Todd Doherty

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I started my intervention by saying that we are the voices of victims. Often, we are the only voices of victims. We are the voices of the electors. This House does not belong to me and it does not belong to you, Mr. Speaker, it does not belong to my hon. colleague across the way, it does not belong to the Prime Minister; it belongs to the electors who elected the 338 members of Parliament to this place. That is who we are accountable to.

In terms of oversight, from time to time the Parole Board should be called before parliamentary committees to have a review. That is in the purview as well. It is important. Again, that is a reasonable question, but given the cases that we are dealing with and the information that I have garnered over the last four years in dealing with those two very serious cases in my riding, there needs to be some oversight. We need to be able to task our ministers, whether the existing minister or ministers in the future, to be able to review their files.

Often in the committees that I have sat on, I say that our files are run by the bureaucrats. More often, our ministers need to take more of a handle on their files and make sure they are managing their files accordingly.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is independent or not, they must be competent and there must be oversight. The case of Marylène Levesque proves that there has to be oversight by a minister who is able to review those cases that come forward which are over and above the normal, everyday cases that we would see. Cases such as that of Marylène Levesque are a horrendous abuse of authority. The instruction by the parole officer to this convicted murder, we can all agree, is shameful. It does require some oversight.

The member asked me if I think that the boards should be independent. They should be independent but there should be review and they should be competent. It should remain in the purview of a minister's file to necessitate that a review take place.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today and speak to such an important matter. Today's motion is extremely important. It is calling for justice for Marylène Levesque.

I will be asking for justice for many victims of crime and violence as it pertains to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. If we cannot be the voice for victims of violence and crime, who will be? In many cases their voices are silenced, as in the case of Marylène Levesque.

I have stood in this House time and again over the last five years and talked about cases such as Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff, who heinously murdered four young women in my riding: Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas, Loren Leslie and Natasha Montgomery. Sadly, in the previous Parliament we would see the minister stand up and merely pay lip service.

I have been listening to this debate today and I am heartened to hear words about doing a full investigation into the incident of the heinous murder of Marylène Levesque.

Over the last five years, the previous minister could not even say the word “murder”. It was a bad practice. How far have we fallen when discussing murder becomes a bad practice?

We have seen a convicted terrorist, one who waged war against Canadians and American soldiers, shamefully paid $10 million.

We have seen a man who murdered an off-duty police officer in Nova Scotia claim he suffered from PTSD from committing that murder. He was then catapulted to the front of the line to receive services before our first responders, military members and veterans, with little action from our colleagues across the way.

Unfortunately, my riding of Cariboo—Prince George is not immune to this inaction. As I mentioned, Cody Legebokoff, who is Canada's youngest serial killer, brutally murdered four young women in 2009 and 2010. I will say their names again, because their names should be repeated time and again. They are Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas and, Mr. Legebokoff's final victim, Loren Leslie, who was just 15.

He was convicted on all four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 25 years. However, what we found out early last year was that he was transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison just up the road from here. The Correctional Service of Canada's own words were that the transfer and redesignation of some of our most serious criminals is not an exact science.

The case we have before us today is about Marylène Levesque, the Parole Board and the instructions the parole officer gave her murderer. That is what leads us to the cause of our concern with Cody Legebokoff being transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison. The families are wondering what is next. Will Cody Legebokoff be walking the streets?

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett decided that, given the sexual assaults committed as part of the murders and Legebokoff's apparent degradation of the victims' bodies, he was adding him to the national sex offender registry. In his decision to add Legebokoff to the national sex offender registry, Justice Parrett said that Legebokoff “lacks any shred of empathy or remorse” and “he should never be allowed to walk among us again.”

The remains of one of his victims, Natasha Montgomery, have never been found. Mr. Legebokoff still continues to negotiate and uses that as a bargaining chip with the families in an effort to get favourable treatment while in prison.

Brendan Fitzpatrick was the RCMP E Division major crime section superintendent in charge of operations during Mr. Legebokoff’s murder spree.

Mr. Fitzpatrick called it “absolutely unconscionable” that Cody Legebokoff was transferred from a maximum-security prison to medium-security prison.

He wrote to me early last year, and in his letter to me he said, “On behalf of all of Mr. Legebokoff’s victims, their surviving families and the investigators whose blood sweat and tears went into the arrest and conviction of this individual, I reach out to you to bring this issue to the public’s attention and demand answers of the Public Safety portfolio why this convicted killer is being given this generous benefit.”

We challenged the minister of the day to please look into this. Again, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you and I challenge the minister of this day to look into this case, just as he has pledged to look into Marylène Levesque's case.

The government needs to account for why the victims' families were not consulted and why the police had no input into this placement. It needs to account for why the youngest serial murderer in Canadian history is provided the luxury of a new, less secure environment.

