Finance Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would urge the members of this committee to undertake to read the witnesses' testimony from the immigration committee. In fact, witnesses were quite clear—people who work directly with refugees—in outlining the kinds of risks they would be exposed to. In fact, at CIMM, the Liberal members were desperate to ask the witnesses how to fix this and what their proposed fix was, given the fears that were highlighted at the committee. They said explicitly that there was no fix, that you cannot fix this situation, and that the recourse for the government to undertake was in fact to withdraw the proposed legislation hidden in Bill C-97.

The immigration committee also heard witnesses, by the way, from the United States who work particularly with women from the Americas. They talked about the violence and severe risks they and their children face. They urged the government to take action in this regard and said very clearly that this legislation would not address the concerns that people had brought forward.

There's the idea that somehow there's going to be a hearing incorporated into this. How this hearing will be dealt with and in what format is not explained anywhere. There's another issue which is critical, and you would think the government would want to move forward on this, which is to address a recent report by the Auditor General which talks about the ineffectiveness of the government's operation, the duplication of effort and the waste of taxpayers' money in this effort.

What are we doing here? We're talking about setting up a parallel system, supposedly, although the legislation doesn't say that. We have no idea what the system is other than that there would be some sort of hearing. I suspect that all the government is trying to do is to say, “Look, it's all going to be okay. There's going to be a hearing, and by the way, we're not infringing on the Supreme Court decision in Singh v. Canada because there will be a hearing.”

On the issue around taxpayers' resources, what on earth is the government thinking by setting up another process, duplicating the process, even if you pretend for a minute that the process is going to be exactly the same as the IRB, that people would not be at risk, and they would be entitled to all the due processes they would require? What on earth is the government doing setting up another process? They'll have to set up the same kind of infrastructure, hire and train the same kind of people to do the same work when you already have the infrastructure in place. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Before I go to Mr. Dusseault, I'm first going back to the letter that came to us from the citizenship and immigration committee, which I read before. Keep that in mind because the committee agrees with [Inaudible—Editor] to division 16 here.

I'll quote again from the letter from CIMM, the immigration committee:

The Committee recommends that the Standing Committee on Finance adopt clauses 306-309 and the last three sections of clause 310, provided that the Finance committee is satisfied that the legislation will guarantee a right to an oral PRRA hearing to all asylum seekers who will be affected by this new ground of ineligibility under Clause 306....

That's what the citizenship and immigration committee, signed by their chair, sent to this committee, just so we're clear.

Mr. Dusseault, and then we will sum up.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, but the chair of the committee should have said that he was speaking on behalf of the majority of the members of the committee, because clearly there was disagreement at that committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We received that information. A couple of the letters haven't gone out, though, because they haven't been translated as yet.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I think it is really unfortunate that our colleagues from across the table do not remember Seidu Mohammed's testimony. That may be insensitivity on their part. I vividly remember his testimony before our committee. He was very clear: if the provisions proposed by the government had been in force, he would have been removed to Ghana and his life would now be in danger. I don't know where my colleague was during that testimony. Perhaps he did not listen to the witness's statement or was insensitive to it. I was personally very touched, and that is why I have taken his call to action to remove these clauses from the bill very seriously.

We are here today to protect people like Mr. Mohammed, who have found refuge in Canada. Given the government's insensitivity, those people may find themselves in a country where their life would be in danger. So I am appealing to my colleagues' humanity to ensure that this does not happen again, whether we are talking about that witness or any other individual seeking asylum in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will vote on amendment LIB-8, which creates new clause 308.1.

Do you want a recorded vote on this, Mr. Dusseault?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Shall clause 309 carry?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

We would like a recorded vote.

(Clause 309 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 310)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next is amendment LIB-9, which amends clause 310.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, amendment LIB-9 is a coordinating amendment, so that the previous clauses of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act not yet brought into force are aligned with the new amendment that was just passed by this committee as amendment LIB-8.

Amendment LIB-9 is simply coordinating, again, with respect to providing a hearing for all applicants under the proposed system in the budget bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to put it on the public record again, that for the same reasons I reiterated earlier, the NDP opposes this amendment, and once again calls on the government to withdraw these changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

We would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 310 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Valentine and Mr. Baril.

We will now turn to division 17, Federal Courts Act.

Madam Berthiaume, welcome.

Are there any questions for the officials?

There are no amendments to clauses 311 and 312.

Can we agree to carry them on division?

(Clauses 311 and 312 agreed to on division)

Thank you, Adèle. That was simple.

We're done with division 18, National Housing Act.

On division 19, the national housing strategy act, we have Mr. Tremblay, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Innovation, with CMHC; and Mr. Young, Director, Legal Service, with CMHC.

(On clause 313)

If there are any questions, please feel free to ask them of the officials.

We'll start with amendment NDP-9. If it's adopted, LIB-10 cannot be moved.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are on page 283 of the bill, which concerns the part to enact the National Housing Strategy Act. These amendments were inspired by the testimony we have heard. Many witnesses provided very convincing testimony before the committee. They highlighted the importance of recognizing housing as a fundament right. They argued that the proposed legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, does not create a legislative framework that makes it possible to recognize housing as a right.

