did not mean to interrupt my Bloc colleague and I apologize.

I have noticed that many people in the chamber, in this committee, have a document. I would presume the document is a fiscal update that is allowing them to ask questions and see details that were not in the minister's statement, such as the deficit numbers. I looked at my emails, thinking that surely the government would care about the couple of hundred-plus of us who are not in the chamber and distribute that document to us so we could clearly see what was happening and be on an equal playing field with respect to our opportunity to ask questions. As a virtual committee member today, I truly feel my privileges have been violated by not having been provided that document.