Daniel Blaikie

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He demonstrated an impressive familiarity with the relevant laws in question.

What I would say to his great technical speech is that the symbolism does matter here. I agree that more than symbolism is important, but we are here to debate the principle of the bill. If we deem the principle of the bill worthy, then we should send it on to committee. Hopefully, at committee those two things, the technical aspects as well as the symbolic aspects, could be reconciled.

I would say that at this stage of the debate, that symbolism is sufficient for me to say that I support the bill. With all of the intelligence and resources of the House, if we decide that it is important to have language in the Criminal Code that reflects the strong feelings that heinous acts of torture compel in us, we have the capacity to find technical solutions to allow us to express those feelings properly in the law and attach consequences that are in keeping with those feelings.

It is my confidence in the House that allows me to say that what we need to decide today is whether we affirm the principle of creating a separate offence within the law. If there are problems with technical aspects of the bill, we should at least give it due consideration at committee to see if those cannot be resolved, and they may well be resolved.

Language is very important, and we have already come to this theme in a couple of ways in the House. One we heard in question period, for instance. Regardless of what side of the issue one falls on, because I do not want to complicate it too much, we have talked about the word “genocide” and the importance of giving a proper name to things. Whether that name is proper on that issue is certainly a subject of debate, but we have had other debates in which language was very important. I guess that is what I am trying to highlight.

This bill highlights very well how important it is to people who experience terrible acts of torture—acts that go above and beyond what would be a typical assault and are particularly cruel and long-lasting—for us to call it what it is. It is difficult to understate how much it can mean to victims and their families when what actually happened is recognized for what it is in the language of the law in court.

There have been other times in my life, in various roles, when I dealt across a range of issues with people who felt that an injustice had been committed, and sometimes the worst part was not so much what happened or the consequences of what happened: it was that government or other authorities did not recognize it in the language that victims felt was needed and to the extent they felt it needed to be recognized. The language did not match up with the reality of what had happened to them.

Changing the law to create an offence called “torture” can go a long way when we think about victims and the effects after the terrible event. This is something we can do, if we get the details right, to help alleviate the effects after the events. I think that is the most laudable aspect of this bill.

It is important to any victim, but I think my colleague spoke earlier to the fact that instances of torture, unfortunately and predominantly, tend to happen to women. Therefore, it becomes an issue of also making sure that we have the right language to address something that is happening to women in Canada, including indigenous women, and calling it what it is. In that way, when people hear it, even if it is a passing report on the news, as is the case so often when we hear terrible things, the word being used will really capture what happened. It will not be passed by as another case of aggravated assault. People will realize in that 15-second clip, or however long it is, that what happened was actually worse than that. It was an act of torture.

I want to emphasize the extent to which I appreciate the arguments about the technical aspects of the bill, but I really think that what we will be concerned about at second reading is the principle of the bill. Making this change can do a lot for victims and their families. It is worth sending the bill to committee to see if those technical details cannot be hammered out. That is why I am pleased to support the bill today.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is debating an amendment that is not on the floor of the House. If he would like to—

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

That heckle worked. I don't know what you said but it threw me off. Points to you, sir.

Madam Speaker, the problem is that our cheese is being watered down and the problem with the Liberal amendment is that watering down the motion is not the way to solve the problem of watering down the cheese.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment. It is better than trying to create a compliment out of a question, so I appreciate being in the position of having to create a question out of a compliment.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am going to divine a question out of that and proceed to answer it.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things in reply.

First, a little over six months ago, if the Liberals were saying anything about this, it was that if the previous government was not enforcing it, that was a case for a new government. Canadians have a new government now, and I think they want some follow-through.

With respect to the promise, from what I have seen, I would say the Liberals have been masters, as they were in the election campaign—and we are seeing the truth of it now that they are in government—of putting a promise on paper. We have seen it with the Prime Minister saying about door-to-door delivery, “Do not pay attention to what I said. Go read the fine print on the website.” We have seen it with public servants, who had an expectation that they would be treated with respect through Bill C-5 and the removal of the legislative mechanism to enforce a solution, but the Liberals came back to the bargaining table with the same offer.

