Debates of Jan. 30th, 2015

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of greater oversight of these bodies by Parliament in a fashion that would provide us with quicker answers than we received in regard to the Air India incident. That showed me how important it is to interact continually with the intelligence agency to understand what it is doing, why it is doing what it is doing, where its shortfalls are, and how the agency can be improved. Without that, I think there is extreme danger to Canadian values because it simply does not give the intelligence agency the opportunity to look carefully at what it is doing and to ensure it is doing things according to every law we have in place now. I think that goes without saying.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have spoken in the course of this debate, since I spoke at second reading of Bill C-44. If members would like to know more about my feelings on this bill, they can have a look at my other speech.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for the work she has done on this issue. She made an excellent speech this morning. Anyone watching at home should watch my colleague's speech if they want more information.

Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts essentially makes three substantive changes with regard to CSIS.

First, it clarifies the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad to respond to threats from outside Canada.

Second, it confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada.

Third, it provides for protection of identity for CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings.

The NDP does not deny that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is in need of some changes. We do not deny that the world has changed in recent decades and that Canada's commitments abroad have also changed. The realities we face have changed. Naturally, we need to amend this act so that CSIS can act abroad in a way that is adapted to today's realities.

That is why we voted in favour of this bill at second reading. We had hoped to work with the government to improve this bill and make amendments, because even at second reading we saw some huge flaws in the bill. We had a lot of concerns about the bill, especially with respect to protections, civilian oversight of CSIS and the fact that the government does not give CSIS adequate resources.

I would like to point out that the NDP participated in the committee's study in order to improve this bill so that it would meet Canadians' criteria for civilian oversight.

We moved several amendments in committee but, unfortunately, even though we wanted to work in good faith with the government, it rejected all our amendments without even studying them. That is truly deplorable.

The amendments we proposed addressed the concerns expressed by witnesses and experts who appeared before the committee. With respect to warrants for overseas covert actions, we moved an amendment that would require the director, and not an employee designated by the minister, to make the application in every case. It is simply a question of transparency.

I know that all Canadians want CSIS to be as transparent as possible. The purpose of our amendment was to ensure that covert activities do not become routine. We wanted the director to be accountable.

I listened to the debate very carefully today, and the Conservative government has still not explained why it rejected this amendment, which would have resulted in more transparency and accountability.

Additionally, we put forward an amendment to delete the following from clause 8(2):

Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state,...

It is important that we remove this part of the bill because we wanted to remove any contradiction with international law and the explicit granting of power to Canadian courts to authorize illegal activity in other states. Canadian activities must comply with international law. Unfortunately, the government also rejected this amendment without consideration for the opinions of experts.

We also proposed another amendment to add specific accountability for the use of warrants to authorize activities of CSIS abroad to the CSIS director. We would like the director to submit an annual report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee specifying the disposition of all such warrant applications and the activities carried out under the warrants.

In my opinion, this is simply about accountability. That is why MPs are elected. It is our job in this place to ensure that there is accountability. The committees are an important mechanism for ensuring that the government is accountable to Canadians. That is why we moved this amendment, which once again was rejected by the Conservative government.

Lastly, in order to prevent possible abuse regarding surveillance warrants, we asked the government to accept one of our amendments, which was about clarifying exactly when a foreign surveillance warrant was necessary. That is very important.

This is a concern not only for Canadians, but for citizens of the United States and other countries who are worried about the extent of surveillance and activities of organizations like CSIS.

If the investigative activity was supposed to take place in Canada and required a warrant under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or if the activity violated international law or the laws of the country where it was to take place, the Federal Court of Canada would have to issue a warrant for that activity to take place outside of Canada.

We examined this bill very carefully and, unfortunately, we cannot support it as it stands, because our amendments were not accepted.

I would also like to explain to the House the criteria we use to assess all legislative measures intended to combat threats to public safety.

