Rachel Blaney

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in total shock, and my heart is breaking.

We have an international responsibility to show leadership when something this awful happens. Today we are debating the U.S. travel and immigration ban. That is what we are here to talk about. This is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to stand and say “This is not okay”. It is a chance to stand up to President Donald Trump.

This is not okay. This is a ban based on race, religion, or place of birth. We need to stand and say that this is not going to happen and that we are going to make sure our voices are heard.

I know we are a welcoming community. In my riding, where I served for over eight years as an executive director of an organization that welcomed refugees and immigrants into our communities, people have raised enormous amounts of money, from communities as small as Sointula to Campbell River, Comox, and Powell River. I am so proud they have worked so hard to get refugees into our country.

If one of us is not safe, then none of us is safe. Today, we are asking the government to stand up for Canadian values. Why will the government not suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Gender Equality Week Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, usually this would be a time when I would welcome everyone back and wish them a happy new year in my first speech of this session. Instead, I stand in the House devastated by the violent events that occurred yesterday.

Members of our Muslim community were killed and many were wounded in their sacred space of worship in Quebec. These violent deaths have rocked me to my core, and they hit hard the foundation of my Canadian identity.

When I worked at an immigrant-serving agency, I assisted many families from across the world to join our Canadian family. In my new role, I continue to do this work in a new way. These people continuously reinvigorate my Canadian pride. Working with them as they prepare for Canadian citizenship, and watching them as they receive it, makes me so proud of this country. This is what I know.

In Canada, we have generations of Muslim Canadians who have helped build this country. I am deeply saddened today. I want to thank my constituents for the many emails I have already received. I thank them for their support and immediate call to action. We will stand together to say no to this violence. We will stand together because, as Dr. Christina Hubert said:

We must not sit idly by as injustices abound around us. We have a voice, and we must use it.... We must advocate for those who no longer have a voice. We must love greatly.

Many constituents have shared with me that we are living in scary times since the inauguration of President Trump. Now when we look at our televisions and social media, we see tens of thousands of people standing up against hate.

On January 21, I was proud to stand alongside many inspiring women and men. I want to thank the Comox Valley women's solidarity gathering for making the women's march on Washington such a resounding success.

This truly historic march drew an estimated worldwide participation of 4.8 million. After the march, officials behind the organization reported that 673 marches took place worldwide. In the United States, the protests were the largest political demonstrations since the anti-Vietnam War protests in the 1960s and 1970s.

Here I am today speaking on Bill C-309, an act to establish a gender equality week; a bill in which the title says it all. The bill aims to establish the first week of October every year as gender equality week.

It is important to raise awareness of the significant and substantive contributions that Canadian women have made and continue to make to grow, develop, and add to the strong identity of Canada. The NDP has been at the forefront and will continue to champion real gender equality. I fully support the bill at second reading and want it to be studied at committee.

As a legislator who takes her responsibility very seriously, I have to offer a cautious assessment of the bill and of this government's attitude in dealing with gender equality. Once again, we have in front of us a bill filled with billowing symbolism. By no means am I condoning investments in matters symbolic; by no means am I reducing the possibilities this gender equality week could have on our movement; and I know that 673 marches took place across the world, which demonstrates a powerful fact: actions speak louder than words.

When words are not followed up by action, emblems become tokenism, and then sincerity is put into question. I do not doubt the genuineness of the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore in bringing the bill forward. For a responsible lawmaker, context matters.

After more than a year in power, the government has failed to translate feminist rhetoric into real change. The best way to honour women is by matching words with actions, none of which are included in the bill. How many statistics and figures must we repeat in the House for just a little movement on this very important issue?

Rather than sharing figures, I will share advice for future bills that would bring the significant, substantive changes required to improve the daily lives of Canadian women. Hopefully, my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore can share them with the government.

How can women from coast to coast celebrate gender equality for a week when we know all too well that in a week they will earn only 74¢ for every dollar earned by men? This is both a chronic and a growing issue. The House sent the issue of pay equity to a special committee, which returned with facts that have been repeated many times in the House and in many other committees. Women are still being paid less money than men for the same work.

Then the government had the nerve to say this was something it would address in 2018. That is not good enough. How long do women have to wait? They have waited for 40 years and should not have to wait any longer.

Does the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore believe in a more gender-balanced Parliament? I am afraid he does not. He voted down the bill that would have done just that. The sad part is that he was not alone. Many Liberal MPs did the same thing, including the then minister for the status of women.

Increasing representation of women in Parliament would be in the type of bill we are looking for. These are the actions worth celebrating. These are the bills that would take words and transform them into real action.

