(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #226 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.
House of Commons Hansard #226 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement ActGovernment Orders
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to rise in the House and defend the great city of Toronto, particularly the waterfront. The waterfront, as we know, is one of the great Liberal legacies to the city of Toronto. The gift of Harbourfront Centre by Pierre Trudeau in the mid-seventies started the rejuvenation of Toronto's waterfront. It laid the groundwork for not just an industrial port, but a recreational place to live and a place to work. The transformation of that waterfront was continued when Jean Chrétien gathered with the premier of the day and the mayor of the day in Toronto and started Waterfront Toronto, a $1 billion-plus investment that has now led to the Queen's Quay being reopened.
I rose in the House about a month and a half ago to discuss this, because the next phase of Waterfront Toronto funding is required. The next phase will transform this great city's waterfront into an even better place to live, to work, to play. Unfortunately, the federal government chose to neglect the waterfront in the last federal budget.
There has been a stated request from all three orders of government to continue this project, but the funding is required and it is time for the federal government to lead.
Therefore, the question I have tonight for the federal government is very simple. The Unilever site is a site almost as big as Canary Wharf in London, millions of square feet of new commercial and residential space, new parks, new retail. There is the opportunity for two new transit lines to be built with the revenue that would come from redeveloping this site.
However, to do it, the flood plain, the naturalized mouth of the Don River has to be invested in. It is about a $1 billion project. All three levels of government have been talking about putting about $325 million each into this project. If they do this, it not only kicks starts and opens up the lower Don to redevelopment and naturalization, and a beautiful opportunity to clean our water and also deliver a clean, green waterfront to the citizens of Toronto, but it also opens up the southern Portlands for the next phase, the third and final phase of the waterfront revitalization.
The question is a very simple one for the federal government and a very important one to the city of Toronto. Is the government, despite the fact it failed to do it in the budget, prepared to put the $325 million being requested by the other two levels of government into this project, into the city to trigger this next stage of waterfront development, or will it withhold that money or play games with that money and try to force the province into spending its transit money all in one site in downtown Toronto and stop waterfront development, turn its back on this great project and actually put the city in harm's way?
What we know about floods in major cities, and we saw it Calgary, is that if we do not do the flood protection, if we do not do the investment in naturalizing waterways and managing the runoff, we have huge challenges that come to the city. They cost billions of dollars later if we do not put the hundreds of millions of dollars in right now. We learned that lesson in Calgary. I hope we will learn it in Toronto. In the last six years, Toronto has had six storms of the century, and we cannot afford to lose the downtown core to a flood. We certainly cannot afford to lose this opportunity.
Will the government commit tonight to putting in the $325 million into Waterfront Toronto, to partner with the province to match those funds and have the city contribute its share as well? Is the federal government prepared to say yes tonight and talk about specifically this one particular project, flood proofing the lower Don, nothing else, just the Don. Is it prepared to do it, yes or no? We can go home early.
Peter Braid ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this Conservative government remains very concerned about and committed to the revitalization of Toronto's waterfront. That is why this Conservative government invested $500 million, as did both the provincial and the municipal levels of government. This funding has resulted in significant improvements, including modern housing in that part of the city, parks and play areas.
We continue to have productive conversations with the city of Toronto with respect to next steps, including dealing with the importance of flood mitigation.
I might also add that all Canadian municipalities, including the city of Toronto, have access to unprecedented levels of federal funding for infrastructure in more ways than ever before. Through the new building Canada plan, Ontario will benefit from more than $11 billion in dedicated federal funding, including more than $2.7 billion under the new building Canada fund and an estimated $8.12 billion under the federal gas tax fund.
While Toronto can count on its federal allocation through the gas tax fund, which has largely, as my colleague knows, been directed to public transit on the wish of the officials of the city of Toronto, we would be pleased to consider investing in other projects that the city deems important and that the province identifies as a priority.
Our government is committed to creating jobs, promoting growth and building strong, prosperous communities across Ontario and across this great country.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, those are encouraging words, but just short of a yes. I will take it as a good sign that the government is prepared to engage with the city council of the city of Toronto and the mayor, and deliver on a clean green waterfront. It will also, when it does that, ensure that we do not upset the balance that is also protected by the tripartite agreement and protect the tripartite agreement, which balances the commercial, residential and environmental needs of the city of Toronto.
