Alistair MacGregor

[Fight Against Food Waste Act, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for bringing forward this very important bill.

As the member well knows, the NDP has done a lot of work in the area of food security. I think specifically of Malcolm Allen, the former member of Parliament for Welland, and Alex Atamanenko, the former member of Parliament for British Columbia Southern Interior, who together developed a pan-Canadian food strategy.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how her particular bill fits in with that overall strategy and the important conversation that our country needs to have on food security more generally.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated hearing my Conservative colleague's speech, especially his comments about coming to this place to learn to respectfully hear each other out.

I am curious about the member's personal views on when local, provincial, or federal governments legislate in the public interest. What are his thoughts on inserting clauses into trade agreements that would allow private foreign companies to sue those governments that legislate in the public interest? Does he put more stock in the company's ability to sue, or does he put faith in elected governments representing their constituents?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, our job in the NDP is to bring a voice to Parliament which so often goes unheard by government. My job here is to speak on behalf of my constituents and a larger group of people, whether they are environment or labour groups. People have raised legitimate concerns about this trade agreement and we are presenting those voices to Parliament because so often they are shut out from negotiations. Therefore, I unapologetically stand here on their behalf to give voice to their concerns because it needs to be heard in this chamber.

With respect to the auto pact, yes, as my friend from Vancouver Kingsway said, there is a danger with the auto industry that we could miss the boat. However, it still means we need to give a critical look to this deal to decide ultimately, holistically if it is in the best interests of our country going forward.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the aisle on putting this artificial deadline in place. The legislatures of all 12 countries now have two years in which to consider this. To suddenly say that June 29 is when the government must declare support for this is simply an arbitrary number. It does not matter if it is going to be the three amigos summit.

However, I agree with him on the local infrastructure. I am worried that when local governments are putting out tenders for procurement, trade deals like this will interrupt their ability to support local companies.

I agree that international trade is not the most pressing issue of our time. We need to look at examples like his community and communities across Canada to identify the great amount of income inequality that exists in Canada and take some firm actions to address it.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House in the debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by the Conservative Party on the trans-Pacific partnership and whether Canada should be engaging in it, whether we need to sign the agreement early, and so on and so forth.

We know when the Conservatives were in government they did hold highly secretive consultations which, for the most part, were hidden from the eyes of Canadians. These consultations, while they included many people from the corporate world, did exclude labour groups, environmental groups, and other members of civil society, the very same people upon whom the TPP is going to have a profound impact.

We know that the member for Abbotsford, who was the former international trade minister, was the one who started the negotiations in this regard and really was pushing it, trying to get the deal signed right during the middle of the election. Therefore, it is not a surprise that we are dealing with this motion today.

It is, however, unfortunate because at this very moment, the Standing Committee on International Trade is holding public consultation hearings across the country to hear what Canadians are saying. This motion is putting the cart before the horse. The committee is in Windsor today, listening to how the deal would negatively impact jobs in southwestern Ontario. Earlier this week, the committee was in Montreal, where it met with 19 witnesses, 19 of whom were opposed to the TPP.

Part (b) of the motion says:

the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the best opportunity to strengthen the multilateral trading system and develop rules that protect Canada’s economic interests;

That last part about protecting Canada's economic interests is what I take issue with, because I think we, on this side of the House, have a differing opinion on that. The real fact of the matter is that this deal is estimated to cost about 60,000 Canadian jobs and it will give more rights to corporations through investor-state clauses.

I know this will shock some of my Conservative colleagues in the House but we in the NDP are in favour of trade deals, just not the ones that Conservatives and Liberals sign. We are in favour of fair trade, not free trade, and not in deals that are created just as corporate rights deals.

As my friend the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned, 97% of Canadian exports that go to TPP countries are already tariff-free anyway. It gives rise to the question as to why the Conservatives are insisting upon this motion today.

I want to talk a bit about human rights, because much has been made about some of the countries that these deals have been signed with. This deal is going to link us with countries that have known poor labour rights records, like Brunei, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

Signing deals like this with countries with those kinds of records gives them a legitimacy that they should not have. It has been done in the past. The Conservatives did it before.

For example, Honduras has a terrible human rights record and not a very large economy, but the Conservatives signed the free trade deal anyway. When it comes to organized labour, Colombia has a shocking record of using militias and paid groups to brutally suppress any form of demonstration that goes against the corporate mantra the country operates under. We have seen examples of it. There have been examples of Canadian companies being complicit in South America in fomenting that kind of organization against labour.

I do not think we should just legitimize these countries in the name of giving corporations more power.

Some of the issues that have been brought to me by my constituents make it very clear that I cannot, as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, speak favourably about a trade deal that would be so destructive to working people.

I want to speak a bit about the investor-state dispute resolution settlement.

The investor-state dispute settlement allows corporations to sue governments in secretive tribunals and tie the hands of governments that try to improve health care or environmental laws.

Governments trying to protect the environment or the health of Canadians are simply doing the job they were sent there to do by their constituents. These have been brought down by global trade rules and they have allowed corporations to sue, based on the complaints that they will lose profit.

