Debates of March 10th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the debate to another aspect of the bill, which is the language and knowledge requirements. I think there are reasons for a difference of opinion on this.

I keep thinking of my Hungarian grandmother, Mary Varyu, who came to this country in 1926. In her life, she never fully mastered English. She never could fully speak the language, or read. I have serious doubts as to whether today she would be able to pass a written knowledge test in English or French. Yet, there was no prouder Canadian than I have ever met than my little 4 foot, eleven inch Hungarian grandmother, who proudly voted in every election, who paid her taxes on the button, who did not ever break a law, and who was an outstanding member of her community.

I know that the legislation would improve this by restoring the language and knowledge requirements to between the ages of 18 and 55, leaving people over and under those ages able to get citizenship without passing that test.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague would comment on the issue of language and knowledge and its role in citizenship.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, language should never be an unfair barrier to participation in political life. The 1965 Voting Rights Act in the U.S. was all about that. Language tests were put in before one could be registered to vote there. The Supreme Court struck that down. I think that is the case here.

I do not understand. If people consider themselves to be Canadian but the government does not provide enough resources to allow them to become fully fluent in either language, then I do not see why that should be any kind of barrier to full citizenship. As my hon. colleague said, an individual can contribute even if that individual's language skills are not as good as those of others.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 45(5), I request that the division be deferred until Monday, March 21, at the end of the ordinary hour for daily adjournment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the recorded division is deferred until Monday, March 21, at the ordinary hour of adjournment.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you would find consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Housing

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 2015, I asked the minister whether the government planned to reinvest in social housing and renew the long-term subsidy agreements that were set to expire on December 31. I would like to point out that this matter was urgent three months ago.

In Canada, over 620,000 social housing units, including 127,000 in Quebec, were provided through long-term agreements between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and community-based housing providers. The federal government has been granting subsidies to thousands of low-income families through these agreements for nearly 30 years.

Unfortunately, now that the subsidy agreements have expired, 5,200 families in Quebec have to pay nearly all of their housing costs. Their share of the rent represents up to 88% of their income, which is three times more than before. Eighty-eight per cent. That is unbelievable. How can a family buy groceries and pay other expenses with so little disposable income? In 2016, no one should have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. These rent subsidies mainly helped seniors, families, and people with disabilities. The expiry of these agreements therefore affects the most vulnerable members of our communities. Having a roof over your head is the basis for everything. It keeps people safe and healthy and is crucial to the stability and progression of disadvantaged people. Seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families should not have to live in fear of losing their home.

The lack of social housing in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is a problem that has still not been solved. There are only 653 social housing units. The demand far exceeds the supply. In the city of Saint-Hyacinthe itself, there are 200 families on the waiting list for the low-rental housing units managed by the municipal housing bureau.

These figures do not even reflect the reality. When I speak to organizations that work on a daily basis with families and people looking for social housing, they tell me that many have given up. These people have asked to have their names removed from the list, since the wait times are too long and there is too much red tape. These people are facing never-ending wait times. We are talking about two to five years. The situation is critical now.

This government committed to helping people in need of housing. It signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 11 of the covenant states that parties must recognize the right of everyone to housing. Having affordable housing is not a luxury; it is a right. The NDP is calling on the government to maintain the total funding of $1.7 billion a year currently dedicated to long-term agreements. We have long been proposing concrete solutions that are easy to implement. We are now facing a situation that is beyond critical. Without federal support, the people living in these units will simply have no other housing options.

In this time of crisis, we are calling on the government to take meaningful action by massively reinvesting in social and affordable housing for the good of our communities.

The federal budget will be tabled in two weeks. The government has an opportunity to improve the lives of our communities in a very real way by investing in housing. Now is the time to take responsibility and show some leadership on this.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Let me begin by saying that we share her concern for vulnerable Canadians that need support in meeting their housing needs.

I can assure the House that the government will indeed invest in affordable housing, as pledged during the election. We will re-establish the federal government's role in supporting affordable housing so more Canadians can find an affordable place to call home.

Our government is working to not only address the most pressing needs in the short term, we will be taking a more collaborative, whole-of-government approach to improving housing outcomes in the long term.

There is general consensus about the immediate issues facing the social housing sector. We know that some housing providers will face financial difficulties when their long-term operating agreements come to an end, leaving low-income households living in rent-geared-to income units vulnerable. As well, much of the existing social housing stock requires major capital repairs and modifications to meet the changing needs of Canadians, including seniors. Operating agreements differ from one provider to another. Some agreements provide rent subsidies for low-income households. Others provide subsidies to reduce operating costs. Still others provide for preferential rates on mortgage loans.

Some existing arrangements, as they are now, may not be the best answer for some of these projects. We are sensitive to the fact that we may need a range of solutions that address underlying problems and challenges.

Our government is committed to a strategy that will include a 10-year investment in social infrastructure. This strategy will prioritize investments in affordable housing and seniors' housing, and provide funding for communities to help homeless Canadians find stable housing. As well, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development will be working with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, on measures to encourage and support the construction of new affordable housing.

We believe there is a role for all levels of government in the provision of housing. Finding the right approach will be part of the discussions we are having with stakeholders, provinces and territories, municipalities, and others.