Our analysis is based on three criteria. The first criterion is enhanced civilian oversight. It is absolutely crucial that enhanced civilian oversight accompany any new powers for CSIS. The second criterion is the protection of civil liberties. Having spoken with my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I know that they are very worried about this. They strongly believe that civil liberties must be protected. Yes, we need to increase security measures, but not at the expense of civil liberties. This is an important criterion. The third criterion we use to assess public safety legislation has to do with adequate resources. We know that the Conservative government continues to cut resources in terms of funding and personnel. CSIS can definitely be given the tools it needs to do its job.

However, if CSIS does not have the resources and staff it needs, this whole exercise is pointless, and the agency will not be able to properly tackle the problem of terrorism.

Some cuts have been made. The Conservatives have cut as much as $600 million and $87.9 million from our public safety agencies. There have been cuts everywhere.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

She mentioned something that I believe is critical to democracy. When a power is granted, there must be control over it. We need a balanced approach between security and the ability to make sure that there are no abuses once that power is granted.

I would like my colleague to comment further on the need for a balance between granting powers to ensure security and the ability to ensure that there are no abuses of those powers.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a concern that many of the witnesses raised in committee. We have to take a close look at that issue. During the committee's study, the Conservative government prevented officers of Parliament, such as the Privacy Commissioner, whose job is to protect Canadians' privacy, from appearing before the committee. He was unable to appear before the committee to express his concerns about Bill C-44, and I find that deplorable.

This also shows the Conservative government's contempt for officers of Parliament and the people who are responsible for protecting Canadians and their privacy. The government also refused to accept their submission. It acted in bad faith at the committee stage. Unfortunately, the government did not take a balanced approach, and the bill does not contain enough measures to protect Canadians' privacy.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, of course all of the laws we have introduced, and this bill specifically, balance the rights and privacy of Canadian citizens. They also do something that Canadians have asked us to do, which is a full commitment and full responsibility of any government, and that is to protect citizens from threats, whether from abroad or direct threats right here on Canadian soil.

Although the New Democrats in one sense talk about protecting Canadians, when it comes to supporting strong legislation like the bill we are introducing today, they will not support it with their votes.

How dire would the situation have to be and under what circumstance would the New Democrats support giving our law enforcement the tools they need to fight threats, whether at home or abroad? What would they see as warranting this kind of protection for Canadians?

We believe it is warranted and warranted now. We need it. It is disappointing that they will not support it. Under what circumstances would they support this kind of legislation?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find the question by the hon. parliamentary secretary insulting. The government's rhetoric on how many deaths there would need to be before we would act, frankly, enrages me. They seem to suggest that we did not deeply grieve the events that happened in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

This rhetoric is extremely problematic. The government is presenting legislation that is not balanced. It does not protect the private life of Canadians and it does not actually ensure civilian surveillance of our security organizations. The government bill is completely problematic and yet at the same time the Conservative members are accusing us of being complicit with terrorists. That is completely inappropriate rhetoric for this kind of debate.

In closing, I would like to quote Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien, who expressed serious concerns over this bill. He said:

It is understandable that the government would want to consider boosting the powers of law-enforcement and national security agencies to address potential gaps.

But any new tools should be accompanied by a beefed-up role for the watchdogs who keep an eye on spies and police.

The NDP agrees with Privacy Commissioner Therrien.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. We have about a minute and a half left in the time provided for government orders this afternoon.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

If Canadians have been listening for the last half hour or so, or even longer, they will have heard the official opposition, the NDP, and the Liberal Party members become increasingly more concerned about the conduct of our security agencies than they are about the conduct of terrorists and terrorist threats to Canadians.

That is not the case with our government, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who work every day to ensure that Canadians are kept safe, that our security agencies have the tools they need to investigate threats, and that our police agencies working in concert with them have the tools they need to apprehend and ultimately successfully prosecute those who are threats to our country.

