Rachel Blaney

[Indigenous Affairs, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, reconciliation was one of the four pillars included in Canada 150 celebrations. Unfortunately, the Liberals told indigenous chef, Richard Francis, that sharing his traditional foods could not happen at a Canada 150 event. Touring the country for years sharing his traditional foods of whale and seal as a tool of reconciliation, he described this incident as exactly the type of oppression he is working to eliminate. Actions matter more than words. Therefore, if the government is serious about reconciliation, will it apologize to Chef Francis and act to honour UNDRIP?

[Media Industry, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that more than 30 local and community newspapers across the country will be shut down. The heritage minister has been talking the talk about the news industry crisis. She had options, yet she did nothing to prevent this disaster. Now she is saying she will study the issue, but with no action, frankly, there will not be much left to study.

How can she sit back and do nothing as nearly 300 people lose their jobs? What will the minister say to her colleague the member for Orléans and his constituents when Orleans News shuts down?

[Indigenous Affairs, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, is a fundamental declaration that underlines the rights of the first peoples across the world.

Recently, the Comox Valley Amnesty International group held an event in the K'ómoks First Nation hall to have a discussion on Bill C-262, a bill brought forward by the member for Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou on UNDRIP. What I have heard, clearly, from many indigenous and non-indigenous people in my riding is that a nation-to-nation relationship should mean respecting the first people of our country. That means supporting Bill C-262.

I am pleased to hear the government plans to support the bill, but actions matter more than words. In the context of supporting the bill, I encourage the Minister of Fisheries to take time to talk to the many indigenous people occupying fish farms in my riding. They have been waiting too long for the discussion on rights and title. In the spirit of UNDRIP, I hope action will be taken soon.

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely have heard from the business community in my riding. I have heard repeatedly that these businesses are supportive of tax fairness, but they are not being consulted in a meaningful way. They feel that this could profoundly undermine their businesses. They are concerned about the unintended consequences, especially in rural and remote communities. They want to make sure that their voices are heard.

I have worked hard and continue to work hard with those communities, so I can make sure their voices are heard in the House. That is my job. It is my sacred obligation, and I take it very seriously.

There is another reality. As politicians, we have a responsibility to be ethical and honest. Our constituents are relying on us to do the right thing, to always care about their concerns, and to always be willing to listen, even when we do not agree.

I agree with the member. I have definitely heard from my constituents a raised sense of cynicism and concern that the Liberal government simply does not know or understand the reality of people who are living every day in Canada.

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, what I heard from the people of my riding of North Island—Powell River has unfortunately not changed from what I heard when I was knocking on doors in 2014-15.

I definitely heard from too many women who told me they could not work. One woman in particular came to me recently and shared her reality. She was trying to work, but the costs of day care were so prohibitive that she had to quit her job. She told me that at the end of month she was clearing about $20 a week, because everything she made was going toward paying for day care.

I encourage the government to listen to the people of Canada, to listen to the families, and to hear what they are saying about how expensive child care is. It has not created one child care space in this budget, nor in the last budget. This is really needed. This is about being a feminist country that supports women entering the workforce, and supports families. It is good that they get some money, but the reality is that the money does not come even close to covering the cost of day care.

It is the government's responsibility to work, on all fronts, to support families.

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today we are in this House debating Bill C-63. This is the second bill to implement provisions of the budget. There are a few noteworthy elements in the bill that I will address today. Most importantly, my remarks will focus on what is not in the budget implementation act.

Financial issues have been the main focus in this House during this session. Many Canadians are concerned and have been watching with disappointment. The sponsor of Bill C-63, the Minister of Finance, is embroiled in so many scandals that I do not even know where to begin. Prior to many allegations coming to light, people from North Island—Powell River, my riding, came to my office, wrote me letters, and sent emails protesting and expressing deep concern around Bill C-27, a bill that would weaken pension obligations. When Canadians later learned that the sponsor of that bill, the Minister of Finance, still owns shares in Morneau Shepell, they were concerned. I was asked whether this means that the minister will make millions off the prospect of the bill. They were concerned that the minister would make even more if the bill were passed. This is one of the clearest cases of conflict of interest that we have seen in years. That is why we need a formal investigation into the minister's actions.

