House of Commons Hansard #167 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was province.

Topics

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #318

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred record division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-44.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #319

Protection of Canada from Terrorists ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Independent

Manon Perreault Independent Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, since I asked my question on October 10, many things have happened to reinforce my belief that the Government of Canada is not taking the necessary action to help resolve the military conflict in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State armed forces.

The point I wanted to make was that a military intervention by the Canadian Forces could not in any way guarantee the safety of Canadians—which is what the people of Montcalm have often told me—and that even more people will start seeing Canada in a negative light. The suffering of the people must not translate into new supporters of the Islamic State.

I have no intention of systematically objecting to any military involvement by Canada, but this cannot be the only solution to rely on in the immediate term. Most importantly, let us avoid simplifying such a complex issue. At the very least, let us not make matters worse.

Canadians will not tolerate pre-election, pro-war populism. We have to determine whether there are other solutions.

We are all well aware that there are socio-economic factors that contribute to the radicalization of vulnerable people by global terrorist movements. You would have to be blind not to realize that. Extreme poverty seems to be a much more important vector of radicalization than any religion in the world. After listening to many people on this subject, I believe that we need to adjust our approach.

People all over the world are trying to bring about peace and co-operation, and we must contribute to that effort rather than being an agent of discord and division.

To that end, we must establish specific objectives, something that the government is dragging its feet on, unfortunately. The opposition is not asking for the moon; it just wants a clear and specific objective. We will not tolerate improvisation, let alone the exploitation of this conflict for political purposes. Canadians need to know what direction we are taking.

A multi-faceted approach would be desirable. It is absolutely essential that a socio-political component be added to the military mission. Canadians can no longer tolerate the disparagement of the importance of sociological studies in the search for solutions to this violence and barbarism. Please, let us leave arrogance at the door.

I am carefully refraining from making any connection to the attacks perpetrated in Canada in the name of this vicious terrorist organization that is currently occupying Iraq and Syria, but we need to face up to the facts. I asked this question on October 10, 2014, and I will ask it again today: how can we fight evil without creating more evil?

I think that before we get Canada even more deeply involved in a conflict whose outcome is far from certain, it is imperative that the Conservatives answer the basic question that I raised on October 10. It is not for reasons of political partisanship or to score a few points in the polls but because they sincerely want to help others, like the good men I am sure they are.

Historically, as a peacekeeping force, Canada has played a positive role in the resolution of world conflicts, frequently calling for moderation and constructive action. I said this on October 10 and I will repeat it: other than bringing about destruction, fear and death, what does the government intend to do to help bring peace to Iraq without creating new Islamic State sympathizers? Let us find the answer and act accordingly.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here tonight to address this issue. The member opposite talks about the safety of Canadians and about coming to mini solutions for a complex question. She wants to see clear objectives, and I can address some of those questions tonight.

Our response to the crisis in Iraq is multifaceted. Coalition air strikes, including Canada's, are just one element in this response. They are conducted in support of Iraqi security forces, which are carrying out ground operations against ISIL.

The Iraqi government has sought the assistance of coalition countries to stop ISIL's advance, which was accompanied by horrific human rights abuses against civilians. I just recently heard at the foreign affairs committee that indeed that advance seemed to have been stopped. However, standing by while ISIL was killing, raping and terrorizing millions of people was not an option. Nor can we stand by knowing that ISIL's barbaric agenda is not limited just to Syria and Iraq and that its twisted ideology is making inroads even in our own country.

In addition to conducting air strikes, Canada has deployed several dozen Canadian Armed Forces members to advise and assist Iraqi security forces engaged in the fight against ISIL. Further, Canada has provided strategic airlift support for military and for contributing allies.

We have also provided Iraqi forces with significant volumes of non-lethal equipment. Just last week, Kurdish peshmerga forces were telling our ambassador to Iraq that this equipment was saving lives on the front line.

However, Canada's response is not limited to military contributions. I know my colleague across the way will be glad to hear that we are working with partners to impede the flow of foreign fighters at source, transit and destination countries. This includes our active involvement in the Global Counterterrorism Forum's working group on foreign terrorist fighters. While in Baghdad last September, our minister announced $5 million to support regional efforts to limit the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria.

