Cathy McLeod

[Carbon Pricing, May 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, gas prices in British Columbia are sky-high, and residents in my riding do not have the option of walking across the border with jerry cans, which is what is currently happening.

Yesterday, the Liberals doubled down and voted against eliminating the carbon tax and for keeping prices at the gas pumps high. Now that they have rejected our plan, what is their plan to make gas prices more affordable for Canadians?

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely bizarre that we have this motion before us today.

We have heard from all sides of this House that there is support for this bill, yet instead of allowing some time for people to express their opinions on it, the government has taken a sledgehammer to it. Certainly the previous government used time allocation on occasion, but it was when there was no consensus.

Again, I would like the minister to tell us why Liberals feel they need to use a sledgehammer, when the parties just wanted an opportunity to put up a speaker and were willing to let this bill move forward.

[Natural Resources, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, high gas prices are hurting the most vulnerable across British Columbia. This week we learned that cancer patients are having services cut, and that is because volunteer drivers cannot afford to drive them anymore. In my riding in British Columbia, people have to drive sometimes six hours for their radiation therapy. Canadians suffering with cancer are paying the full price of the Prime Minister's carbon tax and failure to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built.

When the Prime Minister said that he wanted high gas prices, is this what he meant?

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the environment is absolutely important. My colleague might be aware that we have committed to releasing a comprehensive environmental plan within the next few weeks, but is not going to be a plan that is simply a tax grab. It is going to be a plan that is effective and practical.

With regard to the last Parliament, the report that came out yesterday about diversity of species talked about Canada and how it has done pretty well because of the targets that we had set and the areas we had set aside as protected areas.

I can look at the history of our Conservative government previously and say that we did many things in terms of protecting the environment, because it is absolutely complex and comprehensive. It is more than just emissions. It is about the sewage that is being dumped into the oceans and many other things.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Liberals have done for the lady I was talking about who has cancer treatments and is having challenges with the cost of filling her gas tank is call her a tax cheat.

She has a small business. That is the legacy of the government for our small business entrepreneurs who are trying to get ahead. The Liberals changed the rules to make it more difficult for them. They do not have the benefit of pension plans and they do not have the benefit of health insurance to see them through. They work hard, day to day, and she certainly is not any better from any of the decisions the government has made.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to stand and speak to what is a two-part motion. One part is about the carbon tax, and the other is about getting the Trans Mountain pipeline built.

As I give my comments, I am going to put a British Columbia lens to it, because I think a British Columbia lens will be very important. We often hear members in the House hold up British Columba's carbon tax as this great example of something that has been in place for a number of years. However, they do not tell the whole story. A part of the story is missing.

British Columbia introduced a carbon tax, and at that time I reluctantly decided to watch and see how things would go with this particular carbon tax. I have a few things to say about it. First, it certainly did not do exactly what the government said it would do, in terms of reducing the emissions. However, the government did say that it was going to make the tax revenue-neutral. There was a small decrease in rural property taxes. There was some money that flowed back to the citizens. There was a process to audit that money and how it was returned to the citizens to prove that revenue neutrality was maintained.

This went on for a few years. When the NDP government was elected, the first thing it did was to take the revenue neutrality away from the carbon tax. All of a sudden, it became a tax grab for the province. There was no more offsetting in terms of money in, money out. It became a tax grab, pure and simple. The government was going to spend it wherever it wanted.

That is a cautionary tale for Canadians. In Ontario, Alberta and the other provinces, right now people are being told by the government that this is a great deal and that they will get more money back than they spend. Canadians should remember the example of British Columbia that the government holds up so often as the way to do things. What is going to stop the Liberal government when it starts to realize that its spending is so out of control that it cannot afford to send out those cheques for carbon tax rebates anymore? Quickly, the citizens of this country will have been hoodwinked into another tax grab by the Liberal government, because there is nothing that compels the government to keep it the way it is right now. That is a lesson from B.C., that it will take nothing for the government to change what it is doing.

On top of that lesson, in my opinion British Columbia has the worst kind of carbon tax, in terms of its not providing offsets. What British Columbians also have right now are some of the highest taxes in the country, in terms of the highest gas prices in the country. This is what the provincial NDP government says it wants. It wants gas prices high, and it wants people to change their behaviour. The Prime Minister said that this is what a carbon tax is for: to raise the prices so people change their behaviour.

I want to give a couple of examples of people who are having to change their behaviour, but perhaps not in the way the Prime Minister anticipated. Someone I know fairly well was laid off from her job a number of years ago. She took her severance money and took a big risk. She put her severance money into starting up a small business. It was enough to keep her going, to pay her bills, to have some success in running her own show.

A few months ago, she was diagnosed with cancer and was going to need treatment. When small business operators have cancer, they are suddenly not bringing in any money. In Kamloops, when people need cancer treatment, they have to go to Kelowna. Not only does she not qualify for employment insurance and has meagre savings, but she has to travel back and forth to Kelowna to deal with radiation therapy. That is a two-hour drive every time, and she has had to do this for weeks and weeks.