Imagine, as well, the sudden influx of calls, emails, and mail in constituency offices across Canada. when the finance minister started his so-called consultation on the small business tax. The minister failed to respect Canadian small business owners in this process. In my riding, I represent many small businesses. In our region, our economy has had many challenges. We have seen a significant change, from a very focused resource-based economy, broadening to include a strong and growing small business community. In the summer, many of the farmers and owners of tourism-based businesses contacted my offices. Many of them simply did not have time during the summer to participate in any consultation.

I also had the honour of meeting with some doctors in my region. What was most disheartening was hearing how hurt they were when the Prime Minister of Canada talked about the so-called rich doctors. In many rural and remote communities across Canada, finding health professionals is hard, and it is getting harder. The doctors who spoke with me were very concerned about the divisive nature of those comments and the impacts on their work in their communities.

Returning to the finance minister, the people from my riding are very concerned about the minister hiding his wealth from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I do not know many Canadians who would have forgotten their house in the south of France. So much for a transparent government. The same minister still has a series of numbered accounts stashed away from public scrutiny. This raises more troubling questions. Let us not forget that the Ethics Commissioner came to exist as a part of the Federal Accountability Act in 2007, after another series of Liberal moral and ethical failings. Today the Liberals have found more ways than ever to protect their friends, the tax cheats, by not addressing the sophisticated systems that can only be used by the wealthiest and most connected.

Bills like the one we are debating here today would not change much for hard-working Canadians, and my riding is full of everyday hard-working Canadians. Bills like Bill C-63 would keep protecting cheaters from scrutiny and justice, and that is not right. As the paradise papers are still unravelling, I cannot say that I have much confidence in the current government, other than having a good sound bite for the media. One thing to keep in mind is that the paradise papers are a result of a leak from only one firm. There are many other firms out there carrying trusts and offshore companies linked to Canadians. It is a matter of finding them, and CRA is simply not doing enough.

The latest report from the Auditor General was not friendly to the Canada Revenue Agency. While tax cheats are not its main focus, the report highlights a total mismanagement of CRA call centres. The AG's report indicates that the CRA has been blocking over 50% of Canadians' calls for help. Even worse, CRA agents are providing misleading or inaccurate information almost 30% of the time. The Auditor General's report also focused on the failings of the Liberals' responsibility to implement the Phoenix program. In fact, the AG pointed out that the Liberals have no idea of the full extent and causes of the Phoenix problem. It is estimated that it will take years before solving pay problems, and will most likely cost Canadians around $1 billion.

However, this is about so much more than just $1 billion. It is about civil servants across Canada not receiving their pay. It is about Canadians losing their homes, having to go to food banks, having their credit destroyed, and family stress. It is very important that, in this House, we recognize that civil servants are still going to work every day even when they are not getting paid. These people are dedicated to their work and to Canadians. Many of my constituents have asked why the government does not have someone writing cheques until this is figured out, because they just need to be paid. I have taken the time to talk about this failing, because I know Canadians want this problem fixed. What better way to fix it then in a budget implementation bill?

Bill C-63 lays the foundation for Canada's membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which we believe will cause many problems. In fact, Bill C-63 allows the finance minister to transfer $480 million Canadian to the bank. Since the bank was only recently launched, the government cannot fully evaluate the risks of privatizing infrastructure in countries where the bank will invest. Some experts have raised concerns about the lack of provisions regarding environmental impact assessments, labour rights, or anti-corruption reforms, as is generally the case with loans made by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

It is difficult to say with any certainty, because the bank has only been in existence for one year, whether it will be respecting international standards. We need better assurances from the government about these concerns, and we need proof that the bank will not contribute to privatization of infrastructures, the degradation of the environment, and the violation of labour rights. The government cannot pay its own federal employees, but we can spend $480 million on a foreign initiative that may privatize infrastructure. The government cannot catch tax cheats or fix our revenue agency, but it can spend $480 million on a foreign initiative that degrades the environment. It cannot understand the realities of small businesses, but it can spend $480 million on a foreign initiative that will potentially violate labour rights.

