Cathy McLeod

[The Budget, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that in past budgets we have had measures around climate change and navigable waters, yet we had been heavily criticized by the opposition members who said the budget should be about the budget and that these were omnibus budgets.

Now that we have a budget that is focused on some important budgetary measures, I would suggest that the hon. member go to the Government of Canada's website on the environment. He would see that there is an important and strategic plan. The goals are there. We are looking at how we would go ahead in terms of our environmental commitment to Canadians.

Again, I must point out the dichotomy of the two different positions. In one minute we are criticized for having it in, and now we are criticized for not having it in.

[The Budget, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand up here today and speak to our economic action plan 2014. I also want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on again having a budget that is absolutely right for Canada in these times.

Today I will talk about the context, because I think it is important. People are hearing about the measures that are in the budget, but I need to set the stage for the debate in terms of the context, going back to 2009.

I do want to make one comment. Certainly our approach is not the NDP approach of raising taxes and having myriad programs for which it wants to use the money of everyday Canadians.

Unlike the Liberals, we know we need a long-term plan. We need a plan. The budget does not actually balance itself by magic, but it balances itself through a lot of hard work, a lot of thinking, and creating a plan.

I will demonstrate where we are today and why this plan is working; so throughout my speech, I will take very liberally from some of the past budget speeches given by the Minister of Finance, because as we go from 2009 to 2010, we will see the very dramatic things that were happening in our history, and indeed, the global recession impacting the entire world.

First, I go back to January 27, 2009. I was a newly elected MP at the time. I was elected in 2008. The government previous to that had been paying down the debt, and to give the Liberals their due, they had paid down some debt, and we continued on that path. We paid down, I believe, close to $39 billion in debt in the first two years.

In 2008-2009 we recognized we were heading into some very challenging times across the world. These are some quotes from the speech of January 27, 2009.

Since last fall, the global economic situation has deteriorated further and faster than anyone predicted.... Canadians are feeling the effects of the global recession, and they are concerned. They are concerned about their jobs and their savings. They are concerned about their families, their businesses, and their communities.......we must do what it takes to keep our economy moving and to protect Canadians during this extraordinary time.

Back in 2009, in response to the global recession, it was the industrialized countries that agreed they needed to take unprecedented action.

I often hear, again, the opposition members talking out of both sides of their mouths, because I remember at that time they were saying we should spend more, spend more. Then they would say we had a debt. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say to spend more and then criticize the debt.

It truly was a very difficult time, and so the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance made the deliberate choice to run a substantial, short-term deficit. It was a temporary deficit, and it was an investment that was to stimulate our economy and to meet the short-term needs while serving the long-term goals.

It is also important to note that Canada, unlike the United States and Europe, did not enter this very difficult time with a heavy deficit, like the other countries; so we really had more capacity within Canada to respond to the risk we were facing.

We also said at that time that we would not be running a permanent deficit, that as the economy recovered, we fully expected to emerge from deficit and return to surplus. It was also said that Canadians regretted the need to run a deficit in order to invest in our economy and the government also shared that regret.

That sets the stage for 2009, a very difficult time, and a purposeful decision was made.

A year and a couple of months later—again I will take liberally from the speech at the time—the minister rose in the House and said:

...our nation is at a crossroads. We have passed through steep and rocky terrain. Much of the territory was uncharted. We were prepared and we protected ourselves. We are making our way through, and our compass has not failed us.The way forward remains challenging. Some would urge us to turn at this crossroads. Experience tells us that this would eventually lead us backward. We need to keep helping those who need a hand up. We need to stay on course. We can see our destination on the horizon.

It is important to note that there were many international institutions that were failing at that time, but they were not failing in Canada. Stock markets around the world had plunged deeply, and for a time the whole global financial system was at risk of shutting down. However, we worked in partnership with the G7 and G20 in terms of an effective coordinated response.