The clarification in the bill being brought forward is important, particularly in light of a recent court case, which if one can imagine—and I will put it in layman's terms for Canadians to understand very clearly—rendered our security agency effectively an island with respect to the rest of the world. That is, it was not able to share intelligence with other foreign intelligence agencies or receive it and, therefore, able to successfully investigate threats abroad or receive intelligence on threats against Canada here at home.

We are clarifying that, to ensure they can ultimately do the job they need to do and keep Canadians safe. The opposition should get on board, not worry and obsess about the wrong priorities. They should get with Canadians, give our agencies the tools they need, and support this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, January 28, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 2, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you will find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 17, 2014, consideration of the motion.

Child Poverty

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, setting up and speaking to this bill is of extreme importance to those of us who represent urban areas and municipalities, in large part because the need to deal with these issues defines the quality of life in our cities. Without a concerted effort on this, what we will end up with is a scattergun approach that will, quite frankly, leave sectors in our cities in a great deal of trouble.

The issue of housing is an example that has been raised here several times. We know that the housing agreements have been renewed across the country, but they are sustaining the status quo and providing a dribble of new housing. In my city, perhaps 60 units of housing per year will arrive out of the new renewed arrangements. With a 92,000-person waiting list, 60 units of housing per year is effectively a 1,500 year waiting list.

Without a new era of co-operation and without new programs to address poverty, the urban strategies, and struggles that cities and towns have across the country, we will be in significant trouble in Toronto. That is one of the reasons why child poverty is growing at such an alarming rate, while the city takes its place as one of the wealthiest places in Canada, if not the world.

The ranking of Canada as a safe place to live comes as cold comfort to those communities where housing conditions are so deplorable, access to social services like child care and education is so limited, and isolation due to poor transportation infrastructure is so profound. To call it one of the greatest places in the world to live leaves families and, particularly, young people gobsmacked. Something needs to change here.

What needs to change is not simply cutting taxes for people without incomes and providing income splitting and billions of dollars to affluent communities and individuals, as low-income communities struggle. What we need is a series of programs that deliver on the urban agenda.

As the urban affairs critic for the Liberal Party, I have had the privilege of meeting with dozens of mayors across the country in the last six weeks. Contrary to what we hear from the government side, mayors across the country are asking for just this kind of legislation. They are asking for a return to the kind of advanced thinking that defined Paul Martin's tenure as prime minister, when the gas tax was created, when infrastructure funding was stepped up and committed to, and when a housing program was put on the table. Even the plight of urban aboriginals was part of a national dialogue to resolve issues, rather than simply believing that a tax cut could build a bridge, get a subway delivered, or suddenly make day care appear even if people had an extra $100 in their pocket.

Something needs to change, and what this bill would do is highlight the areas that need to be focused on to build stronger communities right across Canada. As someone who sat on the municipal council for eight years and who has come to Ottawa to try to strengthen this partnership, I am challenged that it is simply a plan to have a plan. Cities cannot wait for thinking on this issue. They need action.

It is all well and fine to propose theoretical solutions and to aspire to strong language, but what we need are strong programs and specific programs that fit directly into municipal budgets on an ongoing basis and in a consistent way that delivers these programs. We need this particularly for housing and transit, but also for the management of water.

One of the challenges that municipalities are having right now is that climate change has happened. It is not a theoretical possibility. If we listen to Fox News, we hear it is not even a reality. Sometimes, when we listen to the Conservative government, we hear it is beyond its grasp as well. Nevertheless, climate change has happened, and it is doing extraordinary things to civic infrastructure and civil engineering.

We had a flash storm in one part of Toronto, while another part of Toronto was in sunshine, which drove so much water into the sewer system that it blew a 40 feet by 100 feet by 4.5 feet reinforced concrete cap on a sewage capacity holding bin at the waterfront 60 feet into the air and flooded the entire waterfront of Toronto. This was in downtown Toronto, while Scarborough was in sunshine.

