Alistair MacGregor

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's speech. In the Carter ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada when it held up the appeal, it defined a competent adult person as one who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

In Bill C-14 under proposed paragraph 241.2(2)(d), the legislation specifically mentions that a natural death has to be reasonably foreseeable. I want to know the member's opinion on that specific section of the bill. Does he believe that complies with the Carter ruling and is the government prepared to refer this legislation at some point down the road to the Supreme Court to make sure that we do not have future charter challenges?

[Justice, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear that kind of response from a supposedly progressive government. The fact of the matter is that in my province of British Columbia alone, marijuana is worth $6 billion a year. The current laws are not effective. All of that money is going to criminal organizations and the people who are getting their lives ruined by getting records are people who are innocent. They get caught with possession of small amounts and have to face a charge and sentence that will profoundly impact the rest of their lives.

If I understand the parliamentary secretary correctly, that means we have more than a year of waiting while we continue with needless arrests and wasteful trials. The justice department has confirmed it is going to cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year. It is not what a progressive government should be doing with marijuana laws.

At least yesterday the Liberal member of Parliament for Beaches—East York had the courage to publicly say that prosecution for marijuana possession is patently unfair in light of the government's future plans on this matter.

I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could take direction from that member.

[Justice, April 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a lot of confusion on the marijuana file, because the government is refusing to have a clear conversation with Canadians. I hope, sincerely, that tonight we can get to the bottom of what actual action will be taken on this file, without hiding behind smoke and mirrors.

I want to bring up a few facts that add to the present confusion. The parliamentary secretary has previously stated that the only control in place is the current criminal sanction for the production and trafficking of marijuana. He did not mention possession, although he probably did wish he had.

The Minister of Health has spoken to the United Nations and did not once say that Canada will legalize marijuana, but I suppose it was strongly intimated.

When the parliamentary secretary was asked in this House last week about the Prime Minister saying that he would legalize marijuana, there was a quick shift in his answer. He spoke about replacing the current existing criminal sanction with a more effective regulatory regime. The criminal sanction is presumably not seen as effective.

I had a great opportunity to speak with police members from Vancouver, Saanich, and Victoria during the recent Canadian Police Association reception, and they too are very confused over the government's plan. Police are justifiably uncertain on whether to enforce against small marijuana infractions, knowing that the laws are set to change.

The confusion continues with local governments in British Columbia, some of which have issued business licences for marijuana dispensaries.

The Minister of Health has stated that the government will work with law enforcement partners to encourage appropriate and proportionate criminal justice measures. In light of the plan to legalize, what exactly is the appropriate and proportionate response to stopping young people in possession of marijuana and having them live with a criminal record for the rest of their lives?

Marijuana possession of 30 grams or less can result in an up to $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. Even if the maximum penalty is not imposed, that person still has the record. It can have profound consequences for the rest of his or her life.

Both the Liberals and NDP realize, to quote the Minister of Health again, that is "impossible to arrest our way out of this problem." This is a fact, and yet Canada today continues under existing punitive marijuana laws that harm Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The status quo is morally unacceptable and does nothing to effectively confront the problem. What we need is for the federal government to take some leadership on this issue and decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana while we wait for it to eventually bring forward legislation for legalization.

The Prime Minister has previously stated:

There have been many situations over history when laws come in that overturn previous convictions. And there will be a process for that that we will set up in a responsible way.

However, the parliamentary secretary has since stated that they are not looking at a system of pardons or amnesty. These comments conflict with what the Prime Minister has said and give rise to questions on who is actually speaking for the government.

With this as context, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary some clear questions. Will the government decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana immediately as we wait for legalization next year? If yes, when can we expect this to happen? If the answer is no, will the government be pardoning those who get criminal records for possession?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, part (c) of our motion recognizes that the entire industry is standing together to call for the problem to be resolved immediately.

I just want to draw the attention of my colleague from Windsor West to the quote from Mr. Peter Gould, who is the general manager and chief executive officer of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. He said, “[E]ffective border control is the foundation of a successful supply management system, of a strong domestic dairy industry, and that is the pillar in supply management that the federal government has the sole responsibility for”.

