Cheryl Hardcastle

[Pensions, November 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound disappointment with the Liberal government's unwillingness to fix its CPP enhancement legislation, Bill C-26, so that Canadians are not punished for being on a CPP disability pension or for taking time off to raise a child.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, so-called dropout provisions have not been included in Bill C-26. NDP amendments to fix this oversight were rejected by the government yesterday. These dropout provisions have been part of CPP since 1976. Essentially, the government is stacking on a layer, or tranche, to expand benefits. Women and people living with disabilities are going to be penalized because this new tranche will not have the same dropout provisions as the existing one.

These provisions have been excluded from the legislation, but we must not give up on other measures in the very near future to fix this injustice.

The minister must commit today to undertake due diligence and consult with each province and territory—

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member was very clever. I am going to remember that in the future.

As a matter of fact, as I was being closed down by Madam Speaker, I was just saying that we urge the Liberals to reconsider. That was pretty much the closing.

Of all the points I was making, and they did culminate with that, that is a very important one. We are rushing this through. There is no need for us to be rushing this through. There is a way we could be doing it. As parliamentarians, we take pride in the place we have here in the House of Commons. We all embrace our due diligence. Whether we agree or not, we all do want to delve in and explore things further.

If there is a way to arrive at consensus, we should find it. I have been inspired by members from every party in the House in doing that and being responsive to real concerns. I thank the member for the opening to talk about how it is not too late for us to make these significant changes and be the vanguard leaders we are expected to be.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought up these two very profound issues that I could speak to at length.

I will start with pharmaceuticals. This is a real challenge for Canadians today. In the House, when we talk about the threat to universal health care and our conviction on this side to defend it, one of the key things the governing party keeps bringing up is that it is going to reduce costs by looking at some ways to come up with a pharmaceutical plan and that it is working on that.

CETA will cripple that initiative. We will not be allowed to do that. Anyone can read this in the document. The myths with regard to this are really frustrating. Every single day in every constituency, members have people who are suffering because of the cost of pharmaceuticals and health care.

Another thing I want to bring up, which we have not talked about at all, is innovation and research in pharmaceuticals. Government-sponsored research and innovation for particular types of cures for certain diseases is also going to be undermined by this deal. Intellectual property will be undermined by this deal.

When it comes to issues like dairy farmers being compensated, I do not understand how we can have the government, on one hand, championing the cause and making these kinds of promises, and then—

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there are a mere handful of protections between average citizens and the predatory nature of global capitalism. The most important of these is a strong sovereign state with the regulatory power to champion the needs of its citizens over those of the non-human entities of global finance and multinational corporations.

In a 2012 dissenting opinion to a CETA-related trade committee report, the Liberals called for further consultation with Canadians on CETA. Now, the trade committee has already passed a motion in camera that will restrict written submissions to only the witnesses selected to appear.

On the other hand, the committee held dozens of meetings on the TPP. It heard from over 400 witnesses and received written submissions from approximately 60,000 Canadians. With 95% of submissions critical of the TPP, it is no wonder that the government does not want to hear from Canadians on CETA.

The sheer determination of the current Liberal government to get CETA ratified despite the genuine concerns and protestations of citizens groups across the European Union and Canada demonstrates to the world what its true priorities are. These priorities are the extension of global corporate rule into every remaining space in the Canadian economy.

For Liberals, it is as if they have had no lessons to learn from Brexit or the Trump phenomenon. Rather, as I suspect, it is as if they wish to get these deals done before we in this country reap the Canadian variants of these whirlwinds.

Let me be clear. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trading relationship to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal.

As I mentioned before, when the Liberals themselves were in opposition, they agreed with the New Democrats that more consultation and analysis were needed on CETA. However, the minister has ignored calls for the removal of investor-state rules, refused to address the rising costs of prescription drugs, and neglected to consult Canadians.

