Rachel Blaney

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that we need to be looking at the realities that young people are facing right now in this very uncertain time. We know the long-term impacts and we know that racialized youth are targeted. Those are serious issues that we would like to see the government deal with, and we are absolutely not seeing that happen.

When the government makes a commitment to something and people are waiting for that, it is important that it works with them in a meaningful way. What we hope to see out of the legislation is resources and money going into educating and supporting young people because we definitely want to see them have strong, healthy lifestyles. At the same time, simple possession for a small amount, the lifelong barrier they will face, and a government that will not find a way to support young people through this transition is shameful. I hope to see that change.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, what is important here is the reality that people are having the rest of their lives tarnished by criminal records for having simple possession. When we look at the reality that we have heard in the House of a Prime Minister who has said that he has smoked marijuana in his role in the House, and then we have everyday Canadians who have their lives roadblocked for simple possession, we need to take the next step. We need to make sure that people have the right to live their lives and that this does not bar them, especially when we have a government that is going to be moving forward with the legislation.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, today I will be addressing Bill C-45, the first of two bills that would, combined, legalize marijuana. Since this bill does not cover the impaired driving offence, I will keep my remarks on this to a minimum.

The range of comments I have received on this topic is broad. Some constituents are asking me to oppose, some are fiercely behind me in supporting this measure, and some are questioning specific clauses within the bill. I may not be able to satisfy everyone, but my sincere hope is to truthfully share their views and bring some insight to the specificity of this bill.

Legalizing marijuana has been a long time in the making, and we are breaking new ground. As the second country in the world to legalize, we will find many challenges. If we take some time, I believe we can come up with a fairer justice system, better prevention, improved public health, proper research, and superior education.

I can say with certainty that the war on drugs has failed miserably, and its path of destruction has affected many families and communities. I wish to share the broad nature of the comments I have received. My constituents have a few concerns, and this is what they have told me.

There is concern that four cannabis plants per household may simply not be enough. Others feel it is way too much.

Some fear that marijuana production will be owned by a few mega-growers and that we should be encouraging smaller growers and distribution outlets. This is really important as small businesses, especially in small communities across Canada, really benefit those communities.

A number of my constituents say that the police should be required to report to the parents and guardians when an incident involves youth. In terms of access, some parents are afraid that this legislation will lead to increased access to the substance by their children; other parents feel that it is going to protect their children.

People receiving pardons is an important concern. Right now, more and more people are being charged, and unfortunately, the reality is that people like the Prime Minister, who have more resources, are able to get out of their charges. The reality is that when the Prime Minister shared the story about his brother, it really illustrated the big difference for everyday Canadians. We really need to address this issue. If youth have criminal records for simple possession, they need to be pardoned, and it must be retroactive. That has been a big concern for my constituents.

They are also concerned that the legal limits and levels of intoxication are undefined and unclear and they are concerned about people's right to privacy. If roadside testing involves a saliva test, it is a person's DNA, and currently officers need a warrant for that kind of access.

I support the legalization of marijuana, as long as it is done effectively so that it is not marketed to children, a reliable, long-term revenue stream is created for public health, prevention, and research, and there is a comprehensive impaired driving strategy. The bill introduces promotion restrictions, such as a type of plain packaging for marijuana that includes nothing that will appeal to young people; no false, misleading, or deceptive promotion; no promotion that evokes a positive emotion or image of a way of life; no promotion through sponsors, testimonials, or endorsements; and so on.

One of the negative health consequences of criminalizing cannabis has been a widely acknowledged lack of scientific research, and I hope some of this funding will go into this meaningful research, which will help us understand the best steps to take in the future. We must be particularly concerned with the health impacts of chronic and heavy cannabis use among young people, so New Democrats will be pressing the government to begin establishing research plans and funding into these important areas.

The government also must be clear and upfront regarding provincial responsibilities, including the tax and revenue structure that balances health protection with the goal of reducing the illicit market and protecting youth. The reality is that Bill C-45 leaves many key issues to the provinces, and they will need some time to set up their own regulatory systems, another reason that we wish this process had begun earlier. Canadians need certainty, and they have certainly waited too long for that.