I wonder if my colleague can comment on the fact that it is lamentable that not only is the dairy association standing up, but so is the legislative branch standing up to the executive and reminding it of its responsibilities.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows this very well. She has done an excellent job on this file. She has asked a number of questions of the Minister of Agriculture on this. However, the answers we get are completely unacceptable. There is no ownership of responsibility with respect to laws and regulations needing to be changed. Rather, we simply need to follow the laws that exist on the books. We are looking for the government side to own up to the problem, fulfill its mandate, and work on behalf of Canadian agricultural producers.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that we have to keep the focus on the present government. I am trying to keep my comments to that subject.

I have highlighted this many times. Six months have gone by. It is time to stop living in the past and start living to the present. The NDP is trying to do that. We will continue to support that as the debate goes on in the House today.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I already answered that question during the course of my speech. I do not support a watered-down amendment. What our original motion calls for is the correct one.

The comments with respect to not handling this issue and that we inherited it from the Conservatives reminds me of the old rhyme: Liberal, Tory, same old story. Those parties are great at blaming each other but not taking any responsibility.

I do not care what was done in previous Parliaments. I am standing here right now in the 42nd Parliament trying to take action. However, I am not on the executive branch of government. It is up to it to take action.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé in the House today is incredibly important.

I want to give a shout-out to the hard-working farmers in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For those members in the House who do not know, the Cowichan Valley is worded after the first nations band that lives there, and it is referred to as the warm land. We have a beautiful climate on that part of Vancouver Island.

I am honoured to be a part-time farmer myself. My wife and I have a small, three-acre farm. It is very small scale compared to what some farmers go through, but it does give me a bit of insight into just how hard farmers work.

I could not be more honoured to be a member of Parliament who comes from a riding that supports farms and that has a real link between the people who buy produce and the people who produce it.

Let me look at the Liberal government's track record on this. I want to start off with the Speech from the Throne. Some hon. members have already mentioned that there was not one mention of the word “agriculture” in the Speech from the Throne. To me that signals a big omission. It signals that agriculture does not figure heavily in the government's view of going forward.

Following up on that, the budget released on March 22 devoted only a scant two pages to agriculture, and one of those pages simply mentioned the existing growing forward 2 program, which was launched in 2013. The budget devoted one out of two pages to mentioning a program that already exists, and that just does not signal to me that there is a serious commitment by the government.

Now, I do acknowledge that there are Liberal members of Parliament in the House and in the Conservative Party and the NDP who do care deeply about agriculture. We have heard a lot of passion in the House already, but when it comes down to actual action, that is for me what ultimately speaks louder than words.

We have heard the Minister of Agriculture in the House quite a few times. He has said that the government supports supply management, that it understands the importance of compensation, that he is fully aware of the problem, and that it is in discussions with the dairy industry. That is all well and good, but this problem has existed for a number of years now.

With respect to the Liberal MPs who do stand passionately on this issue, after six months of being in government it is time to stop blaming the Conservatives and to actually own up to the problem.

Some Liberal MPs are having trouble distinguishing between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch.

The Minister of Agriculture is in charge of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Minister of Public Safety is in charge of the CBSA. We have two government agencies that have different views on the import of this substance. Nothing needs to actually be changed. We on this side of the House are simply asking that the government follow the rules that are already in place. It is a simple request.

The Liberals did promise during the election campaign to review the existing standards, rules, and practices regarding the import of food products, including dairy proteins, to ensure that they serve the interests of Canadians. Our motion is simply asking that they conform with that commitment made during the election.

I would also like to take some time to look more closely at the wording of our motion. Part (a) of the motion calls on the House to:

...recognize the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers from the importation of diafiltered milk from the United States, which totalled $220 million in 2015;

That is $220 million in just one year alone, or an average of $15,000 per producer.

It has been said already in the House by my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh that diafiltered milk is designed to circumvent Canadian law, because when it comes into Canada it is imported as a concentrated milk protein and it is not subject to border fees. However, when producers of cheese use diafiltered milk in their product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regards it as the same as milk. It is treated by one agency as milk but by another agency as not milk.

