Rachel Blaney

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think I said it very clearly in my speech. We need to make sure that we are looking at the realities. So many people are falling behind. When we are increasing the cost of medicine, it is a big issue for the people we serve across this country, and we need to look at that.

The member's argument is that the provinces are fine with it. Well, constituents of mine do not know how they are going to make ends meet. Therefore, we really need to be talking to the people who will have the physical impact.

The other reality is that we need to look at the investor-state provisions, and we need to make sure that we fix some of these. This is not about being anti-trade. We have demonstrated repeatedly and supported trade agreements. However, we want to make sure that this is the best trade agreement for Canadians that it can possibly be, which means that we take the time to do it right. We are just encouraging the government to do that.

The reality is that 28 EU member states have to ratify this agreement. Therefore, what is the rush? Why can we not have the discussion? I do not see what the rush is. Let us make sure that we look after Canadians and we take the time.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we take a moment to reflect on the fact that there are serious concerns. We are not saying absolutely no, but we are asking why we are not taking the time to look at these real concerns and make sure that we are doing it right.

This trade agreement is so important. We need to get it right. We need to make sure that we are looking at parts of it, which should make us all think about it seriously, such as making sure that there is an opportunity for pharmaceuticals to be less expensive, and making sure that we are looking at the investor-state provisions.

In NAFTA, we were the most sued country of the three. These are serious issues, because the taxpayer is going to pay to address these issues.

This is about really digging deep. It is about making sure that we do it right. It is making sure that we take the time to do it right, and that when we sign an agreement, it is something that brings the opportunities but does not sell away too many things for Canadians.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Today we are here to talk to this important bill, Bill C-30. I am glad to have a second opportunity to speak to this, the economic and trade agreement with the European Union, commonly known as CETA.

The bill is now on its third reading, having been studied by the Standing Committee on International Trade. This will probably be my last opportunity to speak to this important bill.

In January, I completed a series of 11 town halls on seniors issues. Just so the House understands, when I asked the people of my riding what the most important issue was for them, by far seniors issues were number one. I took the opportunity to travel around the riding. I went to larger and smaller communities to really hear the stories from seniors and from the people who supported and loved those seniors. I wanted to hear about the specific challenges they faced on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, it was a very sad series of town halls. I heard stories about having to make decisions between medication, heating their homes, and feeding themselves. Again and again, I heard of seniors who had no access to the guaranteed income supplement because the process in getting that guaranteed income supplement was a challenge for them. When it came down to the core, the biggest issue was the cost of medication for seniors.

I know this is not an issue that is exclusive to North Island—Powell River. It is all over the country. Seniors are falling more and more behind.

The last time I spoke to this bill, I raised a few issues. The first was the issue of prescription drugs, for which I profoundly care. I mentioned that with the provisions in CETA, consequently the bill would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including our seniors on fixed incomes, could expect to have their drug costs increase by more than $850 million annually.

In the town halls, a lot of constituents came up afterward and shared stories with me. They also shared stories during the town halls. I remember one woman who told me that she and her husband were in good health right now. They were recent retirees and life felt pretty good. However, when they looked at the future, they realized they had to plan for when they would not be as healthy. Unfortunately, part of their plan included the time when they would have to legally separate, and would have to deal with the fact that the cost of living would become so high due to medication costs and having to put somebody in a care facility. The woman told me that she had worked hard her whole life, but with the increasing cost of pharmaceuticals and cost of living, she did not know how they would make it, even though they saved, they had well-paying jobs, and they had a good pension. The reality for seniors today is one that is leading to more and more poverty.

While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study on the financial impacts on provincial and territorial health care systems and prescription drug costs. In government now, the Liberals are telling provinces and territories that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for provinces and territories. I am very concerned about this.

The reality on the ground is that people will have serious health issues. More and more people will have to go to emergency rooms because they have not taken their medications. I remember one doctor sharing with me that seniors were unable to afford medications so they were going to the emergency rooms every day to get refills. Think of the expense. If the costs go up, the implications will be devastating on our health care system.

I was glad that our great trade critic, the member for Essex, brought up this important issue in the committee. The NDP brought forward amendments to make certain that an analysis of the impact of CETA on pharmaceutical drug costs would get done. What happened? This is an important issue, and our constituents and Canadians deserve to know. There will be little to no debate on our amendments. They were all rejected, showing no interest in fixing the flaws of the deal or addressing the serious concerns of Canadians.

Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, at committee said:

From a cost perspective, as I've said, generics on average now are selling at something like 20% to 25% of the price of an equivalent brand-name product. If you delay for two years, you're paying an extra 75% to 80% on that product for an extra two years. That affects provincial drug program budgets; it affects employee plans; and it affects people who pay out of pocket, and those costs are very significant.

Our seniors, and all Canadians, deserve better.

