House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ads.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred to Tuesday, April 28, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders, or just before the time provided for private members' business.

I see the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora standing, perhaps on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30.

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Opposition Motion—Government AdvertisingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, April 20, 2015, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 18, under ways and means proceedings.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #379

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

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

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about housing. I have asked several questions and quite often have received the exact same response from the minister, and I am troubled by it.

We know that housing agreements, which were initiated by the Liberal Party, have been renewed and we know the renewals in places like Ontario constitute about $801 million in funding. I did the math when I was in city council, and certainly have done since I arrived in Parliament. When we do that math, it means that approximately 60 new units of housing will be provided by this agreement each year for the next 5 years in a city like Toronto.

Because there is no money for state of good repair, because there is no money for new housing and because the capital repair backlog, which is effectively downloaded onto the city by a provincial Conservative government, is now close to $1 billion, we are losing more units of housing in Toronto through disrepair than we are gaining in the new housing agreements.

My question for the government is very simple. We know that housing solves problems. We know that housing pays for itself through the social investment. We know that housing is an integral part of building strong cities, strong neighbourhoods, but most important, strong families. In light of the fact we are facing an unprecedented crisis in Toronto, with 92,000 families, close to 200,000 people waiting for assisted housing, close to 5,000 people a year living in city shelters of whom half are children, with this calamity facing Canadians living in Toronto, with a calamity that is replicated unfortunately right across the country in every major city, every minor city, every medium city and every city of every description, why is the government satisfied with the status quo when it is literally putting people in harm's way?

Why is there not one new dollar in this current budget for one new unit of housing anywhere in the country, let alone a city, let alone the aboriginal or traditional territory, let alone in any single settlement in Canada? Why is not one dollar put into new housing, one dollar into fixing new housing? Why is the status quo, which people suffer under, acceptable?

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

April 27th, 2015 / 6:45 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Trinity—Spadina does not like to acknowledge it, but economic action plan 2015 provides $150 million to support social housing in Canada by allowing social and co-op housing providers to prepay their long-term non-renewable mortgages without penalty. This initiative will allow eligible, co-operative and non-profit social housing providers to significantly reduce their mortgage expenses. With lower mortgage expenses, housing providers will be allowed to undertake capital repairs to improve the condition and quality of these housing units.

Listen to what the Co-operative Housing Federation's executive director Nicholas Gazzard had to say about this important investment being made by the Government of Canada:

This is very good news. The elimination of prepayment fees will make a real difference to housing co-ops, and the low-income households who make housing co-ops their home in communities across the country.

This is all in addition to ongoing federal investments that support close to 600,000 households living in existing social housing on and off reserve. It is in addition to federal investments that support the construction of about 400 new homes in first nation communities each year, as well as the renovation of 1,000 existing homes on reserve. The investment in affordable housing, which I mentioned previously, is a model of partnership and collaboration.

Federal funding is matched by the provinces and territories, which are responsible for designing and delivering programs to address local housing needs within their own jurisdictions. New housing is one way this money is being invested, but it is not the only answer to reducing the number of Canadians who have housing needs.

The provinces and territories can also invest in renovation projects. For example, they can provide rent supplements, shelter allowances and assistance toward home ownership. There are often other ways our government has invested in new housing. Economic action plan 2013 also extended the homelessness partnering strategy with nearly $600 million in funding over five years.

Our new evidence-based housing first approach aims to stabilize the lives of homeless individuals for the long term by first moving them into permanent housing and then providing additional supports that they may need.

I would also remind hon. members that we have made significant investments in new housing during the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan, including $400 million to build new affordable housing for low-income seniors, $75 million for new housing for people with disabilities, and a combined total of $600 million in housing construction and repairs in the north and on reserve across Canada. We also invested $1 billion in renovating and retrofitting existing social housing off reserve.

We will continue to meet our long-term commitments under existing agreements and we will continue to work with the provinces and territories to deliver effective social housing for Canadians across our great country.

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. What the parliamentary secretary has just described is the existing program. It is the status quo. When he talks about aboriginal housing and 1,400 houses being built or repaired this year, that is 2 houses per reserve. That is tragically ridiculous, because it puts people in harm's way.

Here is a question to which I would like a very quick answer. When those co-ops and affordable housing providers renew their mortgages, will the subsidy agreements expire when the old mortgages expire, or will the subsidy agreements continue?

HousingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, our government stands by its housing record, and we are proud of our record investment in this area.

We have made smart, targeted investments that have helped hundreds of thousands of Canadian families and individuals get access to the housing they need. We have also moved away from federally designed programs to models that allow for local solutions, knowing that provinces and territories are best placed to understand local needs.

It is about more than just putting a roof over someone's head. When people are in housing, it is much easier for them to obtain an education, upgrade skills, look for a job and contribute productively to society.

This is what our policies aim to do. We want Canadians to achieve for themselves, for their families and for the country as a whole. Having a place to call home is a big part of this. Hon. members can rest assured that our government will continue to make smart investments in housing as we have shown in our economic action plan 2015. We will continue to do our part to ensure Canadians can succeed.