The Liberals have been masters of creating promises that in the letter were very limited but in the spirit and in the impression that they made in the minds of Canadians were quite significant.

This would be another issue on which I think they created an expectation and are now saying, “Read the fine print.”

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one of the joys of being a member of Parliament is that one gets to learn about issues that one might not otherwise be aware of if not for being in this place.

In my case, I have been learning a little bit about diafiltered milk, having met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada earlier this year, and now through this very well-worded, specific, concrete motion that has been brought to the House on how to actually fix this situation.

The problem, as I understand it, is that there are rules for the composition of cheese in Canada, but certain milk proteins, such as diafiltered milk, are being used and counted against the allotment for actual milk when in fact they are not milk.

How do we know the diafiltered product is not milk? It is because the Canada Border Services Agency says it is not milk and does not charge duties on it as it does on milk.

This is really just an instance of government needing to appreciate and understand its own clearly written rules for the importation of milk proteins. The government needs to recognize that and then follow through on it when it comes to the way our cheese is produced.

When the government fails to do that, as it has been, it means that there is competitive pressure to use the cheaper product. It is cheaper because it can be imported without being subject to the same duties as other milk. When that is counted against the quota for milk, it means that Canadian milk, which would otherwise be used for that purpose, is at a competitive disadvantage.

Therefore, all we are asking is that the rules be fairly enforced so that Canadian producers can sell the milk they produce, milk that actually meets the requirements, and get the economic benefit so that those dollars that are being spent can be reinvested in Canadian communities instead of shipped out to the United States. I think that is a laudable goal.

Incidentally, this is why I am often concerned when we talk about larger trade agreements, and there is mention of those here. It is because those agreements tend to tighten the noose, whether it is on Canadian producers in the agricultural sector or on other Canadian workers. In similar ways, those agreements create competitive pressures that either price those Canadian goods out of the market or cause the work and the jobs essentially to leave Canada.

Although it works in a different way, we are seeing something similar in the TPP with the provisions on temporary foreign workers. There are pressures created by allowing companies to bring in workers who can be sent back at any point by their employer and who are therefore concerned about complaining about their wages or working conditions. In this way, downward pressure is created on the expectations of Canadian workers. It is just one more way in which certain kinds of trade agreements end up not benefiting Canadians.

They are not benefiting Canadians, or at least Canadian workers and producers. There may be some few Canadians at the top who make obscene amounts of money because of market access, but if it is not being spread around, I have not only wondered about it but I have also not been able to answer the question of why we should get excited about supporting agreements that may produce enormous amounts of wealth for a select few Canadians while putting many other Canadians out of work or forcing them to work for lower wages and lower benefits.

I think this point is important when the government says that it wants to support supply management. Certainly we heard for a long time from Liberal members in the Canadian Wheat Board debate that they were supporters of supply management for Canadian wheat farmers. However, it is not just about what legislation one brings to the House, but also about what else one is doing. One's right hand has to be talking to one's left hand, and vice versa.

Here is an example of a government that says it supports supply management but then turns a blind eye to the enforcement of its own regulations, the practical implication of which is to undercut Canadian supply-managed producers. If the Liberals want to say they support supply management, that is one thing, but if they want to do something about it, they could pass this motion and follow through on it, because that is what supporting supply management really looks like. It looks like undertaking to do things, particularly the easiest things, which in this case means that the government should enforce its own regulations to make sure that it is not putting Canadian producers at an unreasonable competitive disadvantage.

That is why I was disappointed to see that Liberals members are not standing to support this motion. My understanding is that it was one of their election commitments. They said that within 100 days of being elected, they would solve this problem because it is an easy problem to solve and just requires enforcing.

Members can imagine how they came to have it as an election commitment because when this kind of thing comes into a war room, people are discussing it and saying, “So all we have to do is enforce our own standards? Yes, make that promise. That is an easy one. We can do that. That is no problem.”

I do not understand how it became so difficult to enforce just because they won the election. It was an easy commitment to make, because it is the right thing to do. It is a matter of simply enforcing regulations that are already on the books. It is mysterious to me why we are not already doing that.

In case members are worrying that I am going on at length and they are going to have to listen to me for a full 20 minutes, I would like to let you know, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West. I will put the members in the House at ease by letting them know that I will be splitting my time and that this is not a 20-minute speech. I could go on, but I will not.