These numbers are going to be important as I go through my comments. In July 2009, Canada had generated 135,000 net new jobs, and at the same time the U.S. was continuing to lose jobs. Let us go another year, to March 22, 2011, and Canada was emerging from this recession as one of the world's top performing economies. Compared to other countries, Canada's economy was performing very well, but our continued recovery was by no means assured. We had a plan. It was working. We needed to stay on the track.

We were looking at additional targeted investments to support jobs and growth, but we also committed to tackle government spending and eliminate the deficit. We also indicated that we were not going to do that like the Liberals did, through cuts to transfers for health care and education and imposing massive tax increases. We now had 480,000 net new jobs, more than were lost in the recession.

It was at that time that the opposition decided that we did not have a plan that was working. We took it to the Canadian public. The Canadian public gave us a strong, stable Conservative majority government because they believed in this plan to move forward. We then introduced a very similar budget, I believe it was almost word-for-word, on June 6, 2011.

I have to note, again, in the few short months between when the budget was presented and the election was called and the next budget was presented, we were at 540,000 jobs that had been created since July 2009. That was the height of the recession. And, we had seven quarters of positive GDP growth.

Heading into March 2012, of course, Canadians had every reason to be confident. Other western countries faced the risk of long-term economic decline. Our goal was to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers and families, and to help create good jobs and prosperity in every region of the country. We also looked toward positioning our country as dynamic, moving forward, and able to compete. We were then at 610,000 net new jobs. Again, this was a year later. We saw very important improvements.

At this point, we were looking for innovation. We needed to plan for a rapidly aging population to secure our long-term prosperity. Again, that does not sound like magical wishful thinking. We have an aging populations and we needed to create a plan to help our country move through the challenges that it faces

At that time, we were on track. We had cut the deficit in half. We did this by doing exactly what the finance minister said when he introduced the economic action plan: the stimulus spending.

He then ended it. I know it is often very difficult to end stimulus measures because it is very popular. However, it was temporary, and he did take the steps necessary to look at controlling the growth of new spending. We made the commitment to implement some moderate restraint in government spending, with the vast majority coming from eliminating waste in the internal operation of the government to make it leaner and more efficient.

Finally, at that time we were looking at ambitious trade expansion. I only have a minute left, and this is such a great story. On March 20, 2013, we were at 950,000 new jobs. We were taking strong decisive action, which was required, but we were moving forward as per the plan.

I would suggest to the opposition members that if they look at that history, what our finance minister indicated was going to happen has moved along directly. Obviously, there were some twists and turns along the way because there were factors outside of our control, but we have been at the reins. We have been guiding things.

I am proud of our record. I am proud to see that we are approaching a balanced budget, and I look forward to a balanced budget in 2015-16.

The measures that we see in the budget this year are targeted toward those important strategic investments that would continue to leave Canada prosperous and in the great position it has in the world.

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when I first went to the briefing on this piece of legislation, I was very impressed. I looked at the opportunities to move the issues around compliance to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which made perfect sense. I looked at the issues around robocalls and moving that under the CRTC. I heard the interview where the former chief electoral officer gave it an A minus. I want to congratulate my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, for the very excellent work he has done on this piece of legislation.

I think my colleague who just spoke has not looked at the piece of legislation in terms of the whole picture of what it would do for fairness in our system. I would like her to talk about the issue of voter fraud and how important it is that we have 29 pieces of ID, I believe, that would be acceptable. Could the member speak about the important role that maybe she will have as a member of Parliament, as will I, who perhaps will run in the next election, in partnership with Elections Canada, to let people know where they can vote, how they can vote, and the pieces of identification they will need.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, having been involved in the health care field, I regularly dealt with people who were absolutely desperate for the support of detox services and rehabilitation services. To be quite frank, the services that were needed were not there.

To the member, how can she support spending money when we do not have enough detox or rehabilitation services for the people who are truly trying to get themselves off drugs and alcohol or other substances?

We need to look at opportunity, cost, and the challenges that we have.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good question and we will certainly get back to him as soon as possible.

As a government, our commitment is to the health and safety of all Canadians in all workplaces.