How can we pay tribute when more than 500 women and children are turned away from shelters on a typical day? How can we pretend we have achieved gender equality when on any given day more than 4,000 women and more than 2,000 children will reside in a domestic violence shelter? The absence of a national action plan to end violence against women is making responses largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and inconsistent across Canada. New Democrats are pushing for more federal funding to support domestic violence shelter operations. I ask again. Where is the action?

High-quality and affordable early childhood education helps women seek employment or improve their job skills and pursue careers, and it eases families' financial stress. Delays in the creation of a national child care strategy will perpetuate socio-economic inequalities for people in Canada. The NDP believes that the federal government should start tackling its fundamental responsibility to reduce inequality between men and women. In the 2016 budget, the government missed multiple opportunities to respond equitably to the needs of women and girls and to fully support the realization of their economic and social potential.

This bill has a very lofty preamble. To be fair, it addresses a broad range of issues, including the fact that indigenous women are disproportionately affected by gender-based violence and sexual exploitation. If the bill were passed, the preamble would evaporate into thin air and what would remain is reality, a reality in which all aboriginal women employed full time earn 26% less than non-aboriginal men. Even more devastating is the reality that aboriginal women with a university degree earn 33% less. Yes, that is correct: the gap actually increases the more educated they are. There is so much more, such as shelters, safe drinking water, and education.

This bill aims to raise awareness, and I encourage it. That is why I will support it at second reading. It is time to get to work and address some long-standing issues that would make a major difference in women's rights.

I am so proud of the work and leadership of our critic for the status of women, the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We will be proposing amendments at committee stage, arranging that the bill not enter into force before the government implements proactive pay equity legislation and gender-based analysis legislation.

We should take real action to achieve gender equality. The NDP believes that, when women are no longer disproportionately affected by violence, inequality, and poverty, then we could legitimately have a celebratory week.

As the West Coast Leaf Association mentioned about the bill:

...legislation and other actions like Bill C-309...not only do very little to address inequality in the everyday lives of women in Canada, but they also create a risk of misleading the public into thinking that the federal government is taking substantive action when they have little potential to create meaningful change.

The women of Canada are looking for action. I hope we see it soon.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that across Canada, especially in Comox, where I will always argue that our cheese producers are the very best, there are substantial dairy farming communities that create local jobs. They really are focused on developing their communities and making sure that there are good jobs in that area.

I cannot answer why the government is turning its back so profoundly on the dairy farming industry. These farmers need to see that support if the government goes through with the significant transition that CETA would impose upon them. Therefore, I would like to see the government follow through to raise the amount to a more appropriate number, which will actually help those industries as we go through that transition, and make sure that we remember that many of these smaller communities desperately need these jobs. These are meaningful employment opportunities for businesses that pay taxes and are looking after the communities they live in.

Dairy farmers need to be respected for the long-term work that they have done, and it is shameful that the current government is not respecting them in the way they should be.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my job as the representative of North Island—Powell River is to do the work of my riding and to listen to the industries that will be impacted.

The reality is that in my riding we have a large number of seniors. We live in a beautiful location, we have affordable housing, and people are going there to retire and spend time with their families. However, they are all coming to me, because they are very concerned about the reality that they are already struggling to afford their medication. What are these trade agreements going to mean for them when they are on a fixed income and challenged every single day?

My job in opposition is to make sure that the government is doing its job. I hope the member will be take an opportunity to reflect on the real impacts that this agreement will have on real people's jobs in B.C., and the reality that it is going to have negative impacts.

Our job is to protect those folks and protect those jobs, and that is what I would like to encourage the government to do.

[December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states. This bill includes all necessary legal changes to implement the free trade accord with Europe, commonly known as CETA.

Today, I wish to raise four major concerns. The concerns are very important to the people I represent in North Island—Powell River. They want to hear more about prescription drug costs and what it will mean to them in their everyday lives. They want to make sure that we are not participating in investor-state provisions. They want to know that Canada has the ability and the right to protect itself. They are also concerned about the compensation for dairy farmers, the loss of market for the people in Comox with dairy farms, as well as, very importantly, maritime jobs.

The four motives in this bill will negatively impact my riding of North Island—Powell River, and because of this, I cannot in good conscience support it. Might I also add how sad it is for me to stand in the House today and realize we are not having a rigorous debate on these very important issues that will have long-term impacts. It is very simple for the government to point out that it feels the NDP is not interested in supporting trade agreements, but that is false. New Democrats are asking for these serious concerns to be addressed in a meaningful way. We absolutely have the time to do this work, and it is imperative for government to work with us to make sure that work is done.

