Cheryl Hardcastle

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

As I hear others who are speaking on this issue validate their informed comments with their lineage in agricultural history, I would like to give a shout-out to my agricultural family, from dairy farmers to wheat farmers. Everyone is busy right now, getting the machines ready and getting into the fields. This is a very busy time. I salute them.

I would also add that in my informal discussions, not in political discussions with my colleagues here, these are the same people who are very disconcerted that there is no political will. There is a simple solution that must be addressed in the short term for the viability of family farms. Then, a long-term solution can be finessed, if the government chooses, with proper consultation.

We have seen this problem escalating for a few years, and the political will that was not forthcoming has made our dairy farmers cynical.

It is very disconcerting. Canadian consumers, and those who work in the farm and agriculture sector, including family dairy farms, are confounded by the Canadian government's lack of enforcement of Canadian cheese compositional standards. It is as simple as that.

Dairy farmers, like the Jobins in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, are hard-working, resilient, dedicated members of our communities. Dairy farmers of Canada are disappointed that there was no mention of the safeguarding of their industry in the throne speech or in the budget. These are the same people who are very confounded with the lack of action by the government in its time here, since it did make a commitment during the election phase and it did identify in its 100-day plan addressing this issue.

There is an aligned and cohesive position on this issue of diafiltered milk, which is regarding food security and consumer awareness, as well as protecting a regulatory environment that Canadian dairy farmers accept and operate in. Canada's dairy farmers speak with one voice on diafiltered milk. The Canadian government is allowing this responsible and important industry to be undermined.

Ironically, this motion has been tabled to stress the point that it is not necessary for the government to take its time to develop and pass complex or new regulations and definitions. The solution is actually very simple. The Liberal government needs to enforce the very standards that do exist today. It is that simple.

Where is the conviction and the earnestness now that the Liberals hold government? It is very disheartening to hear the cries of our Canadian families who rely on the dairy industry for their livelihoods being ignored thus far by the government.

During the 2015 election campaign, Canadian dairy producers called for the problem of diafiltered milk to be solved within the first 100 days. The Liberals promised to review the existing “standards, rules, and practices regarding the importation of food products,” including dairy proteins, “to ensure they serve the interests of Canadians”.

They promised to solve the diafiltered milk problem, which is costing our dairy producers millions of dollars. Unfortunately, the Liberals are continuing to drag their feet. Once again, we are seeing that it is political will. It is starting to look like a broken promise. However, the solution is simple. It is a matter of properly enforcing the compositional standards for cheese for all Canadian producers.

The diafiltered milk problem has been going on for at least two years. It is an American product that was exclusively designed to circumvent Canadian laws. It is part of a larger family of concentrated milk proteins. No American processor uses diafiltered milk in its products. None. It is imported and used by Canadian processors in place of milk, leading to huge economic losses for our dairy producers. It is also misleading Canadian consumers.

Canadian producers lose an estimated $220 million per year, $15,000 per producer, from the importation of diafiltered milk. Our producers are worried. Not only has Canada signed trade agreements that undermine supply management and compensation, it is also letting the problem of diafiltered milk drag on. What does this insinuate? That is a troubling question.

I could segue and do a debate on softwood lumber at this point, but I will keep it to diafiltered milk.

It is important that we are concise and that we are enforcing existing standards. Even if we were going to identify a long-term plan, here and now we have to adhere to our standards. These are sovereignty and food security issues, highlighted in the most exemplary fashion.

Our producers are worried, as I said, about our trade agreements that undermine supply management and compensation. It is clear that we have the Liberals following the Conservatives, and they were trying so hard to differentiate themselves at election time. This is the time for them to seize the moment and, as a government, give a demonstrated effort with this opportunity to remove the cynicism that people have with more and more broken promises.

Under the cheese compositional standards for Canada, it is required that a minimum percentage of the protein used in cheesemaking be sourced from milk. Members can see why I talk about the cynicism. We are splitting hairs here, and whom we are letting split hairs are American suppliers who are undermining a Canadian system. This is why we have to act now.

Some processors have taken to using milk protein substances as part of their required minimum percentage of milk when making cheese, instead of using it as part of their allowable percentage of added ingredients. This is inconsistent with its classification at the border, where the ingredients are not even considered under the dairy chapter of the customs tariff schedule, entering the country tariff-free. As a result, more ingredients are being used in cheesemaking than are allowed under the cheese compositional standards. This is resulting in less Canadian milk being used, and a loss of revenue for Canadian farmers.