These sorts of thing are not happening every hundred years, as predicted by the insurance models or by civic engineering standards; they are happening once every two or three years. Sometimes, they are happening every six months in some parts of the country. The government needs to step up and address the infrastructure needs of Canada and assist cities on all of the other fronts, including transit and housing. If the support is not there, the partnership is not built, and the money is not defined and delivered in a direct, predictable, and robust way, cities and municipalities will not have the capacity to deal with the fundamentals of urban living, which are the delivery of water and the picking up of garbage.

We need a comprehensive approach to municipalities, we need a comprehensive approach to dealing with poverty and we need a comprehensive approach to setting the stage for a stronger relationship with our country. Infrastructure needs must be led by housing. They need funding programs that directly deliver dollars to cities, without complex subscription models and costly subscriptive programs that require pages of applications to simply fund and get the state of repair attended to and housing built. We need to ensure that co-ops in particular are protected, that their agreements are renewed with other affordable housing providers and that the subsidies are sustained. We need to lean on the co-op model to deliver more capacity, not shrink our footprint and our federal program in that area.

We also need to pay attention to the social needs of cities as we build the physical infrastructure. That is why things like daycare are so critical. Arts funding and recreation funding are also critical. Without a solid perspective and a platform on these issues, cities struggle.

We have been critical of the Prime Minister this week for not having met with the premiers. However, the Prime Minister should also be sitting down on a regular basis with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its annual conference. He should also should be pulling together the big city mayors conference, which was a program initiated under Paul Martin, to talk about where some of the significant economic challenges are emerging in large urban centres. That is where most of our immigrants settle and where most of the social problems are embedded in affluence and therefore not directly attacked under some of our national programs. It is where the majority of Canadians live.

We have the most urbanized country in the G7 and yet we are the only G7 country without urban strategies on some critical files. It is time for that to change.

I have talked to mayors in Kitchener and Waterloo, Cambridge, Burlington, Oakville, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver. They are meeting soon in Toronto with the new mayor of that city, with whom I have also met. There is not a mayor among them who thinks the federal government is stepping up and meeting its obligations. One of the critical areas pronounced daily in question period is on the question of infrastructure. The funding is back-end loaded.

Cape Breton and the city of Sydney have not had a penny from Ottawa in two years. They have no hopes of getting money this year, and the money they need for a $450 million infrastructure rebuild of their water plant is not even part of the 10-year capital program. In fact, if Sydney, Nova Scotia had to build that water plant itself, its annual budget is only $140 million. That is its annual tax draw. The project will cost $450 million to build to give clean water to people living in the regional municipality of Cape Breton. It would have to shut down the city for three years to build this by itself. The reason it needs to rebuild this is that federal standards changed on water supply.

The federal government is side-loading and downloading and not meeting its responsibilities. Small towns and big cities are all falling behind on the infrastructure file. When they do, the social dynamics and the social status of the lowest-income Canadians are hurt the most. Housing, transit and social services are fundamental to the health of cities. They are as important as the roads, the bridges and the rail, yet the federal government has walked away from all of those capacities and has not funded them properly.

The back-end loaded infrastructure program is a joke in city halls and town halls across Canada. There is not a mayor, or town reeve or city councillor who does not understand that the money is not coming for 10 years. That money was needed yesterday. It was needed last year. Instead what we get are $29 million worth of billboards. Frankly, sleeping under a billboard is not what I call a housing policy.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion of my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. I want to thank her for all of her work on eliminating child poverty, the subject of the motion today.

Because this is the second hour of debate, I would like to refer to the text of the motion, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work in collaboration with the provinces, territories and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to eradicate child poverty in Canada by developing a national poverty reduction plan that includes: (a) making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians; (b) ensuring accessible and affordable child care; (c) addressing childhood nutrition; (d) improving economic security of families; (e) measures that specifically address the unique needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; and (f) measurable targets and time lines.

In other words, it is about accountability.

It has been 25 years since Ed Broadbent's motion aimed at ending child poverty was passed unanimously by the House, and yet successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed to act on this promise. With almost one million children living in poverty, almost half of whom are indigenous, surely it is time to end child poverty.

