Cathy McLeod

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I talked about the context. The government does have a responsibility to listen to the red flags, to listen to red flags from the Auditor General, to listen to red flags from the unions and to listen to red flags from people who have been in that role and who have experience and who express concerns about the new system.

The government is responsible for the system. It is obviously not responsible for the individual decisions that get made. However, the government has created a system that had a lot of flags that it did not respond to, and that is the government's responsibility.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my analogy about health care. Every nurse has nursing training, but it is the experience in a very specialized area of a job where they are making decisions that the experience matters.

If it is not a factor, then the committee is going to find that answer. However, the Liberals seem very reluctant to actually even dig into this as an issue. They are defending their new system and they are not willing to put it through a parliamentary process to examine whether the system is defensible and whether it contributed to what happened. That is what we are asking for here: to look at it, understand it and try to make things better.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Today, we are discussing what I consider to be a very reasonable motion in response to a horrific but preventable murder. Before I start into that area, I think it would be good to put some context around the discussion we are having today.

It is extremely important for the public to have confidence in our criminal justice system, in public safety and in the decisions of the Parole Board. We have a government that has been here for over four years. Over the last number of years, I would suggest there have been some flags that it has not been paying attention to but should have. I know it loves to suggest the previous government did this and that, but there is a stale date on that and that stale date has come. It has had over four years to put its stamp on things and to be responsible for its decisions and what is happening in government.

The current government received an Auditor General's report in 2018. In that 2018 report, there were concerns, including gaps in the monitoring of inmates and standards not being followed. It identified some problems. The government indicated that it accepted the concerns of the Auditor General and was going to make changes. If we look at the public accounts and the departmental plans, the changes the government made were reductions in the budgets for those departments. If we look at the government's plans for those departments where the Auditor General was identifying concerns, we see reductions were made. Therefore, we have to balance those two factors.

In December 2019, the Union of Safety and Justice Employees said things were at a crisis point and it made a whole host of recommendations as to what it believed the government needed to do to respond to a critical situation. As I understand, to date it has not received the courtesy of a response to some of its very clearly laid out situations.

Mr. Boyer, who was on the Parole Board from 2012 to 2018, talked about how the changes made by the Liberal government in 2017 led to a shortage of experienced members. In Quebec we now know that 14 out of 16 board members were inexperienced. They had been on the job less than a year or two and were not experienced.

As a nurse, I come from a health care background. When we had new nurses who came to work for us, they needed mentoring because there is something one gains from years of experience. When one is dealing with difficult situations involving the health of people, those years of experience make a difference. It is fair that the government wants new systems and new people. However, it should have done that methodically, recognized the importance of that experience and taken its time, instead of just blowing the system apart. It can do that with some types of appointments but not with something this critical, which requires a seasoned and experienced eye. It cannot just blow the system apart, put a bunch of new people in place, and expect everything will be okay and that the decisions will have the benefit of the eyes of those experienced people.

Therefore, I would suggest that is something the government needs to look at very seriously. Yes, as a government, it has every right to make those GIC appointments and to have a system, but when it takes a system, blows it apart and puts inexperienced people in place, it has a responsibility and it needs to reflect on that issue.

Typically, throughout our history, there have been times when the public has looked at decisions made by the Parole Board and has really been quite concerned. I think that the National Post in 2018 published a list of freed serial killers, child murderers, cop killers, cannibals and terrorists who were all freed despite the pleas of the families. I think we as a Parliament have failed these families when justice is not seen to be done and people who have committed horrific crimes are out of prison. The families know that these people are at a high risk to reoffend.

This is an example from a long time ago, but in 1984 Denis Lortie wounded 13 in the Quebec National Assembly and killed three. He was on full parole only 12 years later. How does that happen? I think any reasonable Canadian would question that he was on parole only 12 years after he shot and killed three people and injured so many more.

There are decisions to be made over time and we need to do everything we can. When there are people appointed, as they were, who are not experienced, more problems will be created.

It is against this background of dysfunction that I have talked about, such as the Auditor General's report, the union flagging concerns and a number of other things, that we have a series of decisions that directly contributed to the tragic death of a 22-year-old innocent young lady, Marylène Levesque.

I think everyone in this House has agreed that it is appalling. He was a convicted murderer with a history of violence against women. I believe in the 1990s there was an assault. He murdered his wife in 2004. He hit her with a hammer and stabbed her. He was sentenced in 2006.