Let us recap what progress has been made on the first budget implementation bill, including the Canadian infrastructure bank. A few months in, and the federal government has moved in predictable Liberal fashion, with a board made up largely of Liberal donors and promoters of privatization. This list includes James Cherry, the former president and CEO of Aéroports de Montréal, who has previously advocated for airport privatization. How surprising. I cannot wait to read the AG report on this.

However, wait, there is more. The bank will be subject to audits at a lower standard and with less transparency than the Auditor General has over direct government departments, despite the $35 billion in public funding to establish the bank. Again, so much for a transparent government.

Before the budget was tabled, our finance critic wrote the finance minister to ask him to include some provisions to create a fairer and greener society. For example, we asked him to cap CEO stock options for large companies; actively fight tax havens; establish a $15-per hour minimum wage for workers; invest in energy-efficient home renovations; address accessibility problems linked to housing, drinking water, mental health services, and education in first nations communities; and establish a universal pharmacare system. None of these provisions were implemented.

After two years of listening to the government talk about the middle class and those working to join it, this budget demonstrates, for a fact, that Liberals have no idea who those people are.

I cannot support this bill. It clearly has too many gaps that leave the most vulnerable with little, and does not address the important parts of moving towards a fair tax system.

[Homelessness, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am so proud to stand in the House today to speak to Motion No. 147. I am very grateful to the member for Saskatoon West for putting this forward.

At the end of the day, we know that even with a national housing strategy, dealing with homelessness must be the ultimate goal. We heard very clearly that up to 50% of the people who were homeless right now or were at risk of homelessness would not even be dealt with through the national housing strategy.

It is imperative that we take very seriously the need to address the issues of homelessness. Bringing together a committee to talk about these issues, to create a plan around these issues is so important.

I fundamentally believe that the right to housing is a human right. I was devastated when I put forward a bill in the House and the government did not support it.

If we are to ensure that people have homes, we have to recognize the dehumanizing impacts on people when they have nowhere to live, when they have no safe space to put things that are precious to them, when they have no place to be safe, to be warm, to know they have somewhere to sleep. It is shameful that we do not recognize that human right. I certainly hope that in this process the government reconsiders that and ensures we move forward in that direction.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, homelessness in small rural ridings still has a huge impact. Some people think this is really an urban issue. Unfortunately, and sadly, it is not. I think about the community of Campbell River and an organization called Grassroots Kind Hearts Society. It has no physical place to be. People are cooking food and preparing food outside for those who are homeless.

I know people may think Vancouver Island is always warm, but our winters are definitely not warm. We have a lot of rain and coldness. These people come out every day to help, and I want to recognize all of those amazing volunteers.

I also want to recognize the Powell River Community Resource Centre. It does so much in our communities to support homeless people and tries to find them homes. So many volunteers are doing the hard work. It is imperative that the government support them. The way to do that is to have a committee in which we recognize these issues.

[Cannabis Act, November 24th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I had representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities sit down and have a chat with me. One of their major concerns is the pace of the legalization of marijuana and how communities themselves have a lot of work to do to prepare. I wonder if the member could share with the House whether he shares those concerns and how the government needs to support communities in this process.

[Housing, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal government finally announced its national housing strategy, and you would be right to be confused, because earlier this month, when my bill on the right to housing was voted on, every single Liberal voted against it. In fact, the member for Cambridge called the right to housing a “legal risk”. The member for Spadina—Fort York called the right to housing a “slogan”.

For the NDP, the right to housing is never a partisan issue, so why did the government vote against it?

[Housing, November 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal government finally announced its housing strategy—