The other issue is the takedown of the Gardiner. I hope, as we debate this issue, that the will of the people prevails along the waterfront and that a clean green waterfront, a waterfront for all and not just for some, is pursued.
If we cannot get a yes on this tonight, the question to follow is this. Will the government of the day commit to sustaining the vision that Waterfront Toronto has for this stretch of the lake? Will the government support and renew the mandate for Waterfront Toronto and continue that fine agency's good work on behalf of the citizens of Toronto, who are after all hoping not just for dollars but for political support as well?
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, our Conservative government has made significant investments across Canada to build roads, bridges, public transit and other public infrastructure. Since 2006, our government has dramatically increased average annual federal funding for thousands of provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects across Canada. We are building on Canada's historic investments, with $80 billion for infrastructure over the next decade. This includes the $53 billion new building Canada plan.
Canadian municipalities have unprecedented ways in which they can put federal funding to work in their communities. Toronto can count on its federal allocation through the gas tax fund. We look forward to considering investing in projects that the city identifies, that the province of Ontario prioritizes, just as we will for all other projects from across the province and across Canada.
Our government is committed to creating jobs, promoting growth and building strong, prosperous communities across Canada.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak further about a question that I asked on May 25 about the Conservatives' cuts to social housing.
For decades, the federal government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, supported up to 620,000 social housing units through long-term agreements ranging in length from 25 to 50 years. These agreements allow social housing providers to support their low-income tenants so that they do not have to spend more than 25% to 30% of their income on housing.
These agreements have been gradually expiring since 2006. The minister continues to say that once the mortgage has been paid off, government support is no longer needed. However, she is forgetting that, in reality, after 25 to 50 years, the buildings need major renovations, and a number of groups can no longer support low-income tenants. The result is that many units are no longer viable.
The most conservative estimates indicate that between one-third and one-half of housing units will not be viable when the agreements expire. At the end of 2014, there were only 553,700 of these units. This year alone, another 25,000 units will lose this funding, and if the government does nothing, there will be another 91,000 units in the same situation by 2018. The situation is urgent.
I have asked the question many times in this House. I have asked the government again and again to renew the $1.7 billion in funding that had been allocated to social housing. I also moved Motion No. 450 calling on it to do so. There has been no response from the other side.
When I speak to the minister about social housing, she replies by talking to me about affordable housing or access to home ownership. I always ask my questions in French, but I very much doubt there is an interpretation problem. Instead, I think the minister simply refuses to respond directly to my questions and to all those families who already have to pay or will have to pay $200, $300 or $500 more every month because of her inaction on this issue.
The last time I asked the minister this question, she replied:
“Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. There are no cuts to the housing investments”.
Is the minister mocking us?
The budget tabled on April 21, 2015, states the following:
...Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will invest $1.7 billion annually to support 570,000 households that depend on social housing support, both off and on reserve.
Many people believed that the government had finally listened to reason. It was not long before our bubble burst.
On April 29, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada issued a joint statement regarding the housing commitments contained in the 2015 federal budget:
The 2015 federal budget committed an annual investment of $1.7 billion for the next four years, for both on and off-reserve social housing, in support of 570,000 households.
Our organizations interpreted this as a small, but much-needed increase to federal investment in social housing....However, subsequent communication with officials from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) indicated that those projections had not changed, essentially a status quo situation. They declined to provide details as to what would increase in the envelope to total the $1.7 billion promised in the budget.
In the absence of renewed funding for social housing, these vulnerable households, often with fixed incomes, will face rent increases that they cannot afford in non-profit, co-operative and public housing in communities across the country.
The statement is signed by Judy Ciufo, the executive director of the CHRA, and Nicholas Gazzard, the executive director of CHF Canada. Who is telling the truth?
HousingAdjournment Proceedings
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, of course, the minister is telling the truth. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Hochelaga.
Ensuring that low-income families and other vulnerable Canadians have access to affordable housing is a matter of great importance to the government. That is why we have made unprecedented investments in housing over the past nine years. Working with our partners, some 940,000 individuals and families have benefited from these investments. This includes those living in existing social housing units.
Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our government has invested almost $19 billion in housing since 2006, and we will be continuing this important work. This year, CMHC is providing approximately $2 billion in housing investments on behalf of the Government of Canada. It is funding that includes support for nearly 600,000 Canadian households living in existing social housing, including on reserve.
We have also ensured the continuation of federal funding for housing programs through the investment in affordable housing initiative, a collaborative effort with the provinces and territories to reduce the number of Canadians in housing need. This initiative was launched by our government in 2011 and has been renewed until 2019, with total funding of close to $2 billion over eight years.
The hon. member will be pleased to know that one of the ways the provinces and territories can use this federal funding under the investment in affordable housing initiative is to support projects after the long-term housing agreements with CMHC have matured. That is their choice.
As I have said on previous occasions, the majority of non-profit and co-operative housing projects are expected to be financially viable and mortgage-free when these agreements mature. For projects that may face financial difficulties when the federal subsidies end, CMHC is taking action to help them prepare for the end of their ongoing operating agreements. For example, in 2013, CMHC changed its lending program to allow non-profit co-operative housing groups to prepay closed CMHC mortgages with a penalty that is consistent with private lending institutions.
In addition, social housing providers whose operating agreements allow for the establishment of a subsidy surplus fund can now retain any money they have in this fund and use it after the operating agreements mature to continue to lower the cost of housing for households living in existing social housing. These are changes that support exactly what the member opposite is talking about.
Building on the prepayment flexibility announced in 2013, economic action plan 2015 proposes further support for social housing providers by allowing them to prepay their long-term non-renewable mortgages without any penalty at all. This will enable eligible social housing providers to access private sector loans with more favourable interest rates, significantly reducing their mortgage expenses. Lower mortgage expenses will help housing providers undertake capital repairs and renovations to help them improve the condition and quality of the affordable housing units.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that Canada's economic action plan 2009 included an investment of $1 billion to protect and revitalize the existing social housing stock off reserve. This funding supported the renovation and retrofit of more than 12,600 social housing projects across Canada, ensuring that these homes will continue to be available for years to come.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I still did not get an answer.
Let me try in English this time by quoting Steve Pomeroy, who is a housing guru. He released a paper just after the budget, which states:
The statement that over the next four years the federal government “will invest $1.7 billion annually to support 570,000 households that depend on social housing support…” does reflect planned CMHC spending levels. However, it does not relate to the more specific issue for which many advocates have been campaigning: reinvestment of scheduled reduced spending. Once the smoke has cleared it is apparent that, indeed, the Budget was too good to be true.
The leader of the NDP already committed to maintaining federal funding for social housing after the election of an NDP government. What is the minister's plan to help the most vulnerable Canadians living in social housing to make sure that they do not have to choose between paying their rent or putting food on the table, like paying $500 more a month?
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would say again that our government recognizes the need for low-income families and other vulnerable Canadians to have access to quality affordable housing. We have made unprecedented investments in housing over the past nine years and we will continue to work with the provinces and territories to deliver funding where it is needed most and will have the greatest impact on reducing the number of Canadians in need of housing.
As an example, the investment in affordable housing has already supported close to 225,000 households across Canada and tens of thousands more will be helped through the renewal of this initiative in 2019. This is the type of respectful, collaborative and flexible approach that our government favours and that should be supported by the hon. member on the other side.
Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to further debate the question that I asked regarding the funding allocated to the fight against terrorism in this government's budget.
As I mentioned before, when it comes to public safety, the government unfortunately has not made any investments in prevention. However, let us talk about where it has made investments. A total of $292.6 million has been allocated to the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and CSIS.
When we break down that amount, we see that $18 million has been allocated for 2015-16 and $92 million—a large part of the budget—has been allocated for 2019-20. However, we know full well that our law enforcement agencies, whether it be the RCMP or CSIS, are actively fighting against terrorism and violent extremism. We have even learned that the resources allocated to the fight against organized crime have been transferred to national security. There have been a couple of additions in that regard, but otherwise there is nothing in the budget.
