Bradley Trost

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I appear to have about six minutes, but before I go on, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara Falls.

The last time I rose in the House to speak, it was concerning the trans-Pacific partnership. I thought perhaps the next time I would speak on natural resources, or agriculture, or perhaps issues relating to my constituency in the Saskatoon area, as Saskatoon—University is the name of my riding. I never thought that I would be involved in a debate concerning a matter such as we had in the House last night.

Many members have been referring to their length of service in the House and that they have not seen something like this. I am not the longest serving member of the House, but I have been here almost 12 years. June 2004 was my first election. I have to say I have seen not always the best behaviour, but I have not seen a physical altercation between members, particularly senior members of the front bench. It has been noted in Hansard that backbenchers over the years have done things to threaten each other. The members in this room know this, but people reading this in Hansard or watching this on TV need to grasp that this is unique.

I want to frame my remarks in the context that not only do we need to know how to behave in the House, but we need for Canadians to understand how we generally behave, that this situation is unique, and why it is so particularly unacceptable.

It is very unfortunate that often many Canadians only tune in to see some of the highlights, or in this case the lowlights, of a parliamentary day. It is difficult sometimes to explain, as one goes around to schools or talks with constituents, that by and large the decorum of this place, the relationships we have with members of other parties are actually quite good and productive.

In the 12 years I have been here, I have served on interparliamentary trips with members, particularly to Washington, but to other places, I have worked on committees, and I have seen the debate in the House. Yet when we talk to Canadians about the House of Commons, they think of the most chaotic incidents in question period and incidents like what happened last night, and the House is brought into disrepute. This is one of the things I was pondering as I was thinking about my remarks.

The actions that happened last night in the House most directly affected the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, but it also affects each and every member because the credibility of this place goes down. That is a very serious thing. We are having a debate in the House and starting to engage on the concept of broader electoral reform, and the argument is often made that Canadians do not respect this place and that is why voter rates are going down. Whether or not that argument is true, I do not know.

The issue that this does bring is that, when there are Canadians who tune in, particularly Canadians who are not good students of politics, not people who follow Hansard, the debates, or question period closely, this will be their impression of this place. This will be their impression of each and every member of this place. There are 338 of us who had our reputations damaged last night.

The Prime Minister has apologized and we in this place take him at his word, but the difficulty is that the damage will still be done. Over the years, I have seen poor behaviour in committees. I have never seen someone strike, come over, or touch someone else in committees. I have seen it almost happen, but not quite happen.

That is one of the things I will take away from this debate. I want to emphasize to Canadians who are watching that the behaviour of members of Parliament is positive most of the time. We are collegial. I have friends in the Liberal caucus, and I have had friends in the NDP caucus over the years. Events like this damage our working relationships with each other.

I will pause here and resume my final remarks after question period.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, most of the Liberal speakers today have come down firmly on both sides of the fence. Since they are all about consultation today, let me ask the hon. member this. In his opinion, what would be a reasonable timeline for the consultation to be finished and for the government to give a decisive answer? When does he think, with his expertise, being on the trade committee, that consultation will have been sufficient? When does he think the government will be able to have an answer? Will it take more time than for the electoral reform consultations, or less time?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada should be one of the first, if not the first, because we need to take leadership. There is hesitation in the U.S. Congress, and Canada is one of the voices that has been listened to historically down there.

If this agreement is to go through, not only for the good of Canada but for the whole world, someone needs to be a leader. We are not seeing that in the United States of America right now. It would be good if it came from Canada as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have not asked my hon. friend exactly quite what she meant. I think one can say with reasonableness, the general idea is the debates and the negotiations around the TPP had been going on since it was first gazetted, since it was first negotiated.

Former secretary of state Clinton, now presumed to be presidential nominee for the Democrats, sometimes likes to own it and take credit for it, but the idea of it has been around for quite some time, even if the specific text and the final decisions around it only came about at the end of last fall.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it strategically puts us in a good position to trade with both blocs, particularly with the auto industry, because most of our automotive products are specialized. The few lines that we export, if my memory serves me correctly, is 80% to 85% of our auto products. This would put us in a good strategic position.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, of course I believe that Canadians have a role. However, when we look at who presents, what the NGOs are, and what their positions are, I think we will find they are entirely predictable. Therefore, this is not something that is particularly new. The groups that tend to be opposed to trade agreements tend to be opposed to this one. Those who tend to be in favour of trade agreements tend to be in favour of this one. I am not getting nearly as much written correspondence or people coming into my office with respect to the TPP as I am on other issues, particularly the government's assisted dying-euthanasia legislation, which the government has not provided nearly as much time for consultation on as they have with respect to the TPP.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to engage in debates on trade in the House, because whenever I listen to people talk about it, I feel that many members of the House need to have a basic primer in economics, a basic one plus one equals two. When I hear people talk about needing more exports, fewer imports, and vice versa, those are really two sides of the same equation: exports equal imports. The reason we export is to get imports.