Dr. David Hulchanski, a professor in Toronto and a constituent of mine, has documented very precisely what is happening with the declining middle class and the growing polarization in our city of Toronto. He calls it a “three city” situation, where some at the very top are getting more wealthy, an increasingly shrinking group is staying at about the same level, and a growing number of people are falling further and further behind.

Childhood poverty is costly not only for the children affected in terms of their childhood experience of inequality, but also in terms of lost potential and social costs.

I should point out that Canada ranks 23rd on child poverty among countries in the OECD, which is a shameful record. If we want to set records, surely this is not one. One out of seven children in Canada lives in poverty, but if one is born aboriginal, there is a two in five chance that one will live in poverty. These are shameful numbers.

UNICEF Canada has written a report and recommends creating a children's commissioner and making the UN convention on child poverty enforceable in court. Canada ratified this international agreement in 1991, but progress remains very slow and spotty.

The UNICEF report makes a number of recommendations worth noting. As I said, one is to make the convention enforceable in courts. It also recommends developing a national action plan aimed at bringing Canada into compliance with the UN convention; holding a parliamentary review on the recommendations of the UN committee on child rights and the recommendation of the Senate's report on children; and including in child protection legislation everyone under the age of 18; and developing a program to educate children and others on the convention rights.

I would like to speak specifically to the subelements of this motion.

First, there is an alarming situation now from the lack of affordable housing. There are 92,000 people in Toronto on the waiting list for housing. In my community of Parkdale—High Park, we see families who have to make the gut-wrenching decision to either pay the rent or put food on the table. They are going to keep a roof over their heads, and therefore we have community kitchens and food banks bursting at the seams. A number of children go to school hungry every day. This is shocking in a city as wealthy as Toronto.

I see families with two or three kids living in a one bedroom apartment because that is all they can afford. I see people living in Toronto community housing in substandard housing with serious maintenance problems with mould, water leakage, and appliances that do not work.

There are buildings in our community where the elevators do not work. We have serious problems.

We also have problems with the lack of effective rent control legislation, and companies get around the legislation. They get people out of the buildings and jack up the rent. The upshot is that people cannot afford to find a decent place to live. There is an explosion of new homes being built, but they are mainly private condos. Low-income people do not have the ability to buy these condos, and there is no affordable housing being built for them.

We also have a problem with co-ops that are finishing their housing agreements. These are not going to be renewed. We have people who were getting a subsidy, who were able to live in a decent place, a co-operative housing development, because they got a bit of a subsidy, and those subsidies have been lost. That is a huge dilemma for many in the city of Toronto.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have abandoned their social housing responsibilities. One in four Canadian households, that is 1.5 million Canadians, families and individuals, spend more than a third of their income on housing. Canada is the only G8 country without a strategy for affordable housing. It was under the previous Liberal government that the national housing plan was abandoned. It is shocking that in a northern country, with such high needs, we do not have effective housing or even a plan to get to that housing.

When it comes to public spending on child care and early learning, Canada ranks last among developed and comparable countries. For years Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored this pressing need of Canadian families. There are over 900,000 kids in need of care in Canada, with no access to quality, affordable, child care spaces. The Conservatives promised 125,000 new spaces, but just like the Liberals, they did not create one single space.

In my community, child care spaces can run up to $2,000 per month, per child, which is clearly far out of the reach of most families. Noted economist Pierre Fortin has said that the Quebec model of child care, which is affordable, accessible, and high quality, has allowed more than 70,000 mothers to join the workforce and generate the return of $1.75 for every dollar spent on child care. That is clearly an important investment.

When it comes to indigenous children, they are the fastest growing demographic in our country. Investments made to reduce indigenous child poverty would have huge benefits for Canada. We have alarming rates of poverty and huge housing problems. Even Mike Holmes is saying that we have to build better quality houses for indigenous communities. It would be a better investment and more cost-effective. They also face huge food security issues, far more so than people do in the south.