Official LanguagesAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, on March 11, I asked a question in the House concerning Air Canada's failure to comply with the Official Languages Act. The ministers hesitated over who was going to answer the question. Finally, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages rose to tell me that she was not the person who could answer my question.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages should have been able to answer my question about official languages instead of passing the buck to others. My question was very simple and addressed directly to her. I asked her if she thought it was acceptable for Air Canada to develop unilingual English work tools, thereby ignoring the right of workers to use the official language of their choice. In her reply, she did not even mention the name of the airline. I was very disappointed with her answer. The minister just spewed her usual rhetoric and stated that she was proud of her government's record on official languages. Canadians and my constituents in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles expect more than just empty rhetoric from their minister. They expect answers.

The government knows full well that Air Canada is a repeat offender; Air Canada has ranked among the worst offenders since 1995. Year after year, Air Canada has had its knuckles rapped by the Commissioner of Official Languages for the many complaints sent to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, for non-compliance with the recommendations of the Office, and for quite simply ignoring its action plan.

Need I remind the minister that the Official Languages Act mandates more than simply being able to say “Hello, Bonjour” to customers? The Air Canada Public Participation Act, which has been around for more than 25 years now, requires Air Canada to fulfill its obligations under the Official Languages Act. The government claims to be tough on crime, but it does nothing to encourage our largest airline to comply with the law. This is serious.

I also want to take this opportunity to point out that since I became the official opposition's critic for la Francophonie, I have met with a number of groups that work on the ground. They plead with me and they are sounding the alarm. It is more than alarming to see how much the French language is struggling in linguistic minority communities. The relative weight of francophones has been continuously dropping in Canada for more than 30 years. We already know that the government will not reach the targets it set, in spite of its roadmap and the related investments. The minister should coordinate the implementation of the language commitments at all federal institutions.

According to the Official Languages Act, the minister is required to encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions, enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

One wonders whether the minister has enough leadership to enforce the law. Personally, I highly doubt it. As already mentioned, we are leaving the task of protecting our language, French, up to a government that does not consider the protection of both official languages a priority in the least.

Let us look at the budget tabled last week as an example. There is no mention whatsoever of Canada's francophonie or official languages, even though the equality of status and use of English and French is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. The Conservative government even put funding for many community groups on the chopping block. As a result, the ability of francophone minorities to live in French is constantly eroding.

Official LanguagesAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and promoting Canada's official languages. French and English are both integral parts of Canada's culture, and the defence of the cultural richness we derive from our bilingual nature is a priority of the first order. Air Canada's passengers and employees are obviously no exception.

Since its privatization in 1989, Air Canada has retained the official languages obligation it had as a crown corporation by way of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Air Canada Public Participation Act not only requires the carrier to provide communications and services to the public in both official languages but to also maintain a bilingual working environment. The company is also subject to provisions that guarantee equal opportunities for employment and advancement to ensure a workforce that reflects the linguistic composition of the Canadian population to the greatest extent possible.

Finally, Air Canada must make efforts to support and assist the development of official languages minority communities and to promote bilingualism.

The Commissioner of Official Languages plays an essential role in supporting our bilingualism. This is also the case where Air Canada is concerned. If an Air Canada employee feels that he or she is unable to work in his or her language of choice, there are mechanisms in place that allow for an investigation. In brief, employees or passengers of Air Canada can address their concerns to the official languages commissioner, who is specifically mandated to examine these complaints. Of course, Air Canada employees can also opt to raise such issues with their employer with a view to arriving at a solution.

The commissioner is authorized to investigate complaints made against the carrier. Furthermore, the complainant can take this issue to court, as well.

My colleague has referred to a specific incident involving the use of particular equipment. I cannot comment on this particular case, but I would like to underscore that this is precisely the sort of issue for which the existing mechanism should be engaged to appropriately address the overall issue.

Once again, all complaints related to official languages can be heard by the Commissioner of Official Languages, and there is a mechanism in place for the investigation of these complaints. Our government remains firmly committed to the defence and promotion of bilingualism in Canada.

Official LanguagesAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, there should be minimum penalties to force Air Canada to comply with the legislation.

I address the House as a sort of guardian of the French language in Canada. I cannot keep silent about the cuts to the CBC, which will result in the loss of 100 additional jobs from the broadcaster's French-language services. I cannot keep silent about the fact that the budget voted by Parliament for the development of French-language skills has not been spent when the communities are in dire need of that funding. I cannot keep silent about the delays affecting many programs under the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018.

Can the minister tell us whether she intends to stop flouting the Official Languages Act and begin consulting with and providing adequate funding for official language minority community organizations? Can she tell us whether she will take appropriate action to ensure equality of status for both official languages in Canada?

In closing, will the minister force Air Canada to comply with the Official Languages Act so that our airline uses French as it should?

Official LanguagesAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm before this House the government's commitment to protecting and promoting bilingualism in Canada.