I remember one particular example. The green energy plan of Ontario was designed to create local jobs by moving to a greener future. The Government of Ontario tried to source local solar panels and to create an economy while at the same time moving to alternative energy. That is a noble pursuit that any government in Canada should be doing. However, it was smacked down by the World Trade Organization because the Government of Ontario was found to be discriminating against foreign suppliers. Is that really the kind of deal we want, where local Canadian technology companies are being smacked down, when local citizens, through their elected representatives, want to support local industry? Is that really the kind of deal we want? I do not think so.

My province of British Columbia was sued in 1998 over its water protection legislation that Sun Belt Water Incorporated felt harmed its profits.

The TPP would also lock in intellectual property policies like patent term extensions which were recently set by the Conservatives. This would ensure that Canada continues to have one of the highest per capita drug costs in the OECD. That is something that flies in the face of our trying to get a national pharmacare plan up and running.

Raw logs is an explosive issue in my riding. Under the current provincial laws, export of raw logs requires an exemption licence from the B.C. government, although the B.C. government has not been very good at doing that. One example shows that in 1997 we were exporting 200,000 cubic metres of raw logs. Nowadays it is 5.5 million cubic metres. With the TPP, we have already heard that Japan wants to ease the restrictions on raw log exports so that it gets the raw product, gets to make it into something, and perhaps sells the finished product back to us. If Canada and Japan ever disagreed on the interpretation of the rules, it would again go to a secret trial with no input from the elected representatives.

The Broadbent Institute said:

Beyond the narrow calculus of likely winners and losers from changes to the trade rules, the TPP reinforces policy rules which prevent Canada from pursuing more active economic development strategies to diversify our economy.

The TPP will likely limit our ability to require higher value added processing of our resource exports to Asia, such as restrictions on the export of logs rather than lumber, or on unprocessed fish rather than fish products.

If we really want to get past our image as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, we need to critically examine deals like this and ask whether they are really serving the national interest. Are we really encouraging that value-added industry?

Supply management is another big issue. My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway already went over the large compensation package that was offered to farmers, and it begs the question, if this is really so good for supply management, why it is that dairy farmers are being offered such a big package. Really, I think it will be the beginning of the end for our supply management system, a system that promotes a great way of living for farmers. I know many farmers in my riding have talked to me about how they depend on it for their local families.

One of our greatest tests in this day and age is how we react to climate change and protect our environment. We need to really be active in measures like that. As I mentioned earlier, we need to support local technology and alternative energy, specifically developing homegrown industries that develop solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power, and so on. We need to have the ability to invest in local jobs that make those products and not be under fear of persecution under a trade deal like the TPP just because we are deciding to support local industry.

In closing, I will just say that the wording of this motion is putting the cart before the horse, especially in light of the fact that the trade committee is doing important work, listening to witnesses and hearing a lot of negative reactions.

I am proud to stand with the New Democratic caucus in that we believe in fair trade and not just free trade. I hope all hon. colleagues will stand with me on that note.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the important work my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has done as the NDP status of women critic.

Looking at the bill through the lens of her critic portfolio, what kind of message does it send to the strong women in the RCMP that harassment has been kept from the bargaining process? I am curious as to her thoughts on that.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, May 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, after promising to clean up Liberal patronage scandals, the Conservatives decided rewarding bagmen and donors was the way to go: 80% of the CBC's board, all previous prime minister's appointees, are conservative donors, and just last week one board member quit so he could run to be the Conservative Party president.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised an independent process to appoint board members at the CBC, but so far we have nothing.

When will the government adopt a new, transparent, and accountable process for the CBC board?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that everyone in the House to some extent has had personal experience with the loss of a loved one. For me, it was my wife's grandmother, who was suffering from dementia. Had we stepped back a few years with her when she was present and cognizant and if she had been able to peek into the future and look at what her life would end up being, she might have wanted a different path. It is very hard to witness someone going through that who has lost the mental faculty to make a decision on his or her own.

I agree with the member. It is a very thorny subject, but I believe it is one that absolutely deserves a closer look. Someone who has a diagnosis of dementia is going to look at section 7 of the charter and is going to say, “This is failing me.” He or she is then going to take it to the Supreme Court and I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court will rule in that person's favour. It is up to us to grapple with this issue now.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the member that the timeline is not ideal. Here we are on May 2, and June is next month and that is the deadline. This bill still has to make it through committee, come back for report and third reading, and go through the Senate before the Governor General signs off. In that time, we have not had much time to do the proper work, but we have to deal with what we have.

As for the certain clauses that the member was talking about, I just wish that the government had listened a bit more and followed the special joint committee's recommendations. Specifically with proposed paragraph 241.2(2)(d), that was a glaring oversight. However, again I do welcome its going to committee and I hope we have amendments that do it justice.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to continue the debate on Bill C-14.

I truly believe that this debate we are having, and the quality of the debate I have heard throughout the day, is going to be a watershed moment for our country. It is certainly going to be one for the history books, because through a charter challenge, the Supreme Court is forcing us as a legislative body, as a country, to fundamentally examine the meaning of life, the meaning of death, and how we as a society treat those two very difficult concepts.