The Liberal government says that it wants to recognize housing as a right, but it is clear, as our witnesses have pointed out, that this is not what the legislation proposed in Bill C-97 does. The declaration simply states that the legislation recognizes the importance of housing to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person, that we must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to support improved housing outcomes, and that we must further the progressive realization of the right to housing.

Those are very vague terms that do not recognize that housing is a right in Canada. I'm here talking about law in Canada, but it should be pointed out that this right is recognized in international law in a number of conventions.

That is why I am proposing today the following amendment to subsection (a) of section 4 of the declaration:

(a) recognize that housing is a fundamental human right that is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to the development of sustainable and inclusive communities;

These terms are inspired by the recommendations made by witnesses. I also propose the addition of subsection (d), following subsections (a), (b) and (c) of the same section, which reads as follows:

(d) identify the particular needs and rights of Indigenous Peoples and the barriers that prevent them from meeting those needs and exercising those rights and, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, co-develop strategies with Indigenous organizations to address those barriers and to enable Indigenous peoples to meet their needs and exercise their rights.

It is a matter of enshrining United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the proposed legislation on housing. Those rights must be recognized and protected as often as possible. So this is about integrating that aspect, which was omitted by the government.

My other proposal concerns the content of the strategy, which is covered on the next page of the bill. The amendment reads as follows:

(a) implement the housing policy, taking a human rights-based approach;

That follows up on what I was saying earlier—that we must recognize housing as a right and implement policies based on the fact that it is a right. To ensure the monitoring of results, I propose that lines 8 to 10 on page 284 be replaced with the following passage:

tives, timelines and desired outcomes consistent with the housing policy;

A bit further on, I also propose that subsection (e) be added to the content of the strategy:

(e) provide public education resources and support for community initiatives designed to advance the right to housing;

I also propose adding subsection (f):

(f) support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with regard to housing.

These are my preliminary amendments, if you will, that affect the content of the strategy. Their goal is to recognize, in the bill's declaration, that housing is a right, to include rights related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to strengthen the mandate, the content of the strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, in general terms, the vision set out by NDP-9, as I think my colleague will see, is captured in LIB-10. Beyond that, also in general terms, my colleague raises focus on indigenous issues and specifically issues related to indigenous housing. The reality is that we're already focused on these things. He will know that, through the national housing strategy, for instance, Minister Duclos and this government have brought in a distinctions-based housing approach. We have consulted widely on that issue with indigenous leaders throughout this country. We will continue to do that.

Moreover, we've already set aside $638 million—that was back in February, Mr. Chair—for an urban indigenous housing approach and strategy. For that reason, I can't support NDP-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Turning to LIB-10, on the same clause, go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, first of all, there is a mistake in the French version of the housing amendment here. Instead of saying

“affirmé par le droit international” should read “confirmé par le droit international”.

There's a spelling difference.

Also, “affirmé” is a direct translation of “affirmed”, but wouldn't mean the same thing in legal terms.

So I put that forward.

Moving on to the substance of LIB-10, the proposed legislation recognizes the importance of housing to the well-being of all persons in Canada and reflects the key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing. In particular, the legislation requires that the national housing strategy focus on improving housing outcomes for those in greatest need.

The NHS act would establish a national housing council with diverse representation, including people with lived experience of housing need or homelessness—something which is tremendously important to this government and ought to be to all members of Parliament—to provide advice to the minister responsible for housing as well. Under the proposed legislation, the annual report of the federal housing advocate must contain recommended measures within the government's authority to address taking into account the housing policy.

That's the vision here.

Also, since I'm at it, I'll just add that NDP-11, which will be put forward later on, is certainly worthy of consideration but I believe would require a royal recommendation. As far as dealing with the vision that it sets out in principle, it's certainly worthy of consideration. I believe that we will be seeing something to address the goals that it seeks to attain. That should be forthcoming sometime very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I should have mentioned as well that if LIB-10 is adopted, NDP-10 cannot be moved due to the line conflict.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment presented by Mr. Fragiskatos?

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I am trying to understand what has happened since the government introduced the bill in its present form. It did not make housing a right in the bill, but is waking up today and thinks it is important to affirm this right. How could such a gross mistake have been allowed to pass? In a housing law, it was not even stated that it was a right. I'm trying to understand what happened. I don't know if there are people around the table who can shed any light on this. It seems rather strange to me that today we have to mop up the spilled milk and fix the government's mistakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Always trying to improve the bill....

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I think you answered it, Mr. Chair. At the risk of taking the bait that my colleague has put forward, in all seriousness, I think he should be joining us in celebrating what is a very good goal and a very good vision that the amendment sets out. I'm not saying that only because it's my amendment. I think it's something that anyone who is interested in housing and anyone who is interested in human rights.... Frankly, we heard from witnesses who told us this was a worthy approach, a worthy amendment to include.

For that reason, what else is there to say? I think we ought to go in this direction.