Cathy McLeod

[The Honourable Len Marchand, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Len Marchand, who passed away last week in Kamloops. Len was considered a true hero. His autobiography, entitled Breaking Trail, truly embodied what he achieved during his life.

Len advocated for a stronger role for indigenous people in Canadian political life. He was the first and only first nations person to be elected three times in the House of Commons from British Columbia. In Ottawa, he was appointed as parliamentary secretary, minister of state, minister of the environment, and, laterally, a senator.

According to B.C.'s lieutenant-governor, upon receiving the Order of B.C., Mr. Marchand was able to influence Canadian policy from the inside in a way that no other aboriginal Canadian had ever been able to do. Beyond, politics, his achievements were far-reaching and have a huge impact on our country and community.

A true gentleman, Len will be dearly missed. I know his legacy will live on and I offer my sincere condolences to the family.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I remember this being very well received in terms of the municipalities. The gas tax fund was not only doubled, but it was legislated and gave municipalities funding on which they could count. However, we also renegotiated and gave municipalities flexibility on how they could spend their money.

The money to municipalities is very important. I was incredibly pleased, when we had our economic action plan, with how efficiently we got the money out the door for important projects. Even the auditor general indicated that. With the Liberal government, we are now seven months in and the pennies are not even going out the door.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is showing an incredible lack of faith in the provinces and their ability. If the Liberals believed in the provinces and in palliative care, they would have had that $3 billion in the budget, and at least a chapter of the accord would have dealt with that and it would be happening now. All Canadians should be very concerned about that. Not only did the Liberals vote down the ability for someone who chose assisted dying to be informed about options around palliative care, they did not follow through on their budget commitment to fund it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a lot in the budget. I have bigger concerns about the Liberal policies. Again, I gave some very specific examples. The most important thing the government could have done was to have looked at what was slow growth as opposed to what was global recession and how best respond to that. The way to respond to that is with things like the small business tax, ensuring it is lowered as we had intended, and reducing red tape.

There are many policies that the government could have looked at that would have supported and stimulated that low growth without going into deficits for future generations. The Liberals did not even include things like many of their commitments, for example $3 billion for the health accord.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member was not here, so he might not recall the events when we made that change. We had made a commitment to the provinces about the seniors citizens who they had on welfare, where it basically transitions to old age security and GIS. However, we made a commitment to the provinces that we would ensure this issue was taken care of. The member might not be aware of it, but part of our due consideration and concern was that this would be taken care of.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-15. As we know, the government introduces a budget, usually in the spring, then there are two budget implementation acts that turn it into legislation. Therefore, it is appropriate that I make some general comments about the budget, its fiscal implications, and my concerns about the direction in which the government is going. I will also pick out some of the very concerning elements in Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

It is important to note that the Prime Minister just returned from the G7. That should give him some cause to reflect on the direction he has decided to follow. He went there believing other G7 countries should agree that we should embark on an stimulus spending plan. It was very clear that he was met with a very cool reception to this idea by many countries.

As Brian Crowley, from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute indicated, “...a 'growth-friendly' agenda can't be written in red ink”, and they know that “...today's deficit is tomorrow's tax hike”.

What came out of that G7 was a discussion that every country needed to reflect on its own current situation. He had a goal that was clearly not met in his conversations at the G7.

The Liberals often talk about the spending we did, but I find it quite stunning that they fail to realize that during 2008-09, we had a global recession. It was the biggest crisis in the world since the Great depression. They seem to not reflect on that point very well. What we have now is slow growth. We have a little stagnation, absolutely, but we do not have a recession and we certainly do not have a global recession. Therefore, to go to other countries and feel they need the same response, the Liberals are not really looking at the current situation and adapting appropriately.

It is important to contrast this response during the Prime Minister's recent visit to what happened when we were in government, when Minister Flaherty, our colleague, played a key role in the response to the crisis. He was named the best finance minister in the world. When they talked about his record, they said was, “Our winner has earned a reputation for maintaining a sound fiscal policy. His country...has performed remarkably well”, and that he had played “a key role in the G8’s discussions”. This is a huge difference in the response to the global recession and the leadership role we played as opposed to what is happening right now.

We need to first look at the Liberal government's first budget. I remember attending a number of all candidates forums, and a number of key promises were made. The first major broken promise was that the Liberals would run a small deficit of $10 billion. We now know that we are looking at a $30 billion deficit, and this does not include the $3 billion they have committed to home care. We see another announcement that was never in the fiscal plan, a very important initiative, global health, but it was not planned for. The Liberals seem to have a way of spending money that I have never seen before, money that has not been planned.