The former minister of international trade and now global affairs minister was honest about why Liberals have decided to rush this agreement through Parliament. For them, the deal symbolizes an open Canada in light of rising protectionism. I am sorry, but trade with Europe is just too important to get wrong. Canadians expect a good deal, and they deserve a good deal.

We need to be talking about some of the serious concerns with CETA so we can make a better deal for Canadians, because this is about health care costs. This is about medication. I have heard too many stories from health care providers talking about seniors and other people splitting their medication in half, not taking the full dosage. If the costs go up, this means people will not be getting the medication they need to take care of themselves.

I support deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remain significant concerns that need addressing. Once again, when in opposition back in 2014, Liberals decried the limited time to study this agreement. In their dissenting report, on p. 47 they wrote, “The brevity with which this committee has dealt with this agreement should be of concern to anyone interested in let alone concerned about the CETA.” Where is that language now? Why are we not taking the opportunity to do that very important work of looking at just the parts that we should be seriously concerned with, the parts that would have huge ramifications on Canadians?

Maude Barlow said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op?” Is this the reality? I do not know, but Canadians deserve a good approach, not just a fast one.

The biggest roadblocks to CETA's ratification by all the EU members are a referendum in the Netherlands, opposition from the Bundesrat in Germany, and the European Court of Justice examination of CETA. Therefore, let us take the time to figure out the issues, mitigate them, and get it right. I am afraid the Liberals do not see this reality, and for them it is like a big show.

I saw and heard some shocking truths from the seniors of North Island—Powell River. These are not unheard of across Canada, where seniors are facing multiple challenges. It is a great honour for me to have the new role as critic of seniors issues. I am really proud of the work that the communities I represent have done in educating me about what those particular concerns are around seniors' challenges. Right now, we are not seeing that follow-up with the funding for home care so seniors can stay in their homes and get the support they desperately need. It saves money. It is good for the health and well-being of people who built our country. Now we are seeing CETA, which would have huge impacts on their health care and getting the medication they so desperately need.

Canada really has to take a moment and ask the government why it is okay for seniors to be put in a position where they cannot afford the medication they need, when they are making choices between household expenses, like food, power, and heat, and medication.

[Health, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development said the reason the Liberals have not delivered on their home care commitment is because of the provinces.

Let me read their home care promise from Liberal.ca, because apparently that is where the real promises live. It states, “As an immediate commitment, we will invest $3 billion”.

It is 14 months later, and now it is the provinces' fault. When will the Liberals stop blaming others and finally come through on their commitment for home care?

[Texada Quarrying, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the locked-out workers at Texada Quarrying on Texada Island.

Texada Quarrying is a profitable operation, owned by a multinational firm, LafargeHolcim. On October 17, the company locked out more than 60 workers after unsuccessful contract negotiations. Since that time, locked-out workers and their families have lived through a difficult holiday season and long winter.

It may come as a surprise to some members of the House that workers affected by labour disputes are not eligible for employment insurance. This simply does not make sense in the case of companies locking out workers.

New Democrats know that we must improve the employment insurance system so that it better meets the needs of working people in this changing economy. I believe it is high time for us to amend the El Act so that workers affected by lockouts can access employment insurance benefits, the benefits workers have paid into for decades in some cases.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's very important question goes to the very core of what this motion is about today. The motion is about the fact that the government made a promise repeatedly and the government's actions did not follow through with the promise at all from day one.

There was the waiting for the committee to be set up. There was a vague and changing commentary. The Prime Minister stood up repeatedly, as he was campaigning outside and inside the House, and made a very profound promise to all Canadians. It was a fundamental, foundational promise, because it is about the very way we engage with people in how we vote. It is something that needed to be done in a more appropriate way.

The committee worked so hard. It worked hard all summer long. It provided a huge report for parliamentarians and Canadians. To see that report come out and then some weird survey that does not deal with the core issues of what we were asking Canadians was devastating.

I recently finished 11 town halls in my riding on seniors issues. The people in my riding are suffering profoundly, especially the seniors. What I heard again and again was that people were devastated by the fact that even though there was a promise made during the election to put $3 billion into home care to make sure that people could get the support that they needed, it was not there.

I am very concerned about the cynicism in this country, because promises are not being kept.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Jamie Deith and Guy Polkington who came to the town halls and educated people. They were both very well versed in different systems.

It was amazing to see people from the riding come forward. It is absolutely the case that there are some people who know a lot and some people who know very little, but what I heard again and again, regardless of what they came to the town halls to talk about is they wanted to be part of the conversation. They wanted to have a meaningful discussion, and they were really interested. We talked about different systems. We talked about what the committee was talking about. People were really engaged.

I think it is very unfair to say that there was no consensus. There may not have been a consensus on a particular type of system, but there was a lot of curiosity and a lot of discussion, and people wanted to move forward.