The underlying point here is that Parliament is essentially being asked to write a blank cheque on this implementation bill, despite the fact that each of the 28 EU member states will have to ratify CETA for all of it provisions to apply, a process that is expected to take between two to five years.

I ask, as others here have, what is the hurry? What is the government trying to ram through here? Why is it not letting parliamentarians undertake due oversight when there is obviously enough time for us to examine the bill?

Indeed, there is plenty of time to engage with other signatory members, the EU countries, who are also alarmed by the investor-state dispute mechanism. New Democrats support trade deals that reduce trade tariffs and boost exports, but we will always remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten our sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

In February of this year, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat possible conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor court system, the ICS, still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies will have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws without going through the domestic courts.

This is deeply concerning, as Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world as a result of the dispute mechanisms we have already agreed to. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and the Canadian government has lost many NAFTA cases while continuing to be subject to ongoing complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Existing ISDS measures have also contributed to a regulatory chill in which governments fail to take actions in the public interest that they fear may trigger an investor claim. One thing we have learned very quickly from reading trade agreements over the years is that the priorities of global finance and global corporations are always front and centre in these deals and are always binding. It is environmental, labour, and general human rights concerns that are always relegated to side agreements, where they are non-binding and voluntary. It is strange how that happens.

Witness the so-called joint interpretive statement concerning the investor court system I mentioned earlier. This statement was negotiated as a way to placate the concerns of ordinary citizens who worried that these courts cede far too much of their nation's sovereignty to bodies that are not subject to domestic democratic oversight. Was CETA amended so that these concerns could be included? No, it was not, oddly enough. The joint interpretive statement falls outside the text of the treaty, and therefore would not have full legal weight. We can be absolutely sure this is no accident.

Likewise, the chapter in CETA on intellectual property rights goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand-name pharmaceuticals would have the effect of delaying the arrival of cheaper generics and would increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion per year. This is a cost that I do not think seniors are prepared to take on. Furthermore, I would argue that it would hamper any efforts to bring in a national pharmaceutical strategy, both at the federal level and in what individual provinces are trying to do with their already ballooning health care costs.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government, the Liberals are telling provinces that they will cut health care transfers while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

Most distressing for me, as someone from municipal politics, is the minimum local content policies that could be compromised, even outlawed, above a certain threshold, even in municipal and provincial government procurement. I ask members to think about that and about the initiatives they have worked on when representing people at the municipal level of government, as I know many members have done.

As noted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, these provisions would likely threaten very popular buy local food programs at provincial hospitals, school boards, and other public institutions. They would almost certainly outlaw programs such as the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which requires significant local content in solar and wind projects in order for private energy producers to benefit from generous feed-in tariff rates designed to encourage more renewable power generation. The Canadian Environmental Law Association states the following about CETA:

It will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism...will impact the federal and provincial governments’ authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

Companies will also have an expanded ability to use temporary foreign workers without studying the impacts of that on Canadians. This is a matter of great concern in the Windsor—Tecumseh riding that I represent and the Essex County area at large, where there is a high unemployment rate.

To conclude, the NDP supports trade with Europe. As I have stated previously, we have deep historical and cultural ties with Europe, and within the EU are some of the world's most progressive democracies. However, we are concerned about specific measures in CETA that were negotiated, and it is our job to uphold the interests of Canadians and the global citizens we are. The Liberals have missed key opportunities to fix this agreement, but the deal is not done—

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the member's colleagues yesterday, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and then earlier today to my colleague from Richmond Cove, and they both reflected not just on some of the positive aspects of this trade deal but also the exploitive nature of this deal. Canada has high standards and as far as trade markets opening up for us is concerned, it goes the other way. I am wondering if the member understands that.

Yesterday her colleague said that we need to even out labour standards and regulations across the board. I would like the member's insight. Does she think we should lower our standards, or should other countries raise theirs to meet our existing standards in these markets that we are now saying are threatened and, hence, the need for compensation?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleagues talk about the investor-state dispute mechanism, which is problematic for a lot of people.