Death is a hard subject to talk about. Humans have, for thousands of years, struggled with the concept and how we deal with it. Many of us turn to spirituality to find answers, and others are more matter of fact. In any case, the debate concerning life and end of life has reached Parliament's doorstep, and it is up to us as parliamentarians to carry the torch and do that subject the honour and justice it deserves.

As a rookie member of Parliament for the great riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have been receiving correspondence from my constituents. I must say to the constituents who are watching the debate today that I have never been prouder to be an MP for their area. The tone in which they have written me, whether they disagreed with the legislation or supported it, has been incredibly respectful.

Of the concerns that I have seen from constituents, some want to see more protection for health care workers. They are concerned that freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are not respected enough in the legislation. However, others do not think that the bill goes far enough. They have looked at the ruling from the Carter decision and compared the provisions of Bill C-14 with it and have found it lacking.

I have heard other hon. members in the House say that, no matter what bill comes out at royal assent, they do see challenges in the future, but it is up to us as parliamentarians to do the best we can with the time we have.

Speaking of the bill, I am going to support this legislation at second reading, because I think we have something to work with. To do honour and justice to it, we must send it to committee so that we can have a more fulsome look at its provisions, and we can hear from witnesses. Furthermore, we must take the recommendations from the special joint committee and see if some of those recommendations can be adequately applied.

I support this legislation, because I believe in a patient-centred approach. I realize that my support of this legislation will cause some of my constituents distress. It is one of the challenges of being an MP. It is balancing the views of one's constituents with one's own personal values. This is the eternal struggle that each and every one of us finds in the House every single day.

However, I believe that, if we are talking about values, one important concept to look at is to not impose one's values on someone else, but to respect a person's values. If a person's values means that he or she is choosing a way out to end suffering that we as healthy people can only imagine, well then we must respect that choice. I fundamentally believe in that.

Looking at the Carter decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it had to be a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including illness, disease, or disability, which causes enduring suffering and is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

Section 7 of the charter says:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The court found that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringed on the right to life, liberty, and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and that is why we are here today.

Of the recommendations of the special joint committee, there are three in particular that I want to look at. In a 10-minute speech, to look at all 21 is rather impossible, so I will start with recommendation 7, which dealt with advance directives.

There was a recommendation that advance directives be allowed, but unfortunately, Bill C-14 only makes mention of advance directives in the preamble. The preamble committed to exploring it, but there was no firm commitment in the legislation.

The other recommendation I want to look at is number 10 regarding freedom of conscience. The preamble, again, committed to non-legislative measures in this particular area. There is a template that the government could have followed. There is precedent in protecting freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. It goes all the way back to 2005 when Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act.

For the reference of all MPs in the House, I will note that section 3 of the Civil Marriage Act states, “It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.” Section 3.1 says, “For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise”. There was a template and hopefully this is one area that the committee can examine further.

The other recommendation I want to look at is number 2. That was basically following the Carter decision. It states, “That medical assistance in dying be available to individuals with terminal and non-terminal grievous and irremediable medical conditions”. Unfortunately, the text of the bill, referring specifically to proposed paragraph 241.2(2)(d), reads, “their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”.

This is one section where I do not know why the government wrote it in, because it goes against what the Carter decision specified and it goes against what the special joint committee recommended, yet it is here. I see nothing but problems with this. I see future charter challenges.

We owe it to Canadians to get this bill right the first time and not force people to go through the courts for several more years, only to have this legislation dumped back in our laps again. It is the same with advance directives. There will be people who get a diagnosis of dementia. We all know the end result of having Alzheimer's and they will ask why they are being excluded and why their advance directives are not being respected.

I would like to talk a bit about palliative care. I know it is a subject that has been talked about a lot in the House. The reason is that when this bill receives royal assent in June, it is going to be the law of the land. Palliative care is in such a sorry state in so many jurisdictions in Canada right now that I do not want Canadians to be living in a hospital bed somewhere with substandard care and thinking their only way out is to end their lives. That is why we talk about palliative care with such urgency, because once this bill becomes the law of the land, that is what some Canadians may think is their only option. We have to treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

I would now like to talk a bit about the great work that the member for Timmins—James Bay has done. It is very important to recognize that a previous motion in the House of Commons was passed with all-party support in 2014, yet here we are in 2016 still talking about it. I would love to have seen some firm dollar commitments in the budget. Until we see that, all we have is talk. We need an absolute pan-Canadian palliative care strategy. I was honoured to walk in the Hike for Hospice on the weekend in my riding. A great bunch of people in the community came out for it.

I would like to end on the concept of empathy versus sympathy. Up until this point, our country has had a sympathetic viewpoint on this whole issue and true empathy means that people step outside of just feeling sorry for people and actually perceive the world through their eyes. That is what this legislation aims to do, to see the world through the eyes of someone who is suffering from a condition. We have no idea what it is like and that is what everyone needs to be doing in this country, being more empathetic and trying to provide true support.

I will end there. I am thankful for this opportunity.