Simply put, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening the Canada-EU trade relationship in order to diversify our markets, but there remains significant concerns and unanswered questions about this proposed deal. The government should work to fix the problems with the current deal rather than settle for a flawed agreement.

In my riding, there is a major concern about prescription drug costs. I have had the chance to meet with some of the most wonderful people over the last year who live across my vast riding, including many seniors. In the first year of my first mandate, getting to know people and understanding their needs was not only essential but paramount. I conducted a series of town halls focused on the demands of seniors in the riding, and I am proud to be continuing this series in the new year.

Unfortunately, the reality for many seniors is that they cannot afford their medications. I have heard on many occasions that Canada badly needs a strategy in place to meet the needs of seniors, and they want to know why it does not exist. One of the many challenges they face is the increasing cost of drugs. I am under the impression that legislators in the House have an abstract understanding of our social safety net, but the reality is that seniors are often vulnerable, on fixed incomes, and have to choose whether they purchase medications, food, or heat. This is a reality, and these decisions are happening daily across Canada.

Let me be very clear: this does not fit my vision of a prosperous Canada. We know that drug costs in Canada are already too high. According to the most recent data available from the Canadian Institutes for Health Information, Canadians pay the second most per person for drugs in all of the OECD countries, second only to the United States, and our costs are significantly higher than the average.

We know that that there needs to be a coordinated effort to contain these costs. What do we do to ensure that seniors can afford the necessary prescription drugs at a reasonable cost? Respectfully, one of the issues now is the reality we are facing with CETA, which would change intellectual property rules for pharmaceuticals. Under this agreement, consumers, including seniors on fixed incomes, can expect their drug costs to increase by more than $850 million annually.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it would make it more difficult to bring down prices through a national pharmacare program. While in opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impacts on provincial and territorial systems around these issues, but now they are cutting this and not listening to these important voices that need to be heard.

The second flaw in this piece of legislation is the investor-state provisions, which allow corporations to sue governments over regulations they claim negatively impact their businesses. The Liberals are asking parliamentarians to sign off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that investor-state provisions will have to be removed before they ratify it. I do not understand why Canada will not say this as well.

In February 2016, 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 conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new investor-court system allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government over policy decisions that they feel impact their profits. Foreign companies would have access to a special court system to challenge Canadian laws, without going though domestic courts.

Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under ISDS. 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 the regulatory chill, where governments fail to take actions in the public interest for fear they may trigger an investor claim.

Another concern of the investor-state provisions brings us back to my first point on pharmacare. According to Natalie Mehra, from the Ontario Health Coalition, the ability for investors to sue the government puts much more significant risk on the federal government. It would limit our ability to create a national pharmacare program, which would be the single biggest step we could take to containing drug costs, improving safety, and improving access all at once. The Liberals have not explained how they would ensure environmental and health and safety regulations would be protected, and how they would be protected from foreign challenges.

I am proud to represent the Comox Valley. Farming, agriculture, has been a mainstay for a long time and remains incredibly vibrant. It is one of the few locations in Canada that has tracked a surge of agri-investment activities. This has helped culinary tourism in our area. For example, we have great artisan yogourt and award-winning cheese makers.

Many small and medium-size cheese makers across Canada want to continue to grow the market for high-quality Canadian dairy products. Under CETA, European dairies would receive tariff-free access for an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, representing 2% of the Canadian milk production. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, this will cost them $160 million a year in perpetual lost revenue.

The previous Conservative government recognized that CETA would lead to significant losses to Canadian dairy farmers, offering $4.3 billion in compensation. Instead of honouring this commitment, the Liberals have offered an investment package worth $250 million over five years. This falls short of the losses that dairy farmers would incur.

CETA would, for the first time, legally allow foreign-owned vessels and foreign crews to transport goods between Canadian ports, and will open up domestic dredging contracts to foreign suppliers. CETA will lead to the immediate loss of approximately 3,000 Canadian seafarers' jobs. These are high-quality, well-paying jobs. The industry as a whole supports 250,000 direct and indirect jobs. Foreign boats will bring in foreign workers with no requirement for a labour market impact assessment. These workers could be paid as low as $2 an hour and suffer from low safety standards and poor working conditions. This is not the Canada that I want to see. By permitting more foreign-flagged vessels, CETA would encourage tax avoidance, since foreign ships registered in flag-of-convenience countries take advantage of tax havens and the cheapest available labour.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. It is important that we have a vigorous debate about these issues. I do not understand why the government is not standing up for Canadians, standing up for the jobs and the realities we face. I know in my riding of North Island—Powell River, we hold sacred our commitment to keeping Canadian jobs local. We are a small riding that has faced many challenges, and we keep rising again and again. We do not need to have the government not negotiate in a positive way so we can see the results that we so desperately need.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that it is 2016 and that we should let go of something that happened 13 years ago and really deal with the issue that we need to see a real change on, namely, providing affordable child care. This is something that people across this country are asking for. As a government, I believe it is the Liberals' job to listen.