Having said that, we know that what is happening right now is very disingenuous. The use of diafiltered milk, which is not really milk, is disingenuous. It is surprising that this issue is being ignored and that it has come to this.

My colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé has formulated an excellent motion. This is something that our government can embrace with confidence.

These standards have been in place since 2008, and they continue to go unenforced to the detriment of Canadian farmers.

Today is our time to act. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal government to put its own words and hope into action. I urge it to do so today.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am very intrigued by the member's mention of science with respect to diafiltered milk. I wonder if he is at all concerned that this new product, which is not actually milk, has a differential in calcium penetration. Is that a concern at all? Does he think that consumer awareness should be part and parcel of his arguments?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is concerned at all that two government agencies regard our diafiltered milk product differently. Is it a concern at all that the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency treat it differently?

[Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the bill and convince members of its recognized merits. I do believe it is very important at this time for me to also acknowledge my predecessor in Windsor—Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, who provided me with a lot of history that I think will help members put it in perspective as well.

This is a concise bill that is simply the repeal of one very brief section of the Criminal Code. In effect, it would allow for sports betting on single sporting events in this country, in provinces that choose to allow it.

There are two reasons for my pushing for this change and for the widespread support that this has garnered. One is the economic development tool, as has been mentioned. It would provide communities with revenue, particularly those communities with existing casinos or race tracks and other gaming operations.

We have heard from some provinces, as they are the ones responsible for deploying this tool, that they would be placing the operations in those centres, some more broadly and others on a more limited scale.

We had a study done by the Canadian Gaming Association two summers ago, and it showed, for instance, that it would secure 150 to 200 new jobs in my region of Windsor, which has a very substantial commercial casino, Caesars Windsor. The same is true for the casino in Niagara. I mention these two casinos because they are immediately adjacent to the American border and a number of bets would be placed by our American neighbours, because this practice is illegal in the United States, with the exception of Nevada. I will get to that later.

It would be a good economic tool that would draw tourism and gaming dollars from the United States and potentially from other parts of the world, depending on how it were deployed.

The other major reason that was the impetus for this initiative is that this type of gaming is going on now, but it is almost exclusively offshore, and in Canada it is completely controlled by and is a major revenue source for organized crime.

We have estimates of billions of dollars being gamed in Canada and tens of billions of dollars in the United States because it is illegal there. This legislation would strike a blow against organized crime by taking revenue away from it.

One of the major tools the government can deploy to fight organized crime is to take away financial incentives. This legislation would help us do that. It is a very important bill from this perspective. That industry is very big and it is entirely controlled by organized crime at the present time, both here and in the United States, because it is generally illegal in the United States to bet on one sporting event.

The estimate in the United States is that $30 billion a year is bet on that, all going into the pockets of organized crime and some of it offshore. It is estimated that as much as $2 billion is spent in Canada annually.

With all of that money going out of the country to organized crime syndicates in the United States and the Caribbean, we can see just from those figures that it is important that we move on this.

The other thing is that there is a national gaming association in Canada, and a couple of years ago it completed a study that showed the employment that would be created by making this into a legal business. For instance, in Windsor, there would be another 150 jobs directly secured for current employment at the casino in Windsor.

In the riding of the Minister of Justice there is a casino, and a similar number of jobs would either be saved or added and thus secured in this job creation.

The stakeholder support for this legislation is broad in both the public sector and the private sector. The legislation has support from provincial and municipal governments across Canada, as well as unanimous support from the chamber of commerce community and Canadian labour councils.

In addition, businesses and organizations operating in the tourism sector have expressed support, as well as firms in the so-called grey market, which is the legitimate multinational sport betting operations catering to Canadian clients on the Internet, who want to operate in a clearly defined and regulated environment.

I would also note, as my colleague from Windsor West has discussed, that this legislation has support from the law enforcement community. It is generally recognized as a safe, legal, and regulated environment around this activity that will detrimentally impact organized crime by significantly reducing its revenues from illegal wagering by providing customers with a legal option.

The previous legislation was originally opposed by all four major sports organizations in North America, the NBA, NHL, NFL, the MLB. However, since 2011, the NBA has completely changed its position on single-event sports wagering and the NHL is increasingly becoming involved in gambling after announcing a formal partnership with a major online fantasy sports wagering operation, DraftKings. In short, the leagues are coming to the realization that sports wagering can be an asset to their business and they are beginning to alter their position.