The example that is always given is someone's basic labour. I export my labour to my employer so I can import and consume things. When we talk about trade, sometimes the basics of economics get left out, so let me bring the basic argument for free trade.

I understand no trade agreement, the TPP included, is a perfect free trade agreement, but it is rules-based trade and it brings down tariffs and it brings down barriers. While it is not the academic perfect argument for free trade, all the trade agreements that Canada has signed going back to the FTA with the United States, is an improvement and something that moves us along the way to the ideal which is basically free trade.

The basics of trade agreements are that the fewer barriers, the fewer inefficiencies we have in the way, the more we can trade back and forth, the better off everyone is. This is not a zero sum game. We all win. If I can figure out some way to produce something better and more efficiently, I have more of it and I can therefore trade and give it to everyone else.

We see this in our individual lives. We see this when businesses engage in it at a very basic level. We understand it and no one argues the facts, even if in practice they do not follow it when it comes to interprovincial trade, but for some reason, we lose sight of this basic fact when it comes to international trade.

Just because someone is in another country does not mean he or she cannot add to our wealth by trading with us the same way that I trade with my employer. This is something that while not unanimous in economic circles, is as close to unanimous as one can get when it comes to any issues involving economics. It is that basic principle of free trade that I am standing here to argue for today. I want to emphasize that because it is not just our exporters that win.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have ably discussed the specifics in their ridings, in their parts of the country, what specific exporter wins. I am from Saskatchewan. Everyone knows Saskatchewan for its agriculture. Particularly for an area involving the TPP, with the growing populations in both Latin America and Asia, anything that opens up agriculture export markets is marvellous. With the rising populations, the rising incomes in this area, the demand for high quality food, food that raises health standards and raises standards of living is extraordinary.

For Saskatchewan, this is a winner. No one can grow wheat quite like we can. As countries shift to healthier cooking oils, canola oil—or Canadian oil which is the root of the term—is a great winner. All these individual products do win. However, it is not just the exporters. We have to remember consumers win, too, because each and every one of us exports, produces something so that we can import. We go to work, receive a paycheque and we go out and buy a new vehicle, a house, a meal at a restaurant, clothing and things for the family. Those are the imports into my household.

The same thing is Canada will gain as it imports from these countries. As countries in the TPP produce goods in a more efficient way, we in Canada can buy them less expensively. We can import them. That is one of the basics that we need to understand about any of these deals.

Another thing I would like to explain to the people watching today and those who will read Hansard later is to understand why we are actually having this debate. The various parties are laying out their positions. It has been six or seven months. The TPP was negotiated over a long period, and yes, the absolute details of the agreement were not known, but the general ideas behind it have been known literally for years.

It basically boils down to this: the internal and external politics of the Liberal Party.

As has been pointed out, in the past the Liberals have had a habit of saying one thing on the campaign trail, while campaigning to get votes from New Democrats by arguing positions to labour unions, environmental groups, and other areas of the left that they would like to poach votes from, and then, once in government, reality sinks in and they want GDP and economic growth so that they can deliver and spend as they want to do. They did this with NAFTA. They denounced it and then adopted it.

Here is the difficulty. The Liberals understand that the TPP is good for Canada's growth. Most economists agree. There is a handful who do not, and we can dispute their data. Free trade works and this is a positive for the country. They know that. The problem is that they do not want to alienate certain voter groups on the left who they wish to appeal to and who often would vote for New Democrats. Therefore, they are looking to bide their time until they know whether or not the TPP will go through. Right now, the U.S. Congress does not look favourably disposed to it. If the U.S. vetoes this deal, it will probably fail. What the Liberals need to do is to find a way to back out of it if it does not go forward, but to adopt it if it does go forward because Canada has to be a part of it. They know that from the macroeconomics. Therefore, they have come up with this farce that they are passing off as democratic consultation. This is what is going on.