Every time she goes, she fills up her gas tank and wonders how she is going to deal with this, as it is costing her more and more. Maybe she will find some program someday that will reimburse her for those costs. In the meantime, she is struggling every minute, every day, to simply fill up her gas tank to drive a couple of hours to Kelowna to get the radiation treatment for her cancer. Can my colleagues imagine the stress that this adds to her life?

During this time, when she was dealing with record sky-high prices for filling up her tank, she noticed something about the Prime Minister. No one begrudges holidays for the Prime Minister, but when she saw him fly from Ottawa to Tofino and back to have a holiday, she said, “He is trying to change my behaviour. I don't see him trying to change his own behaviour for a minute.” I just had to tell members how that made her feel, when she could barely afford to put gas in her tank, that the Prime Minister wants her to change her behaviour but he is not doing a thing in terms of his carbon emissions.

I have another example. In rural Clearwater, there was a shutdown of the mill for six weeks over the Christmas period, and another shutdown has just been announced. It is going to be only for a week, maybe two weeks, but there are continually shutdowns. What happens when a mill shuts down is that the employees do not get paid for six weeks. They might get a bit of EI, but they do not get their pay for one week. They live in a rural community and lots of them need trucks to do their jobs. They are going into the bush. As they see gas prices hitting $1.60, $1.65, $1.70, they are saying, “Oh my goodness, I am not going to be getting a paycheque for next week. The mill is closed down. There is no money coming in.” How does that change their behaviour? They are having to make decisions in terms of not being able to buy meat for their families and having to use rice and do other things, simply to fill their trucks with gas. They do not have choices as people do in Vancouver, where they can make decisions around public transit. They are people who have to live with the carbon tax creating increased challenges in their lives.

I think colleagues can see that the carbon tax is creating huge challenges, especially at the gas pump. Certainly, a small measure of help would be for us to look at whom it is really hurting and how it is hurting them.

The other part, of course, is the Trans Mountain pipeline. I talked about Clearwater. The people in that community have been looking forward to that pipeline going through the community. Maybe the mill is going to be shut down for a week or two, but they saw other opportunities. They saw that there would be potential work digging to put the pipeline in. There were local contractors and restaurants all looking forward to this construction season happening right now.

As we look at the Trans Mountain pipeline, that is another important piece of the puzzle. I think that some analysts say it would give increased capacity. That would help with the shortage issue in B.C. and actually help with gas prices in B.C. However, the other, more important thing is that it would provide an opportunity for all Canadians.

This really is a motion with two parts that go very well together. It talks about the carbon tax on the one hand, and it talks about the Trans Mountain pipeline on the other.

I toured the Trans Mountain pipeline in the winter. It was a wonderful opportunity. I toured it looking for the stories that were positive, because we hear too many negative stories. I talked to first nations, who saw a huge opportunity. I talked to communities and mayors. There are enormous opportunities.

Members should really think about this motion and think about the people who are being impacted, and how the carbon tax and the Trans Mountain pipeline need to go hand in hand in terms of this motion. Hopefully, they will think of that cancer patient I just talked about or the mill worker who is really struggling with decisions about how to put food on the table.

[Lillooet, May 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to visit the district of Lillooet in the riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I thank candidate Brad Vis for joining me for the day.

Nestled in the lee of the rugged coastal mountains, the community offers exceptional opportunities for B.C.'s burgeoning wine industry and agricultural sectors. It is a diverse community with so much to offer.

I was especially pleased to visit the Lillooet Friendship Centre Society, which works to promote educational, cultural and social welfare advancement, while promoting self-reliance and independence. An aboriginal organization, it provides essential services, such as the Chillaxin Youth Centre programs, emergency shelters, mental wellness and addictions programs.

It is the volunteers and committed indigenous leaders at not-for-profits like the Lillooet Friendship Centre Society who provide excellent services toward a better future for those who need it the most.

[Indigenous Languages Act, May 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap for articulating an important example. What that leads us to reflect upon is that, yes, this legislation is important and, yes, it has had support at report stage. It was a unanimous vote in the House. However, it will be communities that drive the process.

I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about the importance of community-driven solutions and the different stages languages might be at with respect to their development.

[Indigenous Languages Act, May 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to this. She talked about two things on which I want to follow up.

First, usually there is respect in the House and we have the opportunity to prepare for debate. As the member and I know, sometimes we get a notification at 6:30 at night advising us what the House will be presenting the following day in debate. We have something called the Thursday question, which lays out the House's schedule. It allows members the opportunity to prepare their remarks.

Some of my colleagues really wanted to speak to the bill, but calling them at eight o'clock in the morning does not give them time to do what they would like to do to participate in a reasonable and fulsome fashion. That is the first issue to which I would like her to speak.

Second, the process by which the committee dealt with many amendments was very ad hoc and did not provide the opportunity for members to exercise proper due diligence with respect to them.

[Indigenous Languages Act, May 2nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, apart from the 23 amendments, there were many other amendments proposed, some by the Conservatives and some by the NDP, that were rejected. I probably need to go back to my first comment, that this is a step in the pursuit of perfection that impedes improvement. I think we need to get to the next step. It will be something that continues to evolve over time.