Yes, they wanted to move forward on those important things, like making sure they have a good-paying job, making sure there is the home care that is needed for the many seniors that I serve. I was very unhappy to have to share with them the broken promises from the government on those issues as well.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.

Today I am here to speak to the NDP's very important motion that is asking the Prime Minister of Canada to apologize for a very important broken promise on electoral reform.

When I was campaigning I knocked on a lot of doors, and I was saddened by the level of cynicism. People were telling me at the door, “I do not think I am going to vote. It does not feel as if my vote means anything. I do not like the system; it does not work. I do not feel I am connected”. Often that conversation would lead into a very important conversation about electoral reform, and what kind of systems are happening in other parts of the world and how they engage the members of their communities in a new and more meaningful way.

I am so grateful, and I want to thank the many members of my riding who have talked to me about this important, foundational issue. Whether it was one of the four town halls, because in a riding as large as mine there is no such thing as doing one town hall, or the survey that was sent to every household in the riding, or through personal conversations, I heard loudly and clearly that this was a conversation my constituents wanted to be a part of. That is important, because the government members seem to keep thinking this is about consensus.

I came and I did town halls, and a lot of people did not know much about different systems and there were a lot of questions. At the end of the day, people were not always sure of what system they wanted, but they did know they wanted to have this conversation, they wanted their voices to be heard, and they wanted to learn more. Therefore thousands of my constituents participated. In fact, so far this is the issue that people engaged in the most profoundly. The people at my offices were amazed by the survey responses we got and kept receiving for months. The issue matters to the people of North Island—Powell River and that means it matters to me, as does following through with commitments.

Since the announcement was made by the minister that meaningful electoral reform was no longer part of moving forward, my staff have been overwhelmed with emails and phone calls. Ironically, the announcement from the minister was made, and less than a week later my constituents opened their mailboxes to see my mail-out that told them that the report that we had created on their feedback on electoral reform was on our website. In a matter of hours, we received well over 100 emails because people who received it in their mailbox and they were very upset that they did not get what they wanted from the government.

What we are talking about today is important. It is about listening to the people of this country. It is about engaging them in a meaningful conversation about what our democracy means. The current government asked us to do its work and hold town halls and surveys, and we did. We all got into our communities and we did surveys and town halls, and we opened up this discussion because we believed and we had faith that this would be a real discussion about change.

Today I am going to share some of the results from the thousands of constituents of North Island—Powell River. I posed several statements for constituents. The scale was as follows: 1 was strongly disagree, and it ranged up to 5, which was strongly agree.

The first statement was, “Parties' seats in Parliament should reflect the percentage of votes they receive”. The response was overwhelming: 75 % strongly agreed and 9% agreed. That means over 84% wanted to see a system where every vote meant something, where every vote counted.

The second statement was, “Working collaboratively and having cross-party support is vital”. Eighty-seven per cent agreed.

The third statement was, “Having a local representative is important to me”. This statement received the highest support, with over 88% agreeing or strongly agreeing.

The claim that there is no consensus around electoral reform is false. The numbers I compiled in my riding are proof. The current e-petition urging the Liberal government to follow through on its campaign commitment surpassed 92,000 signatures, making it the most signed petition on the Parliament of Canada's website. That is proof.

I was never under the illusion that this would be easy or that the process would be wrapped up quickly, but I am a strong believer in process. We may not have collectively picked the next electoral system, but one lady said to me in her written statement that she was a bit old, and understanding all the different systems I taught them about took a lot of work; she does not have a full answer yet, but she wants to continue this discussion. She said it is such an important one.

I believe we have the broad consensus necessary at least to continue this process. Canadians want a more proportional system and that we know. During the work of the committee nearly 90% of the experts and 80% of the members of the public who testified called on the government to adopt a proportional electoral system.

By abruptly terminating this process and blaming the voters for it is revolting. The management of this file from the start shows us a consistent behaviour that forecasted a Liberal Party determined to keep the current system because it benefits its members. This behaviour could be seen by the length of time it took for the government to start the committee, by the outrageous comments made by the former minister aimed at undermining the committee's work where her own people were hurt, or the online survey MyDemocracy.ca, which was immediately ridiculed from all sides. Canadians criticized the biased and vague questions and felt very manipulated.

Whether this is a lack of courage for moving forward or a broken promise from the very start, Canadians are feeling betrayed and are extremely disappointed. New Democrats are determined to have the Liberals apologize to Canadians.

During the town halls I heard things like, “I just want my vote to count. I want to feel I can vote the way my conscience tells me and strategic voting is something we no longer have to consider.”

The Prime Minister's misleading promise of electoral reform breeds cynicism in our politics and that is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking when we see people of all ages not participating in our democracy the way that we want to see them participate. This conversation would have opened some of those doors and provided a deep and meaningful opportunity for people to feel that they are a part of creating this system for Canadians.