As has been noted, the Liberals are trying to rush through changes to our voting system, a quasi-constitutional item, but at the same time, a trade agreement, which is significant in and of itself, they are delaying, buying time, and talking about consultations when the parties who are interested, which unfortunately does not mean most Canadians, have firm views on it. That is what is going on today. We are trying to force the Liberals to make a definitive decision and state whether they will support something that is for the good of the country or continue to talk this issue away, hoping they do not have to make a decision.

It is important that Canada make a decision. It has to do with the strategic understanding of where this treaty is going. Canada and the other countries that are involved in it need to make a decision to put pressure on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. government to understand the importance of this. We need to do that to force it to go forward because this is an agreement that will tie the broader Pacific regions together. It will provide economic benefits greater than we could supply through aid to some of the poorer countries in it. It will tie countries together across the Pacific Ocean in a positive way, to support one another and to bring them into our circle of influence, and by “our” I do not just mean Canada but the more advanced democratic nations, and therefore, have a positive influence.

That is one point I wish to make, because while it has been made clear today that this will benefit Canadian exporters and consumers, there is also the geopolitical strategic necessity of getting involved in this. For that, Canada should be a leader. We should not sit around and have a foreign policy that does nothing but contain beautiful words without any activity. This is something where Canada could take leadership and go forward.

With that, it looks like my time is close to winding up. Therefore, I look forward to any questions. However, I reiterate that I believe in this agreement because of what it does for Canada's strategic interests, for Canada's exporters, for Canada's workers, and for Canada's consumers.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and since it was really more of a comment than a question, I will say I very much understand where he comes from and we have very similar views on this issue. Since this is my last time to raise a comment, I just want to make one last comment before debate resumes.

I did not mention my support for conscience rights, and I want to add one small thing to that. We often speak about conscience rights as if they are conscience rights based upon religion. Conscience rights should be for everyone. It does not matter what our background or what our basis is, atheist, religious, irreligious, whatever it is and for whatever reason.

For the trauma that a person could feel if he or she helped to assist someone else to die, for just that personal reason, even if one supports the principle of the legislation, there should be no restriction on this conscience legislation, whatever we put with the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I understand very much where he is coming from, and I suspect that is one of the reasons why he will carry the majority opinion of the House.

As I stated earlier, and again I have no doubt that I am in the minority, my underlying preference would have been an absolute rejection and use of the notwithstanding clause, either as a temporary measure to give this House two or three years, whatever time the House deemed appropriate, to deal with this issue, or as a permanent matter.

I would say to the hon. member, there are applications for extension. I realize the Supreme Court would not look all that favourably on it, but it would be necessary. A temporary piece of legislation to say for one or two years the notwithstanding clause would be put in and then other legislation put through later in this Parliament would be another option. Those are various options that I think the House could look at.

Again, I am realistic enough to understand and suspect my opinion is in the minority.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let me start tonight by thanking my constituents who have written to me on this issue. It is approaching 12 years that I have been a member of Parliament in this place and, unlike some other members, there are issues on which I have received more correspondence. However, I have received a fair bit of input from my constituents and, not surprisingly, it varies. I want to express my appreciation because the democratic process only works when everyone is engaged, when citizens speak what they feel are the fundamental principles involved.

I also want to give a special shout to one of the high school classes at Bishop James Mahoney High School, which I was at last week. We discussed these very profound issues. The young people in a grade 11 class had thought about it deeply. They had read the legislation. They had gone through it, unfortunately I might say, more thoroughly than some of the parliamentarians who may be voting on this in the future. The students had come to some very clear conclusions and understandings about what this is, because however a member will vote on what we are speaking on tonight, this is a moral issue for however we deal it. Not that most, if not all, issues do not have a moral component, but this one in particular is fairly clear.

As has been said by other members, this is also a fairly personal thing. Each and every one of us will have to deal with death at one time in our lives.

I was on the phone earlier today with my mother, and she reminded me that it was exactly a year ago today when she called me and said to go down to the nursing home because my grandma was passing away. She did not pass away that day, but she knew she was dying. I held her. It was one of those times when we begin to think about the consequences.

There had been the previous court ruling. One has responsibilities to family, to country, to everything. As a member of Parliament, I feel that all members of Parliament, even those who cannot speak to this debate, have a duty to tell their constituents how they stand.