Another case that is just as recent is that of Fribjon Bjornson. Fribjon Bjornson was a young man who had just come in from a logging camp, cashed his cheque, went to party with some of his friends, as many do on Friday evenings and weekends, and ended up being murdered. He was decapitated. One of his murderers was James David Junior Charlie, and his first-degree murder conviction was recently overturned by B.C.'s highest court, citing an error by the trial judge.

Mrs. Bjornson is a friend of ours. She told me the whole family is devastated. Once again, victims' families are being victimized over and over again throughout the process. Where are the voices for the victims? Who is standing up for the victims?

Mrs. Bjornson told me that they knew there would be an appeal as there always is unless a plea deal is given. That is one of the reasons they agreed when a plea deal was offered to Wesley Duncan and Jesse Bird. They pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after hearing what happened to Frib during James Charlie's trial. Mrs. Bjornson was certain they would have been found guilty of first-degree murder.

She went on to say that as parents, waiting six years to find out the story is cruel and unusual punishment. Now eight years later, and this is just this past fall, they are faced with the dilemma of having to go through the whole trial again.

This government, and any government, needs to do more for victims and their families. Sadly, we just continue to get lip service.

We saw this in the case of young Tori Stafford when her murderer was given access to a healing lodge. I will go back and say this again: Healing lodges were not on trial there. It is the fact that a convicted murderer, an offender of one of society's most heinous crimes, essentially was given a free pass to come and go as she pleased in this type of institution.

I started off by saying that I am heartened to hear some of the language from across the way, in terms of the parliamentary secretary and the minister saying that they are going to investigate this to its fullest extent. I would offer that the two cases I brought up from Prince George also deserve a new set of eyes on their cases and a renewed investigation. I would implore our colleagues across the way to do more than just lip service. I hope that their words are true.

Sadly, what we have seen over the course of the previous four years and up to this point has really just been lip service. The victims and their families deserve better. We can always do better. If we lead with our hearts and put ourselves in the place of the victims' families, the first responders and those who do the investigations, we will always lead by putting our best foot forward.

I would challenge our colleagues across the way to do that. I know my colleagues in opposition are here to help wherever we can.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, our forestry producers have been somewhat at the table, but not at the table to the extent that they would like to be.

As we have heard time and again, the Liberals like to negotiate in secret and then come out and make some grand announcement as to how it has gone, but our producers, whether they are agri-food or forestry, would like to be more at the table and in charge of, or working in concert with, what the trade negotiations are.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, but I did not hear the question in that.

I will echo our colleague's comments. She is new to the House, but I will echo her comments. Once again, we see another Liberal failure, lots of Liberal promises, but another Liberal failure in addressing any issues that matter most. In our riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and across all of British Columbia, we were hoping for more. Sadly we have gotten much more of the same as what we had seen in the last four years. That is too bad.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, our previous Conservative government put to an end the longest and most costly trade dispute between Canada and the U.S.

Not only did we do that and bring some consistency and some assurances to our forestry industry, we also negotiated a one-year grace period. We got the agreement and the discussions to a certain point in 2015 where, regardless of which group became government in 2015, it should have been able to push this over the goal line.

However, all we have seen is dither and delay, and this has not been a priority from day one. The Liberals have admitted it is so, in not as many words, over the course of the last five years. Now all we are seeing is more excuses and finger-pointing.

The reality is that they have been in government for five years. For five years they have asked our forestry companies and our forestry families to wait and said that they had their backs. They do not, and we have seen that time and time again.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, just before we were so rudely interrupted, I have never done that myself.

We are here to talk about the USMCA, or CUSMA, NAFTA or HALFTA, as it has been called.

It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that I am deeply passionate about my province of British Columbia and my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. The issue at hand that has not been addressed in CUSMA and has not been addressed by either the current government or the previous Liberal government is that of securing a new softwood lumber agreement.

Over 140,000 jobs in my province, whether directly or indirectly, are forestry related. One hundred and forty communities across the province of British Columbia are forestry dependent. Over the course of the last year, we have had 25 mill closures. That is 10,000 jobs lost just over the last year because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement and because accessing our fibre is getting harder, with a carbon tax on top of that. These are making it much harder for our forestry producers to compete.

More and more forestry producers have been divesting themselves of Canadian operations since the Liberals became government, whether it was in their first term in the previous Parliament or during this term. More forestry companies have divested themselves of Canadian operations and are investing south of the border. Members heard that right. More Canadian companies are fleeing our market and investing in U.S. markets. Why is that? It is because it has become easier to do business there and they have a favourable work environment or a favourable investment environment.

We talk about the familial ties between the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Why is that important? I always bring it down to families and how our trade agreements and our policies have their impact. The things that we do here in Ottawa or in our provincial capitals right across our country, the policies that are developed and the agreements that are developed, impact our families.