On the domestic front, we have strengthened our laws to make it a criminal offence to leave Canada for the purpose of participating in or facilitating terrorist activities. We have broadened the grounds for passport revocation and allowed for the stripping of citizenship for dual nationals engaged in those activities. We have taken steps to stop ISIL's financing and funding. ISIL is listed as a terrorist organization under Canada's Criminal Code. Our financial institutions have an obligation now to freeze ISIL's assets and to disclose details of those assets to law enforcement. Canada is also actively contributing to efforts by the international community to disrupt and prevent ISIL financing.

We are working with partners to address humanitarian needs in the region. We have contributed over $403 million in humanitarian assistance since January 2012 in response to the Syria crisis and over $67 million in response to the Iraqi crisis since January 2014. Canada's assistance has reached tens of millions of people.

We are also horrified by ISIL's heinous acts of sexual violence, prompting a commitment of $10 million to deal with those issues. We believe it is important also to undermine ISIL's narrative. In Canada, we are doing this through outreach events and working with our allies.

Last, we are supporting the Iraqi government. Since June 2014, Iraq has become one of our development partners. We are committed to strengthening commercial relations with them, and we have a very active team of diplomats, led by Ambassador Saccomani, who are in constant communication with Iraqi authorities.

We will continue to use the means at our disposal to help Iraqis build social and economic foundations for recovery and growth.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Independent

Manon Perreault Independent Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that, since the beginning of time, people have known that it is a mistake to try to combat brutality with brutality. Obviously, the government has no intention of discussing this issue with its democratically elected opponents and even less intention of listening to Canadians who do not share its views.

How can we think to give lessons to others when our government cannot even set a good example?

That being said, I have confidence in our soldiers, and I am sure that they are doing a good job. I have confidence in our generals, who are able to use and share with their partners good tactics and strategies that will save many lives. However, the conflict involving ISIL fighters is much too serious to limit our action to war efforts.

What else do you have to propose to Canadians who are worried about the government's clearly emotional but ill-considered decisions?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a very difficult time understanding where the member opposite is coming from. I just went through a list of the areas in which we are working with our allies and other nations to deal with this issue on a whole number of levels.

The depraved ideology and brutal tactics of ISIL are an affront to humanity. I do not know why the member opposite will not recognize that. They threaten the core values that we as Canadians hold dear. When confronted with a terrorist threat of this scale and character, we cannot afford to remain on the sidelines. I wish the member opposite would come to that conclusion as well.

That is why, in concert with our allies, we are taking decisive action. We are going to counter ISIL militants in Iraq through our air task force and advise and assist mission. These deployments complement a huge range of humanitarian and stabilization efforts that we are putting in. We are trying to restore the security of the Iraqi state and work with the new government in Iraq.

We will continue to work with our coalition allies to uproot the scourge of terrorism that threatens this region and around the world, and which threatens our own country.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the National Forum on Housing and the Economy, which includes the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Real Estate Association, and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, have this to say to the government:

...federal operating agreements that provide $1.7 billion in annual social housing funding have begun to expire, putting a deep strain on the low-income households who live in social housing, while over 200,000 Canadians experience homelessness every year at a cost of upwards of $7 billion to the economy.

That is what those groups are saying to the government. The people representing those organizations agree that we must protect at-risk households living in existing social housing and innovate in making federal investments in Canada's social housing.

For nearly 30 years, the federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's operating agreements with co-operatives and non-profit housing organizations, has been providing rent subsidies to thousands of low-income households, a significant proportion of which consist of elderly women, as well as families and people with disabilities.

In the coming years, 565,850 social housing units in Canada will lose the federal subsidies they have been receiving for decades. Quebec has 125,500 of these units, including several hundred in Ahuntsic.

On November 24, I asked the Minister of State for Social Development to renew the operating agreements that provide rent subsidies to low-income families. At the time, the minister said that funds had been transferred to the provinces to maintain funding for affordable housing when the agreements expired. However, representatives of the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation intermunicipale du Montréal métropolitain whom I met with on January 27 have no idea what the minister is talking about.

In response to my question the minister said:

...housing agreements have been coming to an end over the last many years and will continue to come to an end over the next 20 years because the mortgages are paid off.

What we have done, though, in order to help these housing units is extend our investment in affordable housing with the provinces. They are free, once these agreements come to an end, to continue support.

Does this mean that the minister has transferred or will transfer $1.7 billion a year to the provinces to support existing social housing?