It is also important to note that as we go forward most economists recognize that unilateral stimulus is bound to have a marginal impact on an open economy. Canada is an open economy, so the money the Liberals are spending, which is adding to the debt of the next generation, is going to be very marginal in terms of its impact.

Another important fact to know, even as we engaged in our stimulus spending, is that we had a plan to get back to balanced budget, and we did that. During the worst of times, the net GDP to debt went from 34% to 31%. Right now the Liberals are on track to increase it. They left one marker, being the $10 billion. Then they said they would decrease the net debt to GDP. It now looks like they will blow that one out of the water. It is a really big concern.

It is interesting to contrast what is happening in Britain right now, which is seeing some reasonable growth. The following comes from its budget speech:

Britain can choose, as others are, short term fixes and more stimulus. Or we can lead the world with long term solutions to long term problems...we choose the long term. We choose to put the next generation first.

Unfortunately, that is not what our government has done. The Liberals have chosen short term to take care of themselves, and to make popular decisions rather than worry about their grandchildren.

When our finance critic gave her speech on the budget implementation act, she was able to look at the statements of the Minister of Finance during the prebudget and when he was in the private sector. She pointed out that he had a really different perspective on the issues around debt and retirement. It put some real holes into his approach in the budget. I do not know how he can align himself or sleep well at night when it looks like the budget goes so contrary to what his fundamental beliefs are.

I will give members a couple of examples.

What does the U.K., Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, and the U.S. have in common? They have an old age security system that kicks in at the age of 67 or older. Australia is going into a system where the old age system kicks in at 67 or older. What have we done in the budget implementation act? We have moved in the opposite direction.

Sometimes the decisions a government has to make are not popular and they are not made lightly. We knew that it was a very difficult decision to make, but we also looked at the demographics of our country. We looked at the fact that people were healthier and living longer. I think there are many people we know who have lived their retirement perhaps longer than their working years. Therefore, it was a difficult decision, but it was not an unusual decision.

What is the cost of the change the Liberals are making? It is estimated to cost an additional $10 billion. It is also important to note for those who are not aware that old age security comes out of current revenue. It is not something like the Canada pension plan where we put money away for our future. Therefore, the Liberals have given my children and grandchildren an additional $10 billion of debt, and that is unacceptable. They have to be in a position to look at the long-term health of our country.

The small business tax rate is another example. The government sat at forums. I sat beside my Liberal counterpart at forums when the Liberals promised a 10.5% to 9% decrease. However, the budget implementation act would turn that around. It was a legislated change. It was a change the Liberals said they accepted, but they reversed it. The budget implementation act would move it from 9% back to 10.5%. It is absolutely unacceptable.

In looking at some of broken promises, whether it is the deficit or small business, my biggest concern is that the Liberals are not taking care of the next generation. They are looking at saddling it with a horrific debt.

The Liberals are also showing they are having a bit of a problem in delivering on their promises. Even when they commit money, they do not estimate it properly, and then they have trouble delivering. We can look at the cost of bringing in the refugees. They said that it would be $250 million, but it is now over $850 million.

The Liberals provided $8.4 billion for first nations, and we support that, but there is no plan for accountability. There is no plan on how it would be delivered. Even when there is money that we believe is well spent, the Liberals' plan for delivery and execution is lacking.

I have a big concern about the overall direction of the Liberals. I have a concern about many of the specific measures. I have a concern about the government's endless lust to spend taxpayer money, as exhibited by its recent March spending spree, where they took a surplus and in one month spent about $11 billion.

We are creating a structural deficit and someday we will have to pay the piper for the foolish choices of today.

[Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, June 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for putting forward Bill C-224, an important piece of legislation. Not all of us are so fortunate as to get such an early spot for our private member's bills and to have a bill that is going to potentially make a lifesaving difference. It is truly a privilege.

I would like to provide a bit of perspective around what the issue is that my colleague is trying to address.

In British Columbia, the province both the member and I are from, between 2010 and 2015 there was a 50% increase in deaths due to drug overdose. In 2016 we have seen a really worrisome spike. There have been 201 deaths in three months in British Columbia. The situation is so serious that public health has declared a state of emergency. This is not only a big issue in British Columbia but it is a big issue across Canada.

We think this perhaps happens only in some of our larger centres, such as the Downtown Eastside. That is not accurate. In Kamloops alone there have been 13 fatalities in three months from drug overdoses, and six of those happened in one day. Four individuals managed to get treatment and are fine.