I remember that noted Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, in answer to the question, “What is the best thing Canada can do to create innovation, boost our economy, and boost competitiveness and job creation?”, said to invest in children. Invest in child care. Invest in post-secondary education. Invest in kids. That is the best bet for a strong, innovative economy.

We want the federal government to make the elimination of child poverty a priority. We need to develop an anti-poverty plan with timelines and measurable benchmarks that would include the key components of taking on the crisis of poverty for indigenous children, making housing more affordable for lower-income Canadians, creating an early childhood and childhood education program, addressing childhood nutrition, and improving the overall economic security of Canada. We owe Canadians no less. It is our duty as parliamentarians to act. We should all be supporting this important motion.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 534, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River. Her motion asks that the federal government work in collaboration with the provinces, territories, first nations, Inuit, and Métis to develop a national plan to eradicate child poverty in Canada.

As I am sure the member opposite is aware, there are already significant government measures in place that are helping to address poverty across this country. A recent UNICEF report backs up the action by this government, stating that child poverty has been reduced to an all-time low under this government.

In fact, changes our government made to Canada's social programs cushioned many families and their children from falling into poverty during the global recession. That being said, our government does not think it is enough to simply help people keep their heads above water in tough times. The best strategy to address income equality and to help people in low-income situations is to create more jobs and to grow the economy.

As demonstrated over the past nine years, our long-term goal is, and always has been, to consistently improve economic conditions and to in turn improve the quality of life for all Canadians all the time. Our government's pan-Canadian approach includes working with the provinces and territories to help Canadians get the skills and experience they need to find jobs and take advantage of the opportunities.

It goes without saying that to address such an issue as complex as poverty, all levels of government, as well as the community and not-for-profit organizations, need to work together. In this matter, we have had a great deal of success. Take, for example, the yearly Canada social transfer. Our government provides funding through the Canada social transfer, which provinces and territories may use to support poverty reduction initiatives. Funding for the Canada social transfer is at an all-time high, at over $12 billion in 2014-15, an increase of $4 billion since our government took office in 2006.

The Canada social transfer also helps fund specific provincial and territorial programs targeted to families with young children and represents a federal commitment that will rise to $1.3 billion in the next fiscal year. This funding supports provincial initiatives in early child development, early learning and child care, and post-secondary education. It also supports social assistance and other social services for low-income families with children.

Furthermore, the national child benefit, also known as the NCB, is an example of federal, provincial, and territorial governments working in partnership to deliver benefits to families with children. The NCB has been enormously successful at delivering support for low-income Canadian families. By reducing the number of families with children living in low-income situations, our government continues to show that we have taken action to help those Canadians who need it most.

Thanks to our government's stewardship of the NCB, the low-income rate for children was 1.8% lower in 2011, which is the most recent data we have. This represents 118,000 fewer children living in poverty than there were under the previous government. With all our benefits combined, our government provides over $15 billion a year in benefits for families with children. Even better, just last month, the Prime Minister proposed new support measures to improve the lives of families and their children.

Under these proposed changes, the universal child care benefit will be enhanced to provide $160 per month for each child under the age of six and $60 per month for children aged six through 17. This means that parents will receive more than $1,900 annually for each child under the age of six and $720 for each child aged six to 17.

Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new benefits announced by the Prime Minister. These proposed changes also include the proposed family tax cut, a tax credit that will allow a spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket. They also include the proposed increase of the child care expense deduction limit and the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. As members can see, we are committed to helping families prosper and to making life more affordable for all Canadian families.

Of course, having proper shelter is also essential. That is why the government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing since 2006 through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, also known as CMHC. Working with its partners, CMHC has helped nearly 915,000 Canadian individuals and families find adequate and affordable housing. This measure will support new affordable housing and existing social housing needs.

Let us not forget that there is also a great deal of work being done by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It funds a number of programs that seek to create safe and affordable housing; improve access to high-quality child care, childhood nutrition, and the economic security of families; and meet the unique needs of first nation, Inuit, and Métis communities.