I would like to be clear that we are not talking about creating new affordable housing units, but about maintaining existing housing. The only concession made by the government to date, as I have been told by reliable sources, is that co-operatives that have not yet used the subsidy surplus will be able to use it after the contracts expire. I would like to know what funds and what transfers the government is talking about and how much money has been transferred.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question of November 24 on affordable housing. I welcome the opportunity to once again explain the government's position on this issue, which we have done many times.

I want to remind the hon. member that the government has a strong record on housing. As I have said on previous occasions, our government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing since 2006. This has directly benefited more than 900,000 individuals and families across Canada.

Economic action plan 2014 confirmed yet again that our government is committed to ensuring that low-income families and vulnerable Canadians have access to quality and affordable housing.

Our government realizes that some Canadians face financial constraints or have distinct housing needs that impede their participation in the housing market. This is precisely why we have invested heavily in housing and why we continue to work with our provincial partners, the territories, and other stakeholders across Canada to ensure that access to housing remains available to those most in need.

One way we are doing this is by renewing the investment in affordable housing to March 2019, with a federal funding component of $1.25 billion over five years. This funding is being matched by the provinces and territories. It is being delivered through the renewal of existing bilateral agreements.

This collaborative approach has worked well since the investment in affordable housing was first introduced in 2011. This happens in large part because it gives the provinces and territories the flexibility they need to invest in a range of affordable housing programs to meet their local needs and priorities.

We are also providing support annually to households living in existing social housing, including low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, and aboriginal people. Provinces and territories also contribute to this housing. It is provided under long-term agreements with housing groups. As we previously advised the House on November 25, these agreements span 25 and 50 years, and when they mature, federal government funding ends, as planned. Maybe the opposition just does not understand that when one's mortgage expires, one actually stops paying the bank, but the public understands this.

The majority of non-profit and co-operative housing projects are expected to be financially viable and mortgage-free at the end of these operating agreements. With mortgages now paid off, operating expenses will decrease and housing providers will be in a position to continue to offer affordable housing.

As I mentioned a moment ago, provinces and territories can use the federal funding from the investment in affordable housing to assist housing groups after their operating agreements mature, should the provinces and territories and other operators choose to do so. Our government has provided this flexibility to these partners.

Our government has also taken steps to give some social housing projects greater flexibility when their operating agreements mature. Social housing providers whose operating agreements allow for the establishment of a subsidy surplus fund can now retain any money they may have in this fund after the operating agreements mature. These funds can be used to continue the lower cost of housing for low-income households living in existing social housing. That opportunity and flexibility lies within this partnership

As members can see, our government has taken a common-sense, responsible approach to investing in affordable housing in Canada. We are allowing existing agreements to end, as they were planned to end, but are making needed investments elsewhere in co-operation with the provinces and territories to continue to reduce the number of Canadians in housing need.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is missing something. Yes, those contracts are going to expire and the mortgages will be paid off. However, through the $1.7 billion that was invested in affordable housing, it was possible to support low-income households. Now, when those contracts expire, we have to expect that through attrition, people who are unable to pay will have to give up their affordable housing, which in any case will no longer be affordable.

My colleague talked about $1.25 billion in funding until 2019, but what is he talking about? That is my question. He seems to be saying that that money would help mitigate the impact when the contracts end in a few years.

However, what are these funds called, the funds that are supposedly being transferred to the provinces? How much money is there? Is it $1.25 billion each year? Moreover, what exactly does this mean on the ground?

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that the Government of Canada continues to invest heavily in housing, including approximately $2 billion again this year.

These investments are making life better for low-income Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and others who have real housing needs and need housing assistance from various levels of government and partners.

Regarding the social housing agreements referred to by the hon. member, I will say again that the end dates for these agreements have been known since they were originally signed. They expire between 25 and 50 years after they are signed. When these agreements mature, the last one in the year 2038, federal government funding for the project will end as planned.

The majority of projects are expected to be financially viable, but for those that may face financial difficulties after the mortgage is paid off, CMHC has been actively working to help housing providers prepare for the end of their operating agreements. This work will continue, as will our government's commitment to ensure that Canadians have access to the housing they need.

Once again, Canadians know that when their mortgages are over, they stop paying the bank.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today for my first adjournment debate of 2015, with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I would like him to know that we are going to have a lot of fun again this year. There will be many adjournment debates. He will have to get ready to stay up late. I will be asking him questions on a regular basis.

On December 3, I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment about the importance of fighting climate change. As hon. members know, all countries, including Canada, urgently need to work together. Canada's reputation with regard to climate change is not getting any better. It continues to get worse.