How can the Prime Minister and Liberal MPs justify engaging Canadians fundamentally, pretending that they are listening, only to let them know that their voice no longer matters? The motion we are debating is about honesty and commitment to what we believe in.

The Liberals have said they will always consult with Canadians on many fronts and on many topics. Canadians have a right to ask whether these are just delaying tactics or more broken promises. What is needed is a little more action and a little less conversation, as one great singer once said.

The consultations helped me to further grasp people's concerns about representation and decision-making in this place. I sincerely enjoyed the town halls. The discussions became quite passionate. Constituents were taking a real interest in what different systems mean and what they want to see in their democracy.

A man said to me, “I am tired of watching everyone yell at each other in Parliament. We need a system that makes parliamentarians work together. The best decisions have mostly come from minority governments, where parliamentarians had to work together. I want a system that says you have to work together and not just call another election when the going gets tough.”

I must plead with the government. My constituents are asking me to work with the government on electoral reform. With 39% of the votes, how can Liberals unilaterally close this process when they know proportionality is at the heart of this discussion?

I believe this motion is fair. The people in my riding were interested in a real discussion. There was a lot of curiosity and a lot of openness. They worked hard to give their opinions to me and to the government. They participated in this important discussion in good faith. The people of Canada were not asked if this discussion was over. They were told. It would be only fair to the many people who participated, who came to events across Canada, who filled out multiple surveys, who started to seriously consider what other systems look like, who really contemplated what a new system of democracy would mean in Canada, that the Liberal government apologize.

[Telecommunications, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, just recently, the CRTC decided to deem access to the Internet as an essential service. This is a major step in Canadian telecommunication history. I suspect this will have some profound consequences on our infrastructure and services over the next decade. This makes sense as Internet usage is growing across our country and its practical applications are increasingly varied.

The job market and services are more and more web-dependent. Like many resource-based economies trying to expand and diversity, our riding's local economy needs broadband access to adapt.

The CRTC decision to make the Internet an essential service is a step in the right direction, but we need a target and a plan.

My constituents need to know how this will specifically impact rural regions and the many smaller providers in those regions. When can we expect details on how this new ruling will be shared?

[Telecommunications, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about the broadband funding and the challenges of high-speed Internet in a rural riding, such as the one I represent, North Island—Powell River. Today I am glad to have the opportunity to follow up on this issue.

As members know, high-speed connection remains very expensive, and the speed and access are inconsistent across my riding of North Island—Powell River. This unfortunate reality is common outside large urban centres. Whether it is the backbone or the last mile missing, it is a strain on our economy and restricts many opportunities.

I am pleased to hear that the minister has rolled out a new federal funding opportunity, connect to innovate, with $500 million over five years, starting in 2016-17. I am hopeful this will truly extend and enhance broadband service in rural and remote communities. I have invited all prospective applicants from my riding to take advantage of this source of funding and am pleased to see that the deadline has been extended.

This funding was supposed to invest only in backbone infrastructure. The problem is that many rural and remote residences cannot connect due to the last mile issues. I was glad to hear that the minister heard our concerns and decided to include funding opportunities for the last mile, as well as backbone infrastructure in this new funding program. I also want to applaud the regional districts in my riding which have taken a leadership role on this file by studying the gaps and making a strong case for improved telecommunication in our region.

I recently had the pleasure to meet with local telecom providers in my riding. They painted a very grim portrait of broadband in rural and remote regions and are hoping to feel some meaningful support from the government. For decades it has been the local providers that have managed to be innovative in providing the services to a difficult marketplace, and this was not done without risk. They are committed to providing a service to communities. They provide good jobs, and they are important jobs to ridings like mine.

I rally the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to recognize that the betterment of broadband cannot solely be done by one-time funding. Smaller operators need wholesale resources to help fund services on the edge. They need spectrum and access to land for relay sites at affordable rates, and meaningful, unobstructed access to wholesale resources. In short, they need the support of government at all levels, and those of Industry Canada and the CRTC. Will the minister listen and commit to helping them?

Recently, I sent a mail-out to the members of North Island—Powell River on broadband, and I was pleased by the level of feedback. I want to thank my constituents for sharing all their stories. People in my riding are dismayed by the price gouge. I also heard from local businesses that could expand, bringing much-needed jobs into our riding, but they require better high-speed connections to do so. Others attested that the most remote and rural first nations communities are severely impacted by marginal access to the Internet, especially for the important online learning that they need.

Many of my constituents are concerned that this new federal funding will end up in the pockets of the large telecoms exclusively. They want to see real solutions on the ground to their homes and to their businesses, and a collaborative effort from all stakeholders to create more accessible broadband. How will the minster ensure that this happens?