If we are going to talk about a privatized bank for infrastructure, my response is very simple. If this were the plan of the Liberal government all along, why was it not clearly spelled out in the Liberals' campaign? Were they so afraid to tell Canadians what their plan was that they did not inform them as they should have? That is what we do when we campaign. We put forward a plan and we are transparent, and if the Liberals want to talk about transparency, maybe they should try it a little more.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that many families are facing multiple challenges around poverty. When I knocked on doors, I talked to many women who had quit their jobs because they could not afford to work and pay for daycare at the same time, simply because there was not affordable daycare. That meant they were sacrificing opportunities for themselves and their own careers. They felt hopeless, as if there were no way forward for their families. They wanted to provide good opportunities for their children and families' futures, but could not.

My answer to the member is that, first of all, it was a step in the right direction. We want to make sure that families are getting the resources they need to meet the needs of their families. But it does not have any impact on affordable child care, for having the child care spaces that are so badly needed in my riding and everywhere else, and the government did not index the Canada child benefit. They are not going to do that until 2020, and that is a shame.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-29.

My constituents have identified three priorities in our riding. They have serious concerns around the needs of seniors, about housing that is affordable, and addressing the serious issue of climate change. This work has influenced my actions heavily. I am holding seniors' town halls that will be wrapping up in January, and in a riding of my size, I will be hosting a total of 11.

The need for affordable housing has been framed in my private member's bill, Bill C-325, on the right for housing for Canadians. This summer, we will begin the work we have to do with our constituents around the important issue of climate change.

Beyond these three priorities, my staff and I work hard on many challenges constituents face. They include small business needs, transportation issues around our ocean, issues with trade, and much much more.

My constituents sent me here to have a strong voice for them in this place. This is why I was very disappointed yesterday when the government reduced the time we could speak on this important bill. Bill C-29 includes 146 clauses that would amend 13 pieces of legislation. It was introduced in the House of Commons and this past Friday, three days later, debate began. With the time allocation now, there is very little time for parliamentarians to debate its content.

Time allocation provides the government with a mechanism for setting out the amount of debate a bill will receive at any given stage. When the notice is given, a short debate is had, a vote is called for, and if the motion is approved, as it was by this government, a limit for debate is established.

I take the duties of my job very seriously. Part of those duties are standing in the House debating on the bills before this place. During the last Parliament, the New Democrats decried the Conservatives' routine habit of this procedure. A year into the Liberal mandate, and the Liberals have not copied this practice; they have outright championed it.

I would like to remind members on the governing side that Canadians expect to know how they spend their money. Bill C-29 is a budgetary instrument, a bill that has specific changes to the Bank Act, to small businesses, the Canada child benefit, and the Employment Insurance Act. It must be taken seriously.

Specifically, the NDP is concerned by the fact that many relatively technical legislative changes, 239 pages amending over a dozen acts, are included in a single bill, while we have not had the time needed to debate them sufficiently.

In my riding, families are struggling daily. They have to make decisions if they can send their children to swimming with their classes because they cannot afford the $2 fee the school is requesting. Families are also facing serious challenges around finding day care. Day care spaces are limited, and the cost is often just too much. The child benefit was a step in the right direction, but the amount did not create child care spaces, nor make it affordable for families. Now we see that the Canada child benefit will be indexed in 2020, as the Liberals have proposed, rather than listening to the so-called inadmissible amendment made in the committee to see it indexed to inflation each year starting January 1, 2017. This means that each year the benefit will be worth less to Canadian families.

I have veterans who are standing outside of local businesses in my riding fundraising for their medication and seniors who are making choices among medication, food, or paying for their heat. Where is there anything in the budget that will help these folks to afford their medication?

Small business owners are looking for ways to build their businesses because they see opportunities. However, without the promised tax break, they are finding it hard to invest in the important infrastructure or human capital they need. Small businesses have grown in my riding and have provided jobs when our larger resource based jobs were lost. The government saying that businesses want money in people's pockets to spend in those businesses is only one part of the equation. The promised tax cut would have meant an equitable support to businesses across the country. Each area faces multiple challenges, and this tax break would have really made an impact in my riding.