In addition to targeted support for those most in need, the government has also provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals in the past eight years.

We know that many Canadians still face a variety of financial challenges. The major government initiatives I have just talked about will continue to help more and more people move up the income ladder. Our government has achieved tangible and measurable progress in the fight against poverty. More importantly, our support has changed the lives of Canadians for the better.

Since 2006, there are 225,000 fewer children in poverty thanks to our government. According to David Morley, president of UNICEF Canada, it is really impressive. He said, “It's better than the majority of other countries did during the recession”, and we will continue to do even more.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of what many of my colleagues have already pointed out: it was 20 years ago, in 1989, that the House of Commons held this debate and that the members unanimously voted in favour of Ed Broadbent's initiative to eliminate child poverty. Today's debate has already happened and the members came to a conclusion. They decided to take action.

I would like to share a little about my riding, which covers a large part of eastern Longueuil. For those who are not familiar with Longueuil, it has a reputation of being a comfortable suburb. However, this reputation conceals some deep-rooted poverty. The wealthier neighbourhoods, such as Vieux-Longueuil and Parcours du Cerf, border neighbourhoods with much different daily realities: the neighbourhoods of Sacré-Coeur, Carillon and Fatima.

This is a Longueuil we do not hear much about and that some even try to keep quiet. I have lived in Longueuil for 15 years now, and I thought that after living there all this time I knew my city. I thought I was aware of how people around me lived.

Since I became a member of Parliament, I have spent the past few years getting to know another Longueuil: communities and neighbourhoods that do not fit the image normally associated with our part of the south shore. These are neighbourhoods where life is often tough, where people work hard to earn a wage that often does not afford them a decent lifestyle, and where parents work hard to feed their kids, send them to school, teach them to read and count, or give them the tools that they themselves did not necessarily have.

Longueuil is made up of people who are no strangers to homelessness, insecurity and poverty. People in Longueuil are also no strangers to illiteracy and, sometimes more than elsewhere, unsafe housing. In Longueuil, families—often single-parent families—spend troubling and unusually high percentages of their income on housing.

In Longueuil, immigrant families sometimes feel as though they are on their own in an unfamiliar country. There are food deserts where quality food is out of reach, too expensive, and hard to access on foot or by public transit for far too many people.

It could be called the hidden side of Longueuil, but it is the day-to-day reality for so many women, men and, of course, children. Nearly 37% of the children in Longueuil belong to families that are below the poverty line. That is a deeply disturbing figure. We are not talking about a depressed single-industry town; we are talking about a suburb known as the south shore.

What I just shared is not the exceptional part, however. Longueuil has become known for its response to poverty in its community. It is responding with the kind of powerful and exceptional solidarity that shows what Quebeckers can do when they roll up their sleeves and pull together. Longueuil is also responding with a tightly knit community network, the largest in the region, led by an army of volunteers.

An entire critical infrastructure has been created, an infrastructure of help and support developed by Quebeckers with initiative and the desire to build community and to support people facing day-to-day challenges—basic challenges such as health, safety and education.

Neighbourhood life committees are giving our communities a future by creating real community and promoting citizen participation. We have dynamic and indispensable youth centres, food banks that achieve the impossible but that, unfortunately, cannot keep up with increasing demand, and initiatives that are amazingly courageous, just like the enterprising organizations that struggle to run them.

I have been privileged to contribute to some of these initiatives through volunteer work with my team. We have had touching, eye-opening experiences. For example, we spent time at the Partage de l'entraide chez nous store, helped build a community garden in the Carillon neighbourhood, distributed Christmas hampers with kids from the Gérard-Filion high school, worked on Auberge du coeur l'Antre-Temps's fundraiser, Opération Tirelires, and more.

The motion before us today is about what the federal government can do to ensure that these organizations are not abandoned but receive government support because they do such critical work to improve society and economic conditions, and that is good for everyone.