It would be very appropriate for my hon. colleague to explain his understanding of that dispute mechanism because it would tie the hands of local governments for the minimum local investment and local procurement. This means that in some of the initiatives that the governing party campaigned on, such as economic stimulus by investment and creating jobs, its hands would actually be tied under a dispute mechanism such as this and with the confines of CETA.

I am a little alarmed that the positive aspects of trade are being looked at, which we do not deny, but we are not looking at the shortcomings of this agreement. I would like to hear the member explain that so we are assured—

[Committees of the House, November 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech with regard to Canadians not being heard and that conditions are being made worse for Canadians. Then I heard our hon. colleague over the way taking offence to an adjournment motion because he is concerned that there are so many things that we need to do for Canadians.

I would like to ask the member this. Does he understand and is he concerned that we are debating a motion about CPP enhancements that are ignoring vulnerable people? They are persons living with disabilities and women who have opted out of the workforce because of child rearing. These issues could be fixed with very simple amendments. It is almost disingenuous to hear the rhetoric today, if there really is a genuine desire for us to be addressing and doing the real hard work that the House of Commons needs to do. I would like the member talk about how he understands the hypocrisy of this.

[Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as vice-chair of the international human rights subcommittee, I rise on behalf of my caucus in support of this motion and to speak to its intent.

Determining which historical events should be considered genocide, rather than, say, a crime against humanity or a war crime, is not a clear-cut matter, and no agreed upon formal process exists. For atrocities that are committed during the present time, we have recourse to international courts and tribunals, but these bodies typically do not involve themselves in distant historical matters.

To prosecute present day crimes, investigators amass evidence, build cases against individuals, make formal charges, and interview potential witnesses. In effect, the formal machinery of justice is set in motion. Sadly, no such machinery exists for genocides that may have occurred in the past. The process in fact is entirely political.

As we know, when accusations of genocide are made, the details are often hotly disputed, particularly when dealing with an event in the distant past. Over time, partisans emerge, and wield oftentimes radically different versions of facts.

Parliaments get involved, bills are passed, and resolutions are supported, declaring a particular event to be a genocide. Curiously, this is often done without investigations being conducted or reports being tabled, or even without first establishing an agreed upon definition of genocide. What one needs to do is secure a vote. It is a curious process, when we think about it, yet genocide is a profoundly serious matter.

When we seek to designate a particular event as a genocide, we are compelled to exhaustively research the subject. We should consult the very best legal and historical experts available. We should carefully weigh all available evidence and testimony.

Genocides are such a grave matter that we, all of us, have a responsibility to the past and to the future to get it right. We have an obligation to the truth that should transcend present political considerations. One thing a debate about genocide should never be is a cynical political outreach tool by partisan interests to woo important demographics within someone's country.

Genocide is defined in article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

We are debating the bill today due in large part to motivation on the part of the Parliament of Ukraine. In November of last year, the Ukrainian parliament recognized the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime in1944 as a genocide, and established May 18 as an official day of commemoration. Subsequently, Kiev has been urging the parliaments of allied nations to adopt a similar official day of recognition. Here we are today.

While researching the bill, I noted that among mainstream independent historians, consensus does not exist at this time as to whether the events of 1944 constitute genocide. Let me be clear that what was done to the Tatars in Crimea in 1944 is a crime of abominable dimensions. Certainly the NDP will be supporting the bill.

My remarks should be interpreted more as a lament about process. It's a lament that we, the international community, do not have a less politicized way of determining what is and is not a genocide with respect to historical events. Parliaments are not the ideal places to determine such matters. This was in fact noted by Canada's current Minister of Foreign Affairs during another debate about genocide in this chamber last spring.

One curious thing I noted while reading the text of the bill is that it spends almost as much time enumerating the alleged crimes of the present day Russian Federation as it does those committed in 1944. In fact, much of the bill reads like an indictment of Vladimir Putin instead of Joseph Stalin, and this is unfortunate.