What brought this clearly to my mind was an article in the Vancouver Sun that clearly articulated some assumptions made, either by individuals without experience, or by a system that allowed these decisions to be made. We need to find out the answer. The article outlined the questions we have to ask about this situation and they are as follows:

The first is that men — even violent criminals — have a right to satiate their sexual appetites with another person.

That clearly is what was said, but was it one person or is it systemic?

The second is the perverse idea that if a violent man is incapable or not ready to form a healthy relationship with another person, it’s OK for him to engage in unhealthy relationships where, as the buyer, he has power over the seller.

Finally, putting the sexual needs of a violent criminal ahead of the safety of other Canadians, including those who do sex work, suggests a grotesque hierarchy that is an affront to the constitutional and moral ideals of equality.

Those three points clearly go to the very root of the issue of what happened in this case and why everyone finds it so offensive. It is important that everyone in this House agree that a parliamentary committee has some important work to do, to look at the system and actually do the job.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has come to light through the debate today is that there was a system change, and that 14 of the 16 parole officers were inexperienced. In these difficult situations, does my colleague not believe that experience does help parole officers make decisions? I understand they used to pair together inexperienced officers with experienced officers, so they could learn from each other and make decisions. What is the role of experience in terms of the ability of these officers to make decisions?

[Regional Economic Development, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to recognize the softwood lumber crisis in British Columbia. Over two dozen mills have closed down and forestry-dependent communities are losing their primary industries, yet western diversification, the money into British Columbia, has primarily gone to the thriving cities of Victoria and Vancouver. There have been crumbs given to the communities that need it the most.

Will the minister for Western Economic Diversification commit to supporting these desperate communities in budget 2020?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, sometimes we can learn from the past. During the global recession, the Conservative government committed to getting $47 billion out the door over two years. An Auditor General's report said we did it effectively and managed the risks. If we have a government that is effective, the commitments that have been made can get done. Because at the time there was an Auditor General's report, can my colleague see any conceivable reason why the Liberals should vote against this transparency of government?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we could sit and talk about debt and deficits, but I think we can all agree that we are at the point where it is not like paying a mortgage on a house. The government is at the point where it is going into debt for operating costs, and that is absolutely unsustainable in the long term.

What we have is a government that cannot control its spending. More importantly, the Liberal government has enjoyed significant revenues over the last couple of years because of the policies of the previous government. What is happening with its new policies is that capital is fleeing the country, and we are going to be in a really challenging situation.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we built on the debt reduction that Prime Minister Martin took on because he was forced to, as a result of things getting so out of control.

However, this is not the Liberal government of Prime Minister Martin, which actually focused on getting fiscal responsibility on the table; this is a government that committed in 2015 to returning to balanced budgets, but the Liberals are not there. The interest on the debt will pretty soon be more than what we transfer to the provinces for health care. To be frank, that is shameful.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the issue. From 2006 to 2008, Conservatives paid down approximately $30 billion of the debt that was owed.

There was something called a global recession. At the time, the former minister of finance presented a five-year plan. He presented it and said that in the global recession, we were going to have to spend a specific amount of money. Then he brought us back to a balanced budget within five years. Conservatives did exactly what we presented to Canadians.

I would like to contrast that with the Liberals, who, when they ran for office in 2015, said they were going to have a little deficit for a short period of time and that in 2019 the budget would be balanced. What happened?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

As this is the first time I have had the opportunity in the 43rd Parliament to stand and speak, I would like to thank the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for giving me the honour of representing them again.

Everyone in the House owes so much gratitude to the people who volunteer for their campaign, the people who donate money, the people who do so much to ensure that democracy is strong and vibrant and that their goals and values are heard as we go through the election process.

A new parliamentary session is always opened with a Speech from the Throne. People watching on TV might be wondering about the purpose of the Speech from the Throne. The throne speech outlines the government's agenda for the upcoming session. In actual fact, in the 42nd Parliament, it outlined the government's agenda for the entire four years. The throne speech is a really important document in terms of the government's plans and where it is going to take this country.

On December 18, many of us in the House either went over to the Senate chamber to hear the speech or listened to it on TV, and in preparation for our comments about the Speech from the Throne, we had an opportunity to reread it.

On reading it again in the new year, I saw a number of statements that struck me as significant, not only in terms of what was said but more importantly in what was not said. We had some real concerns about what was not mentioned. If we partner that with ministers' mandate letters, which state how they are going to implement their plans, we realize that what was not said was not just a miss in a document that by nature has to be somewhat limited, but that there were really some big gaps in terms of what the government was going to do moving forward.