CSIS confirmed before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that there would be a 50% increase in the number of young Canadians who will join terrorist groups such as Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and approximately 145 such cases had already been identified as of October 2014. This is therefore a growing phenomenon.
As I said earlier, unfortunately there is nothing in this budget for prevention, whether we are talking about prevention targeting families and young people or research. We even found out that the Kanishka project will not be renewed, which is too bad because it helped accomplish wonderful things.
We also see that families do not know where to turn when their children are arrested. For example, some young people were intercepted at the Montreal airport as they were getting ready to leave the country. What do we do with those young people once they have been identified, when they have not committed a crime? These families are totally without resources, and there is nothing in place to help them. That is what these families are calling for, and a number of them have called me, in fact.
No prevention programs are currently being funded, except for those that the police forces take great pains to implement themselves. No budget is allocated to research or fighting online radicalization and recruitment. Nothing is being done to counter the messages on the Internet and in virtual places where these young people are being recruited. There is no “deradicalization” program. I am anxious to hear—
Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for allowing me to rise to discuss our Conservative government's strong record of keeping Canadians safe.
It is important to note, and I would like to remind the member opposite, that the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Jihadist leaders have singled out Canada by name to carry out attacks here on Canadian soil against Canadians simply because they hate our values. These are the very same values that make Canada the very best country in the world in which to live, work, and raise a family.
Tragically, as we all know, we have seen that Canada has been the target of these types of terrorist attacks. On two terrible days this past October, two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed simply for wearing their uniforms.
That is why our Conservative government has put forward the anti-terrorism act, 2015. It will create new tools for our police to protect us from jihadi terrorists. It is also why we have increased resources to our police forces by one-third since we formed government. It is also why in our economic action plan we have allocated nearly $300 million more to those very same police forces.
The member opposite mentioned radicalization in her question, and she went on to say that there is nothing in the budget or that we have done with regard to Internet recruitment. I absolutely disagree with that statement. I would also like to point out and remind her that the anti-terrorism act, 2015 actually includes tools that will allow authorities to take action to prevent radicalization, including taking down material that is promoting terrorism and being used to radicalize individuals.
We heard from witness after witness when we studied Bill C-51. They talked about the need to deal with that very situation. That material that is put on the Internet is actually what is radicalizing our youth. We heard from some very credible witnesses at committee.
Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of CSIS, said C-51 will be an “effective tool to get that [jihadist propaganda] material off the Internet”.
David Cape, of The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said,
seizure of terrorist propaganda...would empower the courts to order the removal or seizure of vicious material often encouraging the murder of Jews. Removing this heinous propaganda, particularly from the Internet, would limit its capacity to radicalize Canadians and inspire attacks.
Tahir Gora, of the Canadian Thinkers Forum, said, “The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements”.
The experts agree and Canadians recognize that it is our Conservative government that is on the right path to tackle terrorism and also on the right track to put the tools in place to tackle radicalization as well.
Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, this government's major problem is that it does not understand that when we talk about fighting radicalization or violent extremism, call it what you will, we are talking about having budgets, resources, and money. We are not talking about passing legislation. We have laws; the Criminal Code is full of them.
If the government wants to make more laws, it can do so. However, it should provide the money that goes along with them because we cannot just start arresting people if nothing is done about prevention. There is no prevention program. We know so little about this here in Canada. We need research. That is how to really fight this type of criminal phenomenon. That is how we can ensure real national security.
The member said that Daesh has declared war on us. She is right, but what I am afraid of is that they may perhaps win this war. The government must take action.
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member who is asking the question today is actually running for the NDP in the next election. It is also interesting to note that the NDP voted to extend Canadian citizenship to terrorists. It actually believes that it is somehow un-Canadian to strip citizenship and a passport from someone who is a terrorist. It also voted to keep CSIS operating with analog tools in a digital world.
The NDP voted to allow people to travel abroad for terrorist activities. It is fundamentally opposed to stopping these very same youth the member opposite is talking about from travelling overseas. It is fundamentally opposed to stopping them. It thinks they should be able to go freely. It also obstructed and opposed the widely supported changes in the anti-terrorism act, 2015.
Canadians know there is only one political party in the House, the Conservative government, that will keep Canadians safe.
Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 11:51 p.m.)