The motion gives expression to our desire to see Canada adopt a plan to reduce poverty. That would be a first step in responding to the resolution passed unanimously 20 years ago by MPs in this place. We are calling for an action plan to reduce poverty that addresses the need for affordable housing for low-income Canadians. We want the plan to address childhood nutrition. We want a poverty reduction plan that addresses the economic security of families.

In short, we are proposing that the federal government bring people together and, rather than just watch, lead the fight against poverty in Canada and Quebec. We are also proposing that it co-operate with Quebec, the provinces and territories and aboriginal communities to achieve real results that will allow us to meet our international commitments and fulfill our moral obligations to children, who are the most vulnerable members of our society. Children do not just represent a percentage of our population; they represent our entire future.

I spoke about all the initiatives undertaken by organizations and individuals to make life better for the neighbourhoods and the people in Longueuil. Most of these initiatives have this in common: they invest the majority of their hopes and efforts in children and youth.

A federal plan to fight poverty that is properly funded and has measurable targets and timelines would definitely be beneficial not just for Canadians, but also for the community network that is already working on affordable housing, nutritional and financial education, help for families and social reintegration.

That kind of plan must support their work. They know the lay of the land. They are part of the social and economic landscape. They are the experts.

I am thinking about the Cultivez nos savoirs project in Longueuil, a community engagement project that combines growing a community garden and homework assistance. Residents of the neighbourhood are working together for the good of their community. It is an initiative of the Carillon/Saint-Pie-X neighbourhood life committee. Once again, we see what a pivotal role these community organizations play.

In addition to the Carillon neighbourhood life committee, the Sacré-Coeur and Notre-Dame committees play a key role in citizen participation and social involvement. Through initiatives such as community gardens, a mural and homework assistance at the Accorderie, where residents can exchange services, these community organizations make our neighbourhoods a better place to live. They create a sense of pride and belonging in our young people.

The community network also includes other organizations, such as Le Fablier, a literacy group that gives mothers and families the tools they need to help their children learn at home as well as at school.

There are so many other unique and wonderful initiatives. Take, for example, Maisonnette Berthelet, which, despite major funding cuts, continues to work hard year after year. Once again this year, this organization held its Mission des anges de Noël program in order to sponsor children so that they can receive s gift from Santa Claus. This initiative helps 500 Longueuil residents in need, 300 of whom are children. Without Maisonnette Berthelet, these young people would not have the opportunity or the joy of receiving a gift at Christmas.

I am also thinking about Isabelle Caron's project, which she calls Semeurs d'étincelles. This is a fantastic project that encourages high school students to stay in school and pursue their dreams. There is also the Bleu Blanc Bouge skating rink, a refrigerated NHL-sized rink that opened last month in Lionel Groulx park in a neighbourhood that sorely needed some good news. This initiative, sponsored by the Canadian Tire Jumpstart foundation and the Montreal Canadiens Children's Foundation, is greatly appreciated by residents, who need to remain active, get moving, exercise, and above all dream a little.

Other organizations' mission is to provide support for young people who find themselves in vulnerable situations. These incredible organizations are pillars of their communities, including the Maison Tremplin, for which I had the honour of serving as ambassador, and the Maison de Jonathan, which is right near my office. All of these organizations are making a real difference in our community.

I am talking about all these efforts and all these workers in the community sector who work behind the scenes because it is important to understand that in my region, in Quebec and in Longueuil, we have taken it upon ourselves to combat poverty. We have developed the means to tackle poverty so that one generation at a time, one family at a time, one child at a time, we are giving young people a future.

By sending a cohort of NDP members to Ottawa, Quebeckers are sending a message that the work is not done. The NDP has a duty to be the voice of the fight against poverty and all the work that remains to be done. The federal government has a duty to support those efforts and wholeheartedly back that work.

Doing anything else would mean ignoring our greatest strength. Our young people need to know this, because I have the pleasure of crossing paths with them every day in Longueuil. Our greatest strength is our youth.