We are simply calling for harmonization of these two views, and it is well within the capacity of the executive level of government, so it is time to stop beating around the bush, take some action, own up to the problem, and stop blaming the previous government for the issues.

In cheese-making, there needs to be a minimum percentage of protein sourced from milk. There are rules and regulations for how we make cheese in this country, but diafiltered milk and milk protein substances are less costly and they come from heavily subsidized milk.

The second part of the motion is “recognize that each day of government inaction contributes to the disappearance of a steadily increasing number of family farms across the country”. This is very true. For losses of this magnitude, small family farms are the ones that get hit the hardest. It is the big ones that are able to absorb these costs, and that has been a trend in Canada. We have seen the disappearance of the small family farm, and often those are the cornerstone of our communities. They certainly are in my community of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Not all producers of cheese have access to diafiltered milk, so there is an imbalance there as well. The overall effect of not changing this policy is that we are using less Canadian milk in our cheese and dairy products. It is not working well for those hard-working dairy farmers across this country. It is a very unfair regulation, if we are not going to be changing it. I do not think we want to become a country where only the biggest farms are able to survive and a family business is no longer profitable.

Part (c) of the motion is “recognize that the entire industry is standing together to call for the problem to be resolved immediately”. Earlier this year when I was at the Dairy Farmers of Canada reception, I noticed a lot of Liberal members of Parliament there. I noticed the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary secretary. It was all well and good for them to stand with the association then to get their pictures taken, but they completely ignore what the industry is calling for.

Wally Smith, who I am proud to say is from Vancouver Island, really close to where I live, said:

...all of Canada’s dairy farmers speak with one voice on diafiltered milk. We are collectively disappointed with the lack of action on enforcement of the cheese standards.... The Government does not need to pass a new law or new regulation and the solution is simple. The Government needs to enforce the existing standards.

It is quite simple to me.

Part (d) of the motion calls upon the government “to keep its election promises and honour the commitments made since the start of its mandate [now six months long] by immediately enforcing the compositional standards”.

With respect to the Liberal MPs who moved an amendment to the motion, I agree with my colleague. It would have watered down what we are ultimately trying to do in the motion, and I agree that it was the right choice to disallow that amendment and go with what we are proposing on this side of the House.

On a final note, I want to note the importance in Canada of food security, and I would like to acknowledge the incredible work that the NDP has done on this issue for many years. We had Malcolm Allen and also Alex Atamanenko compile an important report called “Everybody eats: Our vision for a pan-Canadian food strategy”, and we recognize the importance of treating food security and agriculture in a holistic approach. We cannot look at it piecemeal. We have to see the system as a whole. That is what has been missing in Canada for many years. We lack a pan-Canadian food strategy.

One of the important parts of that is making sure that the government operates on a level playing field, that the law is equal for everyone, and that the laws that are in the books are actually being enforced. That is what gives producers in Canada peace of mind. It gives them the ability to produce their goods and to know that they have economic security.

In closing, I would like to say that I could not be prouder of the motion coming forward, and I am glad that the NDP is taking an initiative on this. We on this side of the House will be standing with our farmers.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member is referring to the actual wording. We have heard from members of Parliament from the Liberal benches that they are expanding it to ensure greater parts of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba will have these jobs. However, the clause that is very important is section 4. When they are talking about giving Air Canada the freedom to change the type, volume, and level of employment, it is very clear that they will give the corporation carte blanche to ship those jobs overseas so it makes sense for the corporate bottom line.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague across the way that the process has not been honoured, and I do not think that some of the major players who have been fighting for those good jobs are being honoured. For the 2,600 people from Aveos, their union is still fighting that battle from 2012. That was four years ago. What the Liberals are saying is that those four years of challenging and trying to get those jobs back is going to mean nothing with this bill.

Where I would disagree with my hon. friend is on the notion of the free market. Markets are not free. They operate under heavily regulated laws put in place. They have an illusion of being free, but there are many different government laws and regulations that a market actually operates by, and the worst thing is that it rewards some people more than others.

In the same manner, in order to counterbalance what goes on with the market, governments do sometimes have to step in and level the playing field. Sometimes governments have to be a champion for well-paying jobs, and that is why we on this corner of the House are standing so proudly for that point.