What is the best thing about the bill? It costs the government nothing and it generates considerable revenue for the province, which regulates the practice and puts funding in the coffers for adequate treatment. From this perspective, it is a safe bet indeed.

It is important to set the bill within a historical context, and I take this history from the esteemed member who held my riding, Joe Comartin, prior to the 2015 election.

If we go back and study this closely, the laws on gaming in our country go back to the 1600s in England. I believe Charles I was King at the time. It was a period of time when he was very worried about the military gambling excessively. Laws were passed in Westminster to prohibit all gambling in the country.

Over the centuries, we have eroded that position. In fact, to follow the history in my riding, my predecessor, who is the immediate predecessor of Joe Comartin, the late Shaughnessy Cohen, moved a similar amendment to the Criminal Code that allowed for betting at roulette tables, which was prohibited at the time. It allowed for roulette tables to come into casinos across the country.

Following in that tradition, this is one of those periods of time when we should have our criminal law catch up to the reality of what is happening in our society.

In 1985, the federal government effectively gave up the administration of gaming operations to the provinces. It was one of those periods of time when there were some trade-offs going on with regard to revenue sources. This was a mechanism for the federal government to create new revenue sources for the provinces.

Since that time, a number of provinces have moved into gaming in a variety of ways: lotteries, casinos, additional betting being allowed at racetracks, and the list goes on.

Allow me to recap the reasons for supporting the bill. It would be a blow against organized crime. It would be a potential creator of good jobs for our economy. It would move additional revenue into the hands of the provinces that chose to allow single-event sports betting now that it would no longer a criminal act. It is a very simple amendment that does not require a great deal of effort to understand. I would encourage all members of the House to reconsider and support the bill.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to perception.

Canadian taxpayers are exhausted and disillusioned, and taxpayers in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh specifically are feeling the same way.

Does the hon. member believe that we are ready for a comprehensive and crucial review of the Conflict of Interest Act? Is it time for us to make real meaningful changes that would address the problematic issue of perception and appearance?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned that we are really wasting time in the House today with a lot of back and forth accusations. The past Conservative and Liberal governments have had ample opportunity to address tougher rules. We in the NDP have been calling for that for a number of years. I know from knocking on doors during the election campaign that Canadians, especially those in Windsor—Tecumseh, are astute. They know about the semantics and the smoke and mirrors. They understand how strategy and diversion sometimes just cast aspersions instead of really talking about the crux of the matter, which is the need to revise our rules.

Earlier on I heard a colleague from the official opposition say that perhaps a review of the Conflict of Interest Act would be in keeping with this issue. Is a mere apology enough? Should we be looking at a review?

Could the member give me his opinion on the concept of conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest not really being addressed? That may be the crux of this issue.

[UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of an issue of great significance to every one of us who advocates on behalf of persons living with disabilities. Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities way back in 2010.

However, this convention has an optional protocol, which Canada has yet to ratify. This protocol provides for a complaints mechanism allowing groups or individuals to take a claim before the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If they are not able to obtain justice within their own national jurisdictions, this is where they would go. It is a very important protocol that provides a real mechanism for ensuring that the convention itself is implemented properly within the signatory country.

If the signatory country is genuine about implementing the convention, then it will ratify this protocol. It is as simple as that.

Before members, I urge that Canada immediately sign and—

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments with regard to the budget, which really fell short of the mark in delivering their promises. I would like the member to expand on some information about the nutrition north program, because with accuracy in numbers, we do see that the program is actually receiving a $2.5 million cut compared to last year. I would like to understand how we are going to achieve this equality with all these Liberal broken promises.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member to ruminate a bit with respect to the ad nauseam infrastructure funding that has been described as a key campaign issue and that has been reflected in the budget. My concern is that there is no mention of ensuring that small and rural communities would have their fair share of that. I wonder if the member could explain if there are any measures that he foresees being put in place or if there is a commitment that there would be fair and equitable funding among this shortchanged pot.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Liberals broke a promise to invest $3 billion over four years in health care. There is no mention of that in this budget.

I would like to hear what the actual commitments are now, if there is indeed a different story from when he was campaigning on facts until now. Why is he now abandoning the concept of health care that was campaigned on and which resonated with Canadians?