The scale of the forced expulsion of the Tatars of Crimea in 1944 was horrific, horrific enough to merit its own debate here. We should resist the urge to use a debate about a possible genocide that occurred in history as a pretext for a narrative against a regime we dislike in the present, no matter how awful that regime may be. The victims of 1944 deserve better. Their descendants deserve better. So let us take a moment and look at the history.

In April of 1944, Soviet forces regained control of Crimea from its German occupiers, who had controlled it for two and a half years. The re-conquest was hardly completed when the Crimean Tatars were deported en masse on the largely false accusation of having collectively collaborated with the Nazis. In a matter of three days, approximately 180,014 Crimean Tatars were deported from the peninsula. Adjusting for natural deaths, historian Michael Rywkin calculates that roughly 42,000 Crimean Tatars perished by May of 1949 as a result of the deportation. Other historians place the number considerably higher.

Social anthropologist, Greta Uehling, has stated this about Stalin's actions:

The systematic erasure of the Crimean Tatars was holistic in nature. Crimean Tatar place names were changed to Soviet ones; mosques were turned into movie theatres (or worse); homes, livestock and gardens were given away; and mention of Crimean Tatars was deleted or abbreviated in reference works. Crimean Tatars were not allowed to reside in, or speak of, their homeland. It wasn’t even possible to preserve a Crimean Tatar identity in personal documents.

Due to the sweeping nature of this ethnic cleansing, the remnants of the dispersed population are not considered a diaspora, but a population in exile.

In fact, the term sürgün is used by the Crimean Tatars to refer to the deportation. It means “expulsion” as well as “exile” in Turkish. By extension, sürgün refers to violent expulsion and the prolonged exile. Since 1944, the sürgün is at the centre of the Crimean Tatar's collective life and, consequently, central to their identity as Crimean Tatars.

In more recent times, the Tatars of the Crimea have almost uniformly opposed the Russian Federation's annexation of the Crimea in 2014. Since this time, according to Amnesty International, Crimean Tatars have faced repressive measures, from media outlets being shuttered, to activists being arrested, and disappeared. Tatars have not been allowed to publicly commemorate the day of remembrance of the deportation.

In April of this year, and confirmed by their court in September, Russia banned the Mejlis, the Crimean Tatar assembly, accusing it of extremism. As a result, anyone involved in one of the more than 250 local mejlis across Crimea risks arrest.

For Tatars, these circumstances are understandably associated with the events of 1944. Indeed, in the minds of Tatars of Crimea, a straight line can be drawn from today, all the way back to Catherine the Great's takeover of the peninsula in 1783.

Sadly, relations between the Crimean Tatars and the rest of Ukraine have been less than ideal through the years. One could even describe them as tense. It is striking to me that though the Ukraine was an independent state for 23 years prior to Russia's annexation of the Crimea in 2014, it made no effort over this time to formally recognize the 1944 ethnic cleansing as a genocide.

Better late than never, I suppose, because politics is politics.

To conclude, let me clearly stress once again: USSR dictator Joseph Stalin's forced expulsion of the Crimean Tatars in 1944 was one of the more heinous criminal acts committed during a century brimming with such crimes.

By my reading of article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this—

[Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question I just asked. Because we are not dealing with present-day atrocities, which have their own recourse in international courts, but are dealing with a historical genocide, are there any supporting documents that will be going into the archives, along with this motion, on the history of this important event? Will the member be tabling any of those?

[Crimean Tatar Deportation (“Sürgünlik”) Memorial Day Act, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge that in our present day we do have recourse with international courts for present-day atrocities. It is the distant historical matters, such as my hon. colleague's motion is about, that really do rely on the political process. Given the nature and the scale of the crime that is surrounding this motion here today with the Crimean Tatars, does my friend not believe that we should be focusing our discussion on that historical atrocity? Does he also plan to table any reports or evidence that can go along with this documentation on the Sürgünlik genocide?