What is equally unclear is what the tax and revenue structures will look like for cannabis and how this will be shared between the federal government and the provinces. The provinces and Canadians will have to wait to hear from the Minister of Finance on that matter. This again goes back to the idea that people keep having to wait and there is a lack of clarity.

That is the reality for so many communities dealing with particular issues of addiction, and we are hoping to see some support here. The government has not been clear about where they will get the funding for public education and research and how that will be rolled out, and we need to know more. People should not have barriers for the rest of their lives to finding good employment, housing, and international travel due to having a charge and/or conviction for a small amount of cannabis. We need to pardon those who have been convicted of simple possession of cannabis.

Changes to the law are long overdue, but they will not come into effect for at least another 15 months. With the current crisis of delays and lack of resources in the justice system, we cannot afford to continue to use police and court resources in charges and convictions for simple possession of a substance that will soon be legal. That leaves the estimated 2.3 million Canadians who use cannabis in limbo. Many of these people do not have access to the connections that will make these charges disappear. This is highly concerning. In fact, it is simply not fair.

While we wait for legalization, the Liberal government is ignoring the tens of thousands of charges and criminal records handed out for simple possession, which disproportionally affect young and racialized Canadians. We want an interim measure of decriminalization. I want to underline that it would be an interim measure. This is not the solution we are advocating for in the long term. We are saying to put this in place as we go through this process. It is only fair. This will really help police have more discretion to cease enforcing such an unjust law.

Guess who said the following quote: “Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses.” It was none other than the Liberal Party of Canada. Maybe it is time its members start looking at their own website.

Associate professor of Osgoode Hall, Alan Young, agreed. He said, “But from a moral point of view, if the change is imminent, that undercuts the whole foundation for arrests and prosecutions, and one would hope the government would stop pursuing very minor cases that have clogged up the system for years.”

We have been asking the Liberals to immediately decriminalize simple possession of marijuana as an interim measure as many young and racialized Canadians continue to receive charges and criminal records that will affect them for the rest of their lives, despite the substance soon becoming legal. There is almost a record-breaking number of vacancies in the court. Why the government is aggravating the problem, I do not know.

We need to have a serious look at pardons for these previously convicted cannabis possessions. The government's position on pardons is now in a very confused state. The public safety minister has stated that the government has no interest in granting a blanket pardon for people with criminal records for possessing small amounts of cannabis. There is also no indication the Liberals are interested in making pardons easier to obtain or if they will address the high fee for an application. Not being able to access a pardon remains a serious obstacle for people trying to escape their criminal past and move on with their lives, especially for such a minor situation.

This is despite the Prime Minister acknowledging that the rich and well-connected have an easier time avoiding a criminal record, when citing the example of his brother. The Prime Minister admitted in the House to smoking marijuana. If it were not for his privilege, the Prime Minister could be refused entry into the United States. Canadians have been refused for honestly speaking about their past indiscretions. Does this mean the Prime Minister is simply above regular Canadians?

The NDP has a 45-year history of championing marijuana decriminalization. Changes to the law are long overdue, especially when about 30% of Canadian youth have tried cannabis at least once by the age of 15. This is the highest rate among 43 countries and regions in Europe and North America. Let us make this a public health approach rather than a war on drugs campaign.

[Cannabis Act, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be happily supporting this legislation. It is time that we take some steps towards legalization and making sure that we protect children and see cannabis taken out of crime.

When I was knocking on doors during the election campaign, a lot of young people told me that they thought cannabis would be legalized as soon as the Liberals were elected. People across this country said the Liberals made this commitment, so therefore it is legalized and therefore we can move forward. In my riding and in ridings across Canada, a lot of young people are getting criminal records and have to face multiple challenges because of this misunderstanding.

I also want to remind the member that the majority of young people who are targeted are also racialized, and this issue has not been addressed. Unlike the Prime Minister, these young people do not know any high-level resource people who can make these sorts of incidents go away.

I would like to hear from you what the government is going to do to change this.