However, when one is making a good argument about something important, one needs to make sure that everything gets said and that it gets said well. Sometimes it takes time to do that. Thankfully, today it will not take too long, because I know the member for Windsor West is excited to make good arguments as well.

What is really the issue is one of those things that boggles the mind, because it is simple. It was a clear election commitment. It is about enforcing regulations that are already on the books. We already have the capacity to do this. It simply means keeping money in Canada and standing up for Canadian producers instead of standing up for American producers and allowing that money to go elsewhere.

We have heard from producers themselves that this is something they want. My understanding is that not only the producers who make the milk but also those who make the cheese want it. Everyone is on the same page. The only people who are not are the American producers and the Liberal government.

I just do not understand how they are the ones getting together on this issue. Why do the Liberals not stand up and vote with the rest of Canadians who are concerned about this issue? Then we can move forward and talk about all the many other issues that need to be discussed.

With that, I will finish.

[International Trade, April 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the government has heard positive and negative things about the TPP. There are lots of negative things to hear about the TPP. What I said was that I have not heard them say negative things about the TPP. I have only heard them say positive things, so I do not believe I hear it in that regard, unless the parliamentary secretary has some negative comments about the TPP that he would like to share with us tonight, which he knows members of his party have put on the record, of which I am not aware.

I would agree with the parliamentary secretary that Canada depends on trade, but what it does not depend on, the last time I checked, is bringing over temporary foreign workers who have no security here and who could be sent back at any time by the employer. They are being exploited because they are afraid to raise workplace safety and health concerns. They are afraid to complain if they are not being given their due wage, and in the meantime they are undermining the position of Canadian workers here.

The concern with the temporary foreign worker program, and it is a concern that the government acknowledges, is that this will be repeated under the TPP. What we want to hear is that the government's study of the TFW program will include a study of chapter 12 in the TPP to ensure that this does not become a back door for another TFW program that is now enshrined in a trade deal.

[International Trade, April 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my follow-up on the perils of the temporary foreign worker provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the results of yesterday's election in Manitoba. I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing premier, Greg Selinger, and to the 16 years of good NDP government in Manitoba, and what that has meant for our province.

Outgoing Premier Selinger brought his experience as a social worker and social activist first to city council and then to the Manitoba legislature as minister of finance in the government in 1999, until he took over the leadership from Gary Doer. He led a government that was focused on investing in people and in the infrastructure of Manitoba at a time when governments across the world were embracing austerity and paying the price for those policies of austerity.

In Manitoba, we had great economic performance compared to other provinces. We were building social housing and child care spaces. Over those 16 years, that is one of the unsung achievements of the NDP publicly.

However, one of our biggest accomplishments there was the neighbourhoods alive program. It is a program that provides seed funding to community organizations. It is not a model of government coming in and telling communities what to do, but building community capacity so they can guide their own future. It is a model that has applications well outside the area of community development, and could be well applied within other government departments to ensure community people are in the driver seat when it comes to government investment,.

Again, I am proud of the record of the NDP government, and we will carry on fighting. We will give the new government a run for its money in 2020.

Part of the work we are here to do is to stand up for working people. We have heard the government itself say that there are serious problems with the temporary foreign worker program. The minister has committed to a review of that program and has said that it is one of her priorities to fix.

However, when we look at chapter 12 of the trans-Pacific partnership, we have language around temporary foreign workers that essentially will recreate and perpetuate the problems of the temporary foreign worker program. Therefore, on one hand we hear criticism of the TFW program, but on the other hand, we hear nothing but praise, frankly, from the government for the trans-Pacific partnership.

I would like to hear a commitment from the government today that the Liberals' study of the temporary foreign worker program will include within its scope a study of chapter 12 of the TPP to ensure that what they say they are fixing with the one hand, they are not taking away or putting back with the other hand.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Does he think that this major coincidence, where the provinces decided to drop their lawsuit, is really plausible? Is it not more likely that when there was a change in government and the new government indicated that it was prepared to change the law, the provinces decided that the time was right to negotiate in order to get something? They knew that the federal government was no longer on the side of Air Canada workers.