The Liberals have rejected our proposals to cap transaction fees for credit cards and are doing nothing to facilitate the transfer of family businesses within the immediate family. Small businesses could not be clearer. As the job creators of our country, a cap on transaction fees for credit cards would make a real difference. Why is the government prioritizing credit card companies over small and medium-sized businesses in Canada?

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, it is the small and medium-sized businesses that are participating in the chambers of commerce, giving back to the communities at events, and employing people. It is time to give them the support they need, because they benefit us all so very much.

This budget also shows a worrisome trend with the government, a hands-off approach that signals an increase in upcoming privatization schemes. This comes to us as a bit of a surprise because budget 2016 did not include any details of a privatized Canadian infrastructure bank. It did have the term “asset recycling”, about which we asked numerous questions. We know that “asset recycling” is a financial term that involves the sale of an asset and the use of proceeds of the sale to invest in another asset. For the government, it means selling public infrastructure or privatizing it to raise money that will be used to fund other infrastructure.

On October 20, we learned that Liberals gave Credit Suisse, an investment firm specializing in privatization, the mandate to advise the Liberals on the benefits of privatizing Canadian airports. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the recommendation will be privatization.

Other pension fund experts are salivating at the prospect and do not even hide that it is about private ownership or private management of public assets. As Claude Lamoureux, former CEO of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, said on May 25, “For government, it is a way of offloading, of giving that to someone else. And in my opinion, this someone else might be more efficient than government”.

The road map is pretty clear: sell airports and possibly other infrastructure to raise some or all of the $40 billion to be invested in the Canadian infrastructure bank. The Liberals hope that these public funds will attract $160 billion in private capital. Regardless of the way the bank will work, it is clear that private investors and pension funds will be asking for a return on investment, which makes sense. That is what they do. The only way to do this is to create a revenue stream, and that means imposing tolls and user fees at a rate of between 7% to 9%.

What will this mean for communities across Canada? I represent many small and rural communities. The need for infrastructure is profound and often they are left behind. This scheme would not benefit the people of these small communities. How long will they have to pay tolls or user fees to get a benefit of 7% to 9% return on investment? This scheme is so speculative that even president-elect Donald Trump thinks it is a great idea.

Since we are on the topic of implementing certain provisions of the budget, can the government finally admit which ports, airports, and bridges will be privatized? What will be tolled and which user fees can Canadians expect? These are simple questions. My constituents, who work so hard, are left wondering when these costs will appear. I am particularly concerned with what this would mean for smaller communities that will not be able to generate the kind of user-fee revenue streams that would be attractive to investors of this bank. Why is the government taking away allocated funds for infrastructure for a new scheme that simply will not help communities in my riding?

During this time of year, many organizations, service groups, and people are working to ensure the holidays will be good ones for those struggling to make ends meet. I remember being in Port Hardy and one member of the community showing me the food bank. He said that 20 years ago they did not have them, that there were enough jobs, but now they had been forgotten and they fundraised to feed themselves. This budget could do so much more.

I want to thank all of the people, organizations, and service groups that are actively working to feed those across the riding who are hungry, whether it be the Eagles Ladies Auxiliary that has been fundraising for weeks now, selling food to raise money to feed those who desperately need it; the Angel tree, where people buy a gift for a child who would go without if not for the generosity of the communities I serve; the Community Resource Centre in Powell River; the Salvation Army; the Good Food Box; all the food banks across the riding; Grassroots Kind Hearts; and the Beacon Club, just to mention a few. Poverty is real in our communities and I thank all of those who work everyday on the ground to fight it.

[Infrastructure, December 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of infrastructure, the Competition Bureau is already witnessing some collusion taking place in the federal infrastructure program. In fact, investigations have been launched, and according to the bureau, developments could be announced in the coming months.

Liberals have been warned by the bureau that shady companies will definitely be tempted to pull a fast one on taxpayers. Do the Liberals understand the danger? What safeguards are they putting in place to protect Canadians from being scammed?

[Canadian Bill of Rights, December 5th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing).

Mr. Speaker, the government must make housing a priority. In the communities I represent and across Canada, we see a staggering need for proper housing at a reasonable cost. In Canada, people do not have the housing they need.

For this reason, I wish to table today an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that the right to housing is firmly recognized as law. This would redefine the way we frame a national housing strategy and finally allow us to adopt our international responsibilities regarding human rights. When housing needs are met, we as a society can grow much stronger and more prosperous.

I would like to thank the member for Hochelaga for working so hard on the issue of housing. I look forward to the debate, and I hope to see all members in this House support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)