[Infrastructure, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal infrastructure bank reminds me of a Tommy Douglas story about a place where mice were governed by cats. The cats passed laws that, for example, limited the speed mice could run so they would be easier to catch. They were good laws for cats.

This infrastructure bank was created by corporations for corporations. It ensures that Canadians will be stuck with the bill. It is a good bank for corporations.

Why are the Liberals less interested in helping working Canadians and more interested in helping corporate fat cats?

[Criminal Code, May 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I know that some provinces have asked for federal funding to make sure police officers know how to more effectively identify people who are under the influence of cannabis. However, my concern is about racialization. We know that again and again people who are identified easily by what they look like are often pulled over and looked at more vigorously by the police. As well as training police officers on how to identify people who are under the influence of cannabis, I am wondering if the government could make sure there is proper training, or some sort of measure, to ensure that when racialized young people are targeted, there is more accountability.

[Seniors, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Nickel Belt. As the NDP seniors critic, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to bring our seniors' voices and opinions to the House of Commons.

The motion calls for a study on the development of a national seniors strategy. The NDP has been calling for a national seniors strategy for years. After years of inaction from both Liberals and Conservatives, it is flattering to see a Liberal motion now calling for it.

After organizing 11 town hall meetings across my riding of North Island—Powell River on seniors issues, the people I work for were very clear. They want action. The hundreds of participants had a whole range of grievances that require help.

One woman in particular had a tremendous impact on me. She showed up just days after her mother's passing. With tears in her eyes, she spoke about how many gaps her mother had fallen through, how the care had not been as good as was required. She told me how exhausted she was during this incredibly painful process where, as a daughter, she felt powerless. She said to me, “We need less talking. We need action now.” I could not agree with her more.

This motion aims to create a study which may, one day, advise the government on a national seniors strategy. Canadians can see through this Liberal approach and are rightfully worried about the intended impacts of this motion. If this passes, months later we will have a parliamentary report. My concern, and that of many of my constituents, and the concern of the daughter I mentioned earlier, is it is time for reports to be done. It is time for action. With the Liberal government's recent approach in negotiating bilateral health agreements, I remain skeptical that we will see a cohesive national strategy on aging any time soon.

This is serious. Too many seniors are falling through the cracks and families are struggling profoundly. This needs to be addressed.

Canada's population is aging rapidly. For the first time there are more people age 65 and older than there are children between the ages of zero to 14 years. By 2036, seniors are expected to make up 25% of the population. People 85 years of age and older make up the fastest growing group in Canada. This portion of the population grew by 127% between 1993 and 2013.

The accelerating pace of aging in the population carries profound implications for everything from government budgets to pensions, health care, the labour market, and social services. In fact, caring for aging parents costs Canadians an estimated $33 billion a year in out-of-pocket expenses and time taken from work. That figure is expected to grow by more than 20% over the next decade, according to a report released last week by economists at CIBC. We cannot afford to ignore the study. Action is required immediately.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development thinks his government has a strong record. We have heard him praise himself and his government when it comes to seniors. He refuses to acknowledge the important role of caregivers and the economic impact of the country's changing demographic.

The first step is admitting one has a problem. It seems the Liberals are still sleeping at the wheel. I have witnessed the financial hardship that caregiving has on people in my riding. Recently, at a town hall I held on the disability tax credit, a gentleman in his eighties came to speak with me about his challenges. This is an important story, and I am absolutely positive it is not a unique one across this country, because it outlines the emerging reality seniors are facing.

He told me that he had a good pension, but now his wife has dementia and he is caring for her. He could not afford to put her in a care facility because there are no rooms that are subsidized and the least expensive placement was $6,000 a month. He simply could not afford to pay that. How many people in Canada cannot afford that amount? He shared with me his deep fears. As the only caregiver, his health is now beginning to fail. I did not know what to say to him when he said to me, “What do we do if I get sick, too?” The response, “We're just going to research it” would be completely meaningless to someone who needs action now.

The NDP has long held the position that to meet the coming challenge of an aging population, we need a thoughtful and strategic approach to seniors care. This motion makes good strides in the right direction, but it falls short of implementing any action other than further study.