I want to first talk about fiscal discipline. The Liberal government is spending money that it cannot afford to spend. In many cases that money will not be spent in important areas like student loans, but rather will be wasted in many other areas.

The Liberals talk about a debt-to-GDP ratio, but they are using old figures. They have not looked at the more recent trends and the more recent numbers. They are on a very concerning path. The Liberals are talking about the debt-to-GDP ratio and saying Canada is in great shape, but they are also projecting significant deficits. Interest rates will not stay at historically low levels. We are spending more per capita adjusted than we ever have in the history of this country.

The Liberals not only lack fiscal discipline; they do not understand where that money comes from. They are moving forward on a position that over time will erode the revenue base that we in this country count on for paying for the important programs that my colleague from Milton talked about. We all care about having important programs such as support for students and seniors and support for health care, but we cannot do that if we destroy what drives our economy.

I want to start by talking a bit about the natural resource development sector, which is the portfolio I am delighted and honoured to focus on.

Out of the thousands of words about how the Liberals are going to support Canadians, about how they are going to spend money, about how they are going to do many things, natural resources came up in only one sentence. In the entire Speech from the Throne, there is only one sentence about natural resources, and that sentence is basically just lip service to the importance of natural resource development to this country. That sentence is not about the opportunities for our natural resource sector but rather an acknowledgement by the government of the hardships that our natural resource sector has experienced and a claim that it cares about those hardships.

It was not about opportunity. It was not about creating wealth. It was that people have had a hard time and we do need to care about that issue.

It is a huge problem if Liberals do not understand the importance of our natural resource sector to the economy of our country. I am going to be giving some more examples specifically as they relate to forestry and mining.

In 2017, the Prime Minister said that he was going to get a new softwood lumber agreement with President Obama. He did not get the job done. I do not question that we have a more challenging environment for arriving at a softwood lumber agreement, but there has been no effort to get it done. With the NAFTA agreement, the biggest trade irritant for the last 20-plus years in this country has been softwood. Did the Liberals attach this issue to the negotiations for NAFTA? The answer is no.

When the U.S. wanted to talk about having an agreement around minerals, did they say they would be willing to talk about minerals but that they also wanted to talk about the softwood lumber agreement? Did they do that? No. Are those issues in the minister's mandate letter? No.

We have 10,000-plus jobs there in British Columbia. New Brunswick is having its challenges as well, and this is adding approximately 20% to the cost of our products going over the border. Workers are hurting and suffering, but the government has not even put solving this issue in the mandate letter. Quite frankly, that is absolutely shameful.

I saw a presentation last week, and in terms of the lumber agreement, British Columbia is now the highest-cost producer in the world. It is not about labour or the cost of machinery and equipment. It is about the cost of doing business. It is about carbon taxes. It is about the eight pieces of legislation and the thousands of regulations, both federal and provincial, that are adding to the cost. B.C. is the highest-cost producer in the world in terms of its product. No wonder that its businesses are moving to the U.S. and fleeing the country.

I had another conversation with someone who wanted to add value to his products. He builds a very good product and has two factories where he does value added. When he hits the U.S. border, it is on the value added. He is not even paying 20%; he is paying significantly more in terms of the tariffs at the U.S. border. The Liberal government did not care, so what was his ultimate decision? He set up a factory in Everett, Washington, because he could not afford to do business anymore in Canada. He moved the jobs down to Everett, Washington. This softwood lumber agreement needs to be done, and it is shameful that the government has not made it a priority.

Mining is an increasingly non-competitive place to do business. We talk about the carbon tax. We talk about the clean fuel standards that will be added. We talk about all those additions.

I was at presentation where I learned Alaska exploration is going through the roof. What is happening in the Yukon and British Columbia is that they are worried about exploration. Why are they worried about exploration? The reason is the government has created a situation that makes it not competitive or appropriate for them to do business anymore.

The Liberals had a very unusual line in the Speech from the Throne about our being inextricably bound to the space-time continuum and the same planetary spaceship. I would like to suggest that maybe they have left energy workers off that spaceship. They are not on the same spaceship. Liberals have given areas like forestry and mining the lower berth and continue to support their favourite industries.

I am very worried about a blind spot of the government. I am very worried about our competitiveness and the generation of revenue, and I am certainly very worried about the Speech from the Throne and the direction it is going to take our country.