[Korean War Veterans, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government deemed 2013 to be the Year of the Korean War Veteran. We are grateful to all the brave men and women who served during the Korean War, and we mourn the loss of the 516 Canadians who gave their lives in the defence of freedom.

It is with great honour that I will be hosting a tribute to Korean War veterans from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo this Saturday, November 23, at the Kamloops Legion.

These include Robert Caffrey, Arthur Duggan, Barry Lister, Gordon MacDonald, Ray Maxfield, Bob Mitchell, John Price, Robbie Robertson, Leon Rushcall, Fred Shelton, Alex Sim, Allan Tassell, Gary Williams and of course those who are no longer with us: Mitsutoshi Arikado, Edward Alexis Fortier, Arthur Oakley and George Wilkinson.

Thanks to the sacrifices of these veterans, the Republic of Korea is one of our greatest allies, sharing our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few points that the member perhaps did not address very well.

As someone who was formerly involved in local politics, decisions around what goes in neighbourhood zoning is very important to those communities. The ability for a community to have some say in terms of what is located where is a critical measure. I am wondering why, for one, he does not believe that communities should have the ability to have input into these decisions.

I have a second point that I would really like the member to focus in on. One of the rationales is that this is going to allow people to move through into treatment. From my experience, there are many people who want to deal with the difficult demons of their addictions and their rehabilitation. There are not enough services. There is not enough support.

On the opportunity in terms of increased detox, increased rehabilitation, why is the member not really focusing on the people who are desperate, struggling to get off drugs, and do not have programs and services available to them?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech and perspective on this issue, but I think, as a nurse, she has probably had many patients over the years who were absolutely desperate to get into detoxification services and rehabilitation services. To be quite frank, those services were not available. People who were ready to make changes in their lives were unable to get the help they needed.

As a nurse, how can the member support putting finances and funding into something when she has told many patients, “I'm sorry. I know you were looking for rehabilitation services and you would really like to have the opportunity to have a life free of drugs”.

How can she support that position without having the money spent where people really need it, on those who are looking for true changes in their lives?

[Support for Volunteer Firefighters Act, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-504, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

First of all, I, too, like many people in this House, want to not only salute our volunteer firefighters, but our search and rescue folks, and the many people throughout our country who work in our rural and remote communities and ensure that we have a sense of safety. We know that when we have trouble they will be there for us. Again, I think all of us agree, and we salute the very important work that they do.

The bill claims to protect the employment of volunteer firefighters working in a federally regulated business. I think it is important to note that according to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs an estimated 4.9%, or 4,200, of the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada are hired by federally regulated businesses. We are talking about a very small portion of the workforce.

There are 3,200 volunteer fire departments throughout Canada, with most of them serving small communities with less than 10,000 residents. In many communities, they are often the only local emergency first responders. As I said, if one has ever travelled through a community that is rural or remote, knowing they are there is critically important.

I know that the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue tabled this private member's bill with the best of intentions. That said, I do have a number of concerns that I would like to raise.

First of all, I think the changes proposed in the bill would actually create more problems than solutions. The sponsor of the bill claims it would help volunteer fire departments with recruitment and retention in smaller-sized communities. However, according to a survey conducted by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the biggest challenge that fire departments face is a lack of employment rather than unsupportive employers.

Having a strong rural Canada and natural resource development is what we spent all day talking about. We talked about it impeding the ability for our rural and remote communities to enjoy the resources that would provide them with employment opportunities and the prosperity they deserve and want.

It is also important to note that in the Red Tape Reduction Commission it was clear that in imposing additional regulations on employers, such as this bill would do, it would not only be counterproductive, but harmful. The costs of red tape and regulations have gone into the billions of dollars. It is a very onerous burden on our communities. Of course, that is why we are working to reduce the regulatory burden on Canadian businesses and provide them with the required flexibility to grow, create jobs and contribute to our recovering economy.

Many may recall, in 2008, that we amended the Canada Labour Code to provide an unpaid leave for members of the reserve force. Some people might ask why we are not willing to do the same for the volunteer firefighter. However, I think there is an important distinction.