While China and the United States are making considerable efforts to improve, the Minister of the Environment keeps playing games by excluding opposition members, opposition environment critics, from official Canadian delegations on climate change, as was the case in Lima. What is more, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, was not even invited either. I would like to know why. It is too bad for him.

At the conference held this past December in Lima, Peru, the international community once again witnessed the Conservative government's inaction first-hand. It brought nothing new. The Minister of the Environment announced that her government did not even plan to regulate the oil and gas sector, which is responsible for this country's ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have been waiting for more than five years for greenhouse gas targets in this sector, but we have yet to see anything. On the contrary, the government announced that it would not do anything. Instead, it would kowtow to the oil and gas companies and the coal industry. The Lima agreement stipulates that Canada must set stricter targets than before.

Speaking of Canada's weak greenhouse gas targets, we know that our country will not reach its weak targets by 2020. Everyone has said so, except the government, which continues to hide its head in the sand. Everyone knows that we will not reach these miniscule targets. Everyone says so, even officials at Environment Canada.

Canada's complacency is shameful, given that this important conference in Lima has set the stage for the 21st conference, which will take place in Paris in 2015. The Paris conference is very important since that is where the new global climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol will be presented. It is true; I forgot that the Conservatives withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, which shows how little regard they have for this issue.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is usually quite reserved, abandoned that approach a long time ago. Indeed, he asked Canada to be more ambitious and to show more vision on the issue of climate change.

The two largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world, China and the United States, have already taken a major step forward. Will Canada follow their example by presenting a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas industry? It is urgent.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Drummond for his interest in the climate change conference that took place in Lima last December. I also thank him for his first question and answer back and forth in 2015. I look forward to a few more of those over the next few weeks.

Our government is working to negotiate a new global climate change agreement that includes commitments from all major emitters. We take the challenge of climate change seriously, which is why we are doing our part, reducing emissions in Canada and working with our international partners. The Canadian delegation played a constructive role in these discussions, which proved to be successful. In fact, while in Lima the Minister of the Environment hosted a successful event to highlight the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge into environmental decision making.

United Nations negotiations are fundamentally a government-to-government exercise. Governments of all participating countries, including Canada, examine issues, make decisions and commitments balancing the global imperative for climate action with their own national circumstances and capacities.

The delegations negotiating on behalf of each country need very specific technical and analytical expertise on a broad range of issues. Recognizing this requirement, the composition of Canada's delegation was decided around the issues at play during the meeting.

In addition to the various countries' delegations, there were also many non-governmental observer organizations in attendance in order to encourage non-governmental stakeholders at the Lima conference to be more open and to take action. Nearly 1,600 organizations throughout the world have observer status and can seek accreditation for their members.

Many Canadian stakeholders can therefore participate in climate conferences, such as the one held in Lima, through some of these organizations.

Our government also recognizes that we do not have to wait until the UN concludes its negotiations to take action on climate change. That is why we are active members of a number of other international forums, where we lead initiatives that can produce short-term benefits.

For example, Canada co-founded the Climate and Clean Air Coalition that supports efforts of about 100 partners in delivering concrete actions to address short-lived climate pollutants in a variety of sectors. Domestically, our government has taken action on mitigation and adaptation in tandem in order to reduce the long-term risks associated with climate change.

Notably, our government is systematically implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This approach is complemented by significant investments in clean energy and technology.

In conclusion, both our domestic and international efforts demonstrate our government's commitment to address climate change.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quickly come back to what my colleague just said about the sector-by-sector approach because the government forgot to include the oil and gas industry in that approach. This sector-by-sector approach is thus nothing but a pale reflection of what it should be.

With regard to the accord that was recently concluded in Lima and the negotiations, federal investments in climate change research have been reduced so much that La Presse reported on November 7 that the reduction in federal funding in this field of research was depriving researchers of essential data.

Because of the Conservative government's cuts to the science of climate change, researchers are having difficulty getting the data they need to study climate change.

How can this government explain the cuts to funding for this research?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, as he mentions, our sector-by-sector regulatory approach is working. Our approach will see 130 megatonnes less than it would have been under the Liberals.

Our government's record is clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment, while protecting our economy. We are doing both. We are working to negotiate a new global climate change agreement that includes commitments from all major emitters. We cannot work alone.

We are playing a leadership role on the international stage. In fact, our government has helped more than 65 developing countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. We will continue that leadership role.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

™The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:24 p.m.)