It is disappointing that the member took the rare chance of bringing a motion to a vote in order to pat the government on the back for past changes, and without bringing in any real action for seniors. The government cannot get away with doing something symbolic and refusing to take action. The motion is trying to toot the government's horn about the work it has done in order to protect the Liberals from the very real failure of delivering care to our seniors. Once again, they are trying to take the NDP's hard work, and pass it off as their own without taking any concrete action.

Although the motion is self-congratulatory, it fails to mention that the Liberals have not delivered on their clear platform promise of indexing OAS and GIS benefits to a new seniors price index. They have failed to make an immediate investment in home care. They have failed to make prescription drug costs affordable. They have failed at making affordable housing a reality for seniors. Wait times for GIS and OAS are outrageous. We also know that the caregiver and disability tax credits are not filling the huge gaps that caregivers and their families are facing, and I could go on.

The Liberals' veil of self-congratulation is blinding them. The reality for too many seniors is poverty and hard choices. It is time for a national seniors strategy that has action as its core.

Older Canadian women are twice as likely to live in poverty as men. About 30% of senior Canadian women are living below the poverty line. A national strategy should focus not only on improving the lives of seniors but removing the inequality that too many female seniors face.

A new report by the CCPA B.C. office, studying poverty and inequity among British Columbia's seniors, offers us a daunting portrait of the situation on the ground. Poverty in B.C. rose from a low of 2.2% in 1996 to 12.7% in 2014. About 42% of B.C. seniors are currently experiencing core housing needs.

I have heard of too many seniors struggling, making decisions between food and medication, or having to legally separate from their partners because placing one partner in long-term care means the other is left in poverty. These are just a few of the important examples.

The motion needs to be amended to acknowledge the social determinants of health, prevention of illness, medical treatment and care, caregiver support, end of life care, pharmacare, affordable housing, and creating a seniors advocate. Most importantly, a seniors strategy done comprehensively can reduce health care costs. It is simply the right thing to do, both socially and financially.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information reports that while seniors account for less than 15% of the population, they use approximately 45% of public health spending. The government cannot wait any more. The research is in, and the time for action in now. The people of Canada cannot wait.

The seniors of our country worked hard to build a society of prosperity, generosity, and sound institutions, and they continue to make valuable contributions. Now our country owes them a debt of responsibility. No one should have to grow old in poverty, insecurity, and isolation. Aging is indeed getting tougher. As Canadians age and their vulnerability increases, it is important that we continue advocating for a national seniors strategy. We need to make sure our institutions, and vital public services are strong and ready to meet the challenge of providing necessary services efficiently and effectively.

I will be supporting the motion, but I do so with hope and some hesitancy. I am hoping this will lead to an actual plan of action. No less is required of this increasingly urgent issue. Canadian seniors deserve the very best.

[Infrastructure, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, respect is shown through real answers.

As with most banks, the goal of the Liberal infrastructure bank is not about helping hard-working Canadians but about increasing profits for wealthy investors.

Yesterday the NDP moved a motion to invite some of those large investors to committee because they helped develop the scheme and they stand to profit millions from it. Guess what happened? The Liberals on the committee shut it down, so we are never going to hear from them.

My question is simple. Why are the Liberals so scared of hearing how their bank will help their—

[Public Safety, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, simple questions deserve simple answers. So much for respecting question period.

Recently we have seen several reports of racial profiling at the U.S. border. There is another report today of a family being told not to cross the border in Vermont.

Instead of securing guarantees for Canadians at the border, the public safety minister has suggested that Canadians themselves might be to blame.

What is it going to take for the Liberals to stand up and demand guarantees that Canadians be treated fairly at the U.S. border?

[Infrastructure, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not even answering the basic questions about their infrastructure bank. It is almost as if they are hiding the details from Canadians. I wonder why. Asked several times what happens if a private corporation pulls out of a project, the Liberals refuse to answer.

The infrastructure bank would impose user fees on Canadians to provide profits for corporations, but what if that is not enough for them? Would they be able to pull out of the project, and who would be left on the hook?

Can the Liberals not answer questions?