Reservists are deployed for a longer but determined period of time, which makes a formal approach to managing their absences from work the best policy decision. Having the time to recruit, train and allow reservists to go for six months, a year, or whatever time of deployment, is a lot different from saying that someone must be allowed to walk out the door immediately, which is what is needed for our emergency response.

Volunteer firefighters are frequently absent from work for short, but indeterminate periods of time. As such, the goodwill agreement between the volunteer firefighters and their employers is best suited to meet the needs.

I noted a question earlier about the relationship with municipalities. As a former mayor, we had a volunteer firefighter department. There was generosity by the employers in terms of letting their employees go on these responses because they knew it could be them or a family member. The communities and the employers were incredibly generous, especially when it did not unduly disrupt what was happening.

In some ways, Bill C-504 is a proposed legislative fix to a non-existent problem. Across Canada, only two provinces have adopted this legislation, and they are Quebec and Nova Scotia. Collective agreements are telling us the same story. When reviewing a sample of more than 3,000 collective agreements, only two contained provisions related to volunteer firefighter duties.

Therefore, in the absence of a problem, the right approach to this is the status quo. We can trust employers and employees to come to an agreement which satisfies both the call of duty and local business needs.

Furthermore, there are many questions that have been left unanswered with this proposed legislation. It fails to clearly define certain concepts and conditions. For example, when would an employer have good cause to prevent an employee from leaving work? It is very unclear. Does that mean that with good cause, an employer could dismiss, suspend, lay off, demote, or discipline an employee for serving as a volunteer firefighter?

Also, when and how would an employee be required to inform the employer of his or her obligations as a volunteer firefighter?

Bill C-504 also fails to specify for which volunteer tasks an employee could leave work. There are a large number of responsibilities for volunteer firefighters.

My son is currently a volunteer firefighter, but they know he has to work it around his work schedule. He is a nurse in the intensive care unit and would have to travel 30 minutes to respond, so it would be very impractical in that case to have legislation that would compel his employer to allow him to go.

We know that there are a variety of tasks. Our volunteer firefighters have emergency responses, of course, but there is training, equipment and fire hall maintenance, fire prevention and education, inspections, fundraising, administration, and so on. There are many tasks, and we have not really clarified what they could respond to.

In conclusion, Bill C-504 is far too ambiguous. For these reasons, the government simply cannot support it.

I ask members to please not get me wrong. We recognize the very crucial role that our volunteer firefighters play in our communities and have taken action through such things as the provision of the volunteer firefighter tax credit. As the House may remember, that provision is available for firefighters who provide at least 200 hours of eligible service per calendar year at one or more fire departments. I am very proud to say that it benefited more than 30,000 firefighters in 2011.

The chiefs, firefighters, and volunteer firefighters in my communities have been asking for this volunteer firefighter tax credit for many years, but I have never had one of them approach me with the suggestion that there was any issue with their ability to come and go from work, especially in terms of the goodwill relationship.

In short, we have taken measurable action to support the men and women who bravely serve as our volunteer firefighters. They absolutely deserve our respect. They respond to emergency calls. They rescue people in distress and often save lives. Bill C-504 would not provide genuine protection, but would create confusion and inequity while putting an unnecessary burden on businesses across Canada.

We are certainly committed to ensuring that workplaces remain safe and productive and contribute to a prosperous Canadian economy. We will continue to work towards this commitment, but for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, our Conservative government cannot support this legislation.

Again, I do appreciate the member's reasons for bringing this bill forward. Her intentions were very honourable, but the best thing to say in summary is that this is a legislative solution in search of a non-existent problem.

[Employees' Voting Rights Act, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today about the member for Wetaskiwin's private member's bill, the employees' voting rights act. This bill aims to amend the rules for union certification and decertification in federally-regulated workplaces, to ensure that all individuals have access to secret ballot voting. I commend my hon. colleague for raising and pursuing this issue.