My family and so many families in our ridings are tied to forestry. My riding is a forestry riding. A lot of our jobs are cornerstone industries, such as agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, and mining, but whether it was the Speech from the Throne in 2015 or the Speech from the Throne in 2019, forestry was left off the books. There was not one mention of forestry.

I will bring the House back to the early days of our previous Parliament. The Prime Minister and his then Minister of International Trade said they were going to get the job done, that they would secure a new softwood lumber agreement. It was early 2016 when a big state dinner took place in Washington. Everybody was invited. Even the Prime Minister's mom was invited. One person was left behind, and that was the then minister of natural resources. Sadly, he did not get an invitation. I guess he did not rank high enough to be there.

One of the very first statements that our Prime Minister made in 2015 on the world stage was that under his government, Canada would become known more for its resourcefulness than for our natural resources, and boy, that is true.

We have taken a lot of hits with the Liberal government because it sidles up to third party groups like Tides Canada, WWF, and Greenpeace. The government allows these groups to permeate the highest levels of office, and that indeed then permeates our policy. They look down upon our forestry practices. They look down upon our natural resource producers, such as oil and gas.

I want to talk about forestry again. Sixty-two per cent of our provincial land base is forest. In the province of British Columbia, we harvest less than 1% of our forests. For every tree that is harvested, three are planted, yet the government continues to look down upon forestry producers.

The province of British Columbia is the largest producer of softwood in the country, and our number one trading partner is the U.S. Therefore, securing a softwood lumber agreement, one would think, would be very important and top of mind. However, here we sit five years later with no softwood lumber agreement.

I will take members back to early 2016 when a state dinner was taking place and the then minister of international trade said the Canadian government had a new-found friendship between the Prime Minister and President Obama. As a matter of fact, I believe it was called a bromance. He said that, within the next 100 days, they were going to secure a solution to the softwood lumber irritant. I believe he said 100 days back in 2016.

Here we sit, time and time again, asking the question. We are told the Liberals' hearts go out to the hard-working forestry families. This is very similar to what they said to the oil and gas workers in Alberta: “Just hang in there.” Sadly, we cannot hang in there much longer.

Time and again, the government members have stood in the House and answered questions on softwood. As a matter of fact, in June of last year, in the dying days of the session, I stood and asked about all the mill curtailments and closures and the job losses in the province of British Columbia. A member, who was a British Columbia MP, who I do not believe made it back to the House and maybe this is the reason why, stood in the House and proudly said, “Job numbers are great. Employment is up and we are doing great.” What a tone-deaf response.

The fact of the matter is that, in my province, every day people open up newspapers and see the job losses, the work curtailments and mill closures. Just before Christmas, in 24 hours, 2,000 jobs were lost. That was just in 24 hours. If that was an auto plant in Ontario, or maybe a manufacturing plant in Quebec that had ties to the Prime Minister, I bet somebody would stand and say, “Enough”, and it would get some form of bailout. However, because it is in British Columbia, which is a long way away on the other side of this country, it seems it is too far and it is forgotten time and time again.

Liberals continue to say that they stand with our forestry families. Time and again, they put their hands on their hearts, maybe wipe away a tear with a tissue, and say they stand with our forestry families.

Are they standing with them in the unemployment lines? Are they standing with them when the banks foreclose on their homes, or are they standing with them when they are facing bankruptcy? That is the reality today. That is what we are facing, and that is shameful.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, what an honour it is to stand in this House. I think this might be one of the first times I have the chance to actually speak at length since the election. It is always good to stand in this House.

Today we are talking about the USMCA or CUSMA—

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to stand in the House and stand up for my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. However, it will not surprise my hon. colleague across the way that I am going to stand up for all the forestry workers and the hard-working forestry families from the province of British Columbia. Over 140,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly, are tied to forestry, and 140 communities are forestry-dependent.

In the last year, we have lost 10,000 jobs, yet there was not one mention of forestry in the Speech from the Throne, and forestry could not have been thrown in or a new softwood lumber agreement could not have been thrown into the CUSMA. My simple question is why.

[Mental Health, January 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, today is Bell Let's Talk Day, a day when we are all encouraged to talk about mental health. Mental health affects us all. Two out of three people suffer in silence, fearing judgment and rejection, and far too often this leads to suicide. It is on all of us as leaders to break this silence, to build an environment of acceptance and understanding, where those who are suffering silently can come out of the shadows and know they will be believed and they are not weak.

My best friend committed suicide when I was 14. Since that time, I have attended far too many funerals and sat with far too many families who are left behind to pick up the pieces because of suicide. Therefore, on this day, my message to those who are suffering is this. They are not weak; they are loved. It is okay not to be okay. Our world is a better place because they are in it.

I urge my colleagues in the House to talk about mental health not just today but every day. I ask them to take a moment to ask these three words of a friend, a loved one, a colleague or even a neighbour: “Are you okay?” I ask them to take a moment to listen as they may just save a life.