Under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, Air Canada has an obligation to serve customers in the official language of their choice. We expect Air Canada to be compliant with this act. This act provides for a mechanism that allows anyone wishing to put forward a complaint regarding official languages to do so to the commissioner. The commissioner will undertake an investigation and take the appropriate measures to follow up on all of these complaints.

Our government has maintained unprecedented and indisputable support for official languages in Canada. We expect Air Canada to continue to take the necessary measures to provide the required bilingual services and to maintain its ability to respond to its obligations under the Official Languages Act to passengers and to employees.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, on December 8, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to explain to the House why it was that individuals reportedly operating with ISIL in Syria and Iraq, known to the authorities in Canada, were not detained. The minister informed the public safety committee on October 8 that the government was aware of some 80 individuals who had returned to Canada who had violated Canadian law. Well, quite simply, why were they not arrested if they had violated Canadian law? The minister has yet to explain why those individuals were not detained.

In the wake of the October attacks in Quebec and Ottawa, prior to the passage of any new anti-terror legislation, authorities have in fact detained and arrested a number of individuals. Again, the new anti-terrorism legislation had not been brought into effect, demonstrating that existing laws could have been used, should have been used and were finally used.

What is required is a government that is both consistent as to what it can achieve through legislation in place and what challenges require new legislation. The responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens.

The concern has been raised that, in an effort to compensate for the rather slow response to the growing terrorist threat, to the failure to develop with communities effective de-radicalization programs, instead we have a government that is prepared to implement measures that would clearly be found unconstitutional. Empowering CSIS, through a warrant, to be able to violate the rights of Canadians in an effort to respond to a terrorist threat is not something that should be reassuring to Canadians. A failure to use the law as it stands is not justification for bringing forward laws that could be found illegal.

What I called for in December, and the Liberal Party has been calling for since, before the incidents of last October, is a government that can demonstrate that the safety of Canadians is first and foremost and that measures to increase that security would be brought forward in a manner consistent with their fundamental values.

I would therefore ask the government that if the police were able to make arrests that in fact resulted in convictions, why has the government brought forward legislation that would likely be overturned by the courts? If that happens, then because of poorly designed legislation that would be in violation of the charter, those arrests would be thrown out by the courts. The government has not been cautious in terms of its development of the legislation and could in fact jeopardize the ability to detain those individuals because it has failed to ensure that this new legislation is charter compliant.

My original question still stands: Why has the government not used the existing laws to arrest and detain potential terrorists?

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not the government that arrests people. It is actually our security forces and the RCMP that arrest people and implement the legislation.

Our Conservative government is very concerned about the threats posed by individuals involved in terrorist activities abroad. We are concerned because the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and like-minded countries. While recent events have raised the profile of the threat of terrorism and radicalization to violence, our government has been actively engaged with this issue and has been developing measures to combat the threat of jihadi terrorists for some time now.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties have been unable to support anything when it comes to protecting Canadians. There is good reason for concern with the number of suspected travellers and approximately 80 returnees as noted in the 2014 “Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”.

Let me state that we take all threats to the security of Canada and Canadians very seriously. That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-51 and the crucial provisions contained in it to protect our national security.

While I cannot comment on active investigations, I can assure the member for Malpeque that our national law enforcement and security agencies are working diligently to investigate suspected high-risk travellers and bring the full weight of Canadian law to bear against those people who would violate us. The RCMP is actively engaged in investigations on numerous high-risk travellers, placing a priority on those who pose the most significant threat to Canadians and Canada's interests at home or abroad.

While the member believes that politicians should be meddling with our national security agencies, we believe in the work that our agencies are doing, and we are committed to providing them with the tools they need to accomplish their task. In addition to the efforts to detect and deny terrorist activity, our government is making efforts to work with communities to prevent individuals from being radicalized to violence in the first place.

Early engagement with individuals at risk is the key to the preventative approach. Such efforts are most effective when they are shared with other levels of government in a shared initiative between governments, police, communities, and all of these people involved together, aimed at young people and stopping violent extremist activity. We are taking this approach under the government's counterterrorism strategy by working with and supporting communities, especially young people, to develop critical thinking and effective counter-messaging against the kind of ideological messaging that we have seen in the many disgusting videos that ISIL has released of violent beheadings, among other things.

Success requires support and participation from all levels of government, civil society, and most of all, local communities and individual Canadians, families, and community groups, which are the foundation of a safe and resilient country. Everyone must play their part in keeping our communities safe.

Terrorism is a serious crime with harsh penalties, which warrants a thorough investigative response. However, such investigations are also extremely challenging, time consuming and resource intensive. Despite these challenges, the RCMP has had significant successes. However, we must ensure that as the threat of terrorism evolves, our laws and tools provided to our national security agencies evolve with it. That is just what the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would do.

We are committed to doing everything in our power to prevent Canadians from either becoming victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities. The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, makes leaving or attempting to leave Canada for terrorist purposes a criminal offence. The act gives our national security agencies the powers to investigate and prosecute terrorist travel planning, and to stop potential extremist travellers before they leave our country.