Democracy is fundamental to Canadian society and all employees should have the right to vote on whether they wish to form a union or not. Canadian labour laws are in place to protect the rights of workers, while ensuring a fair and productive workplace environment for businesses to maximize Canada's economic potential. One of these rights is, again, to join or not join a union and participate, or not, in the collective bargaining process.

In Canada, including provincial and federal jurisdictions, about 30% of the workforce is unionized. This includes occupations like transportation workers, manufacturers, miners, electricians and workers in other construction trades. It also includes professionals, such as engineers, nurses and employees in federal, provincial and municipal public administrations, schools and hospitals. All in all, there are about 4 million unionized workers in over 100 different unions.

Some workers are of the view that unions help them to negotiate collective agreements with their employers, protecting them against what they feel are arbitrary changes in work rules, discrimination, unfair treatment and unequal pay for similar work. Obviously, others are flat out opposed to unionization. What both of these groups of workers have in common is that they do have the right and the freedom to choose to be, or not be, part of a union. This bill is designed to extend that principle. It would help to ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express their wishes about forming or decertifying a union.

Currently, a card check system can be used to form a union. If the majority of employees sign membership cards, they can automatically be certified as a union. When the level of employee support is insufficient for automatic certification but meets a minimum threshold, for example, 35% under the Canada Labour Code, the labour board conducts a vote to determine employee support for a union. If the majority of employees casting ballots supports a union in this vote, the union can be certified.

For example, under our current system, if 11 out of 20 employees sign the union membership card, the remaining 9 individuals may not be asked to sign and may not even be aware that their colleagues want to form a union, yet they could automatically be unionized. This means that in many cases, unions can be certified without giving all employees the opportunity to express their wishes.

The bill proposes to eliminate automatic certification and use mandatory secret ballot votes to certify or decertify a union in all cases. This will make votes no longer the exception, but the rule for certifying or decertifying unions. The employees' voting rights act would ensure that all employees would have the opportunity to express themselves by a secret ballot vote when considering whether to certify or decertify.

We have heard a lot about employers and intimidation and the unions and intimidation, but what no one has talked about, and what was my own individual experience. It was a good workplace that had been in operation for many years. The situation was changing in terms of reorganization and there was a debate going on. There were people who felt very strongly. It was a small group of about 25 employees. It had nothing to do with the employer or any kind of intimidation. It had to do with the employee wanting the ability to have a secret ballot so that not all the members, colleagues and co-workers, who felt strongly on one side or the other of the issue, would know how he or she voted. What we have lost in this debate today is the simple ability for workers to exercise their votes in secrecy, like we do every day in every election in Canada.

Our Conservative government supports the right of every employee to a secret ballot.

It would provide every employee with the ability to voice his or her opinion and would allow time to fully consider his or her decision before voting for or against the union. That is why we support the intent behind Bill C-525 and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

That said, there are areas of the bill that we believe could be amended, and we would like to hear from and consult with our stakeholders, both employer and union, in committee. The House committee will have an opportunity to carefully study the bill. It will consult with stakeholders and carefully consider their input and views.

We support the intent of Bill C-525. It must find the right balance between the needs of employees, unions, and employers, and I am confident that the bill could do just that.

I would like to encourage my hon. colleagues to support this bill at second reading and defend the democratic rights of the workers of our country. This legislation would ensure that every federally regulated employee had access to a secret ballot vote when considering union representation. Again, I ask members to look back to the example of the small, tight-knit workplace. Workers had a difficult decision because of changing circumstances, and they wanted to exercise that right with privacy, even from their colleagues, in terms of what decision they made.

The legislation would ensure that employees would determine for themselves whether they wished to be represented by a union, and they could have their voices heard.

With any legislation, of course, it is important to hear the views and feedback of those who would be most impacted and to take them into careful consideration. I have no doubt that the members of the House committee would carefully consider the principles behind the bill and would examine the unique perspectives of employees, unions, and employer groups that would provide needed perspective on the bill.

Again, I congratulate and thank the hon. member for working to support the rights of employees by raising this issue and I would like to encourage hon. colleagues to stand in support of this bill at second reading. We can have a great discussion.