These are not just numbers and facts. These are people. These are our friends. These are our children. In Kamloops, three families have spoken out directly on this issue. They want to raise awareness, especially about fentanyl and the tragic consequences of its use.

Ryan Pinneo's family has spoken out publicly. Their son was an athlete with a very supportive family. He struggled with addiction and succumbed to a tragic overdose.

There was another young man from Kamloops named Lance Ritchie whose parents have also spoken out. The reason they are speaking out is to raise awareness in terms of the incredible danger that is out there. Lance Ritchie loved the outdoors. He loved to fish. His family has beautiful pictures of him. They have shown the people of Kamloops the pictures and have told them that, yes, he did something wrong and foolish but he was a wonderful man.

Twenty-four-year-old Ben Coan is another whose family is grieving, and it is so tragic to hear the mothers and fathers talk about their children.

Someone that I knew from a very young age, and it was a fairly high-profile tragedy in North Vancouver, involved Hardy and Amelia, a couple of young parents. They made a foolish decision, no question about it. They were good people who made a bad mistake.

What would this legislation mean? The research the proponent of the bill shared was that sometimes there is a barrier to getting help quickly and that barrier is because the people who are with their friends or their classmates or their mothers and fathers are worried that there will be some consequences in terms of the substances. The research is clear that at times there has been a barrier because of possession. We also just heard from a doctor across the aisle who, in his own experience, found that there was a barrier for people in terms of self-interest or many reasons in terms of getting help quickly.

In the case of opioids, what does getting help quickly mean? I am a nurse by background. I can remember in the hospital there was a case, and this was a legitimate use of a narcotic for pain control. We had given a woman some pain medication post-surgery and just a couple of minutes later I happened to go into the room and she had stopped breathing as the result of an allergic reaction to the pain medication.

It was absolutely shocking to see someone who had stopped breathing and who was on the brink of death. The hospitals have something called Narcan or naloxone. We injected the naloxone, or Narcan as it was called, into her and she started breathing again. She opened her eyes and wondered what had happened. For someone who has never seen this, Narcan can reverse the effects an allergy to medicaitons.

This is a multi-issue and this is one piece of the puzzle that our colleague has introduced in getting help for people quickly. Removing barriers for them to seek help is a really important piece of the puzzle.

British Columbia has a take-home naloxone program to make it readily available. Health Canada worked rapidly, going through a process to make naloxone available, not a prescription. It is cheaper for patients who have a bee allergy. We will often see their kits and learn how to do an injection to reverse the effects of the allergy to the bee. This particular injection can be easily learned and is truly life-saving.

The other important feature is that lay people can learn how to deliver naloxone. It is absolutely life-saving and there is very minimal adverse effects.

I noted that some people have said that we perhaps should be criticizing this because we are endorsing drug use. That is not actually what is happening. It has been very clear that what is happening is life-saving, whether it is someone who is suffering from an addiction who has taken an overdose, or whether it is a young person who has been at a party and who has made perhaps a foolish decision.

If we put this bill into the context of what is a dramatically escalating situation in British Columbia and across Canada and provide some basic life-saving tools, then we have a good bill. I too hope all members in the House will support the bill. Again, even if it saves one life, it is a bill well done.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are a lot of talk, but they are no action. Friendship centres provide vital services to urban first nations, including counselling and suicide prevention support programs.

Our House of Commons committee was told yesterday that promised base funding is delayed, facing layer after layer of new Liberal red tape: two months, no money, laying off staff, and shrinking necessary programs. What is the hold up? Why is funding for vital, life-saving programs being delayed?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the very difficult job the Minister of Health has had in crafting this piece of legislation.

The one piece of the bill that I find very bothersome is the $3 billion commitment to palliative care. I know the Liberals argue that they have to work out a deal with the provinces in health accords.

There are many items in the budget, and I could pull out five or six where commitments have been made in the budget and all the t's and i's have not been crossed and dotted. Why was the money for palliative care not in the budget this year? Does the minister not believe that the government could work something out with the provinces and territories in a timely way on such an important issue?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talk with great passion about the issue of mental health.

He also talked about the amendments that had been proposed. A very logical amendment to me was that someone perhaps with cancer who had an underlying mental health issue would have a psychiatric assessment as part of their decision-making. I was really surprised that something that seemed so important and logical as having a psychiatric assessment was turned down in the House. I am just wondering if my colleague would make some comments on that particular issue.