The first point I wish to make tonight is one that people need to understand. The law is a blunt instrument. The law is not something that can easily distinguish fine and distinguishable cases. The law is something that is very difficult to implement in very specific situations. In a situation like this where we are dealing with a law that involves the protection of life, we must give the absolute greatest caution and protections to life.

Pollsters ask questions. They ask people how they would vote in this situation or that situation. However, to be perfectly blunt, no pollster can encapsulate the complexity of even one unique situation. Yet we as legislators are asked to make a decision, to come to some sort of conclusion. That is part of our job.

Because the law is such a blunt instrument, because the law cannot distinguish in the most subtle cases, and because human beings are valuable, we must give whatever protections we can to life. It is for that reason that, whatever the restrictions that have been suggested by other members tonight, I will be supporting that. I suspect that I will be in the minority in this House in that I will not be supporting the legislation, because I do not support the underlying principle of the legislation. I suspect that I will be in an even smaller minority in that I would be prepared to support the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court's decision.

However, it comes down to that basic and fundamental understanding that the purpose of civil society and the purpose of government is to protect life—life, liberty, and the protection of property. Those are the things that we are to do.

Yesterday, I was at an event where we had a speaker talking about freedom and about the issues involved. He noted that throughout history there have been different forms of government, but mostly they have come down to three basic styles: familial, clan-style government like there are in many African tribal societies and like the clan system of northern Scotland; a hierarchical system, such as dictatorships and the system in the Middle Ages when they had the emperor, the king, the surfs, etc.; or a covenantal system where each and every member of society agrees, sometimes to some degree compelled by law but often through their own decision, to their own actions and their commitment to morality, to be covenanted to be part of and supportive of their neighbour.

That is one thing we need to understand. The basis of constitutional government is a system where we covenant to each other, to support each other, and not because we are forced to through a hierarchical power structure. Yes, there are police, laws, and ways of dealing with wrongdoers. However, each and every one of us has a particular commitment to our fellow citizens throughout our lives, even until the end of our lives. That needs to be thought about in each and every situation as we debate this legislation. That commitment to each other, at the bare minimum, is a commitment to defend the lives of our fellow citizens and fellow human beings.

Earlier last month, in the popular press, there were stories about some doctors in Quebec. I hope this is a mistaken story as these things are often exaggerated, but the story was told that some doctors had refused to treat people who had attempted suicide, even though they were very treatable. The college of physicians and surgeons in Quebec had to set a guideline to say that if people go into the hospital, doctors must treat them and not just assume that because they have attempted suicide, they have given an indication that they want to die. If the people are not covered under either the Quebec law or the Supreme Court ruling, they must be treated. Doctors have a responsibility, a covenant, to protect the life of a human being and that is the job of a doctor in an emergency ward.

When I read that article, I thought to myself that we need to understand that this is one of the consequences of passing this legislation. There are people, regardless of how many protections there are, whose lives will be taken because of this legislation. Again, I hope the story in Quebec was incorrect, but if it was true, there were people who attempted suicide, cried out for help, and unfortunately, were successful, but whose lives could have been saved.

Because of this debate politically, because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, and because of previous legislation by one of the provinces, there is a very real possibility some doctors did not interfere. When we hear about and discuss the suffering that people are concerned about—and in many cases, it is the fear as much as the suffering that people want to end as they come to the end of their lives—we need to understand that each and every one of us, even as we approach the end of our lives, still has that covenant with our fellow man. The question of how much suffering for one human life is one that we are very practically applying today in this legislation.

We need to understand that and ask ourselves how much suffering and fear we want to deal with and how much we want people to take in exchange for a human life. We make those decisions. We have to in society. It is not a morbid question; it is a realistic question. We set speed limits. We do these things. We know there are consequences to actions. We cannot live in a perpetual bubble.

The point I am making is this. Even at the end of life, if one has fear or pain—and I do not doubt the sincerity, the depth, and the agony of people who go through this—the decisions people make as they approach the end of their lives will impact others. There will be others who, because of the changes in this law and the reasons that are given for the law, will be pressured and will lose their protections such as in the cases I referred to in the province of Quebec. That is something we cannot forget. The ultimate duty of civil society and of government is to protect life. We must do it at all costs.

I again want to thank my constituents and my fellow members of Parliament, but to have a clear conscience, I must vote against this legislation. I can do no other.