As I have already noted, we will begin to deliver the social infrastructure investments we have promised Canadians. We will also continue to provide current federal funding of $238 million per year through the investment in affordable housing program. Provinces and territories match this funding and can use it to pay for capital repairs or rent supplements for social housing projects that may need such assistance.

In addition, the federal government will continue to invest in existing social housing. In 2014, this investment was approximately $1.7 billion in support of some 570,000 households, including 27,750 households in first nations communities.

Providing affordable housing is a priority for our government. Going forward, we will be looking for opportunities to build a stronger, more innovative, and sustainable affordable housing sector that gives Canadians better access to housing and improves their prospects and quality of life.

We will be working with our other partners and stakeholders to develop a strategy that produces meaningful long-term results. I would encourage the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to support our efforts.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although we share some of the same concerns and agree on certain issues, I invite the parliamentary secretary to take note of some of the constructive bills that the NDP has introduced to help people gain access to safe and affordable housing.

I am talking about Bill C-241, which seeks to recognize an individual's right to proper housing at a reasonable cost, and Bill C-400, which seeks to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing.

Having been the head of a community housing organization for more than 10 years, I am well aware of the different roles of municipal, provincial, and federal governments. I worked in the world of social housing for more than 10 years. I expect great things from the federal government when it comes to social housing. I saw thousands of young people benefit from social housing and saw how it gave them what they needed to get ahead in life.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her helpful suggestions.

As promised during the election, our government is committed to developing a strategy to re-establish the federal role in support of affordable housing. The strategy will prioritize investments in affordable housing and seniors housing over the next 10 years. It will provide funding for communities to help homeless Canadians find stable housing and, importantly, it will promote innovation and new approaches to affordable housing and engage all levels of government and housing stakeholders.

As the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot can appreciate, much work needs to be done. Immediate measures will be implemented in the short term, but developing a more comprehensive and forward-looking strategy will take some time. The end result, better housing outcomes for all Canadians, will be worth the time and effort.

The Environment

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to follow up a question I asked the government on the new environmental assessment process it is building. I know this topic has been the subject of a lot debate in the House. The debate can sometimes get quite polemical when we start talking about pipelines and who should and should not be consulted.

I would like to boil it down to what I think is a very reasonable litmus test of the new process. It is an issue that is arising in and around Winnipeg as part of the energy east proposal. The current proposal on the books is to convert a section of pipeline east of Winnipeg between Hadashville and Falcon Lake. It is a bigger piece of the pipeline than that, but for the distance between Hadashville and Falcon Lake, the pipeline runs parallel to the city of Winnipeg's aqueduct. There is some concern that either a catastrophic or sustained low-level leakage of bitumen could contaminate the Winnipeg water supply.

What I am hoping to hear tonight is an acknowledgement by the government that a litmus test for its new process should be that Winnipeggers get independent scientific advice from that process on the safety of their water supply, if that proposal goes ahead. If it is not safe, then as part of the process, there should be recommendations on how to ensure the safety of Winnipeg's water supply from the project, if it does go ahead.

I would like to leave some of the polemics aside, draw attention to what I think is a very important issue, an important test for a new process, and hear the government acknowledge that this is a reasonable test and that whatever new process it develops will ensure, with independent science, the safety of Winnipeg's water supply.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to doing things differently, to recognizing both the importance of economic growth and the imperative of environmental responsibility.

Canadians understand the importance of natural resources to our economy. They know that this industry creates jobs and spurs investment, but they lack faith in the way we assess those projects. They have come to believe that the scales have been tipped too far in one direction.

Our government shared those concerns. That is why we committed to modernizing the National Energy Board to ensure that its composition reflects regional views and has sufficient expertise in fields such as environmental science, community development, and indigenous traditional knowledge. We are in the process of determining how these changes can best be made.

To further restore the confidence of Canadians, we have introduced an interim process for reviewing major resource projects. That approach is based on five clear principles. First, no project proponent will have to return to the starting line. Second, decisions will be based on science and evidence, including traditional indigenous knowledge. Third, the views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered. Fourth, indigenous peoples will be consulted and, where appropriate, their rights and interests accommodated. Fifth, direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed.

To achieve all of this, our government intends to seek an additional four months to render a final decision on the proposed Trans Mountain expansion project, and with respect to the energy east project, we intend to seek six more months to allow the NEB to complete its work and three more months for our government to make its final decision.

We believe these are reasonable timelines and consistent with the prudent approach we have promised Canadians. With all of these efforts, our goal is straightforward: restoring public confidence in how major energy projects are reviewed.

That confidence is critical, because little can be achieved without it. As the Prime Minister has said, governments grant permits, but only communities can grant permission. If we are going to build the infrastructure to move our resources to market, Canadians need to have confidence in the environmental review process and know that it is fair and open and guided by science.

The process we have set out will take us down a different path—the right path, the path of properly weighing environmental concerns, meaningfully engaging indigenous communities, and listening to the input of Canadians. Our government will engage Canadians in a process whereby trust is rebuilt and certainty is restored and progress is made.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary and I can agree that the old process under the previous government was bad, and we agree on wanting to see a much better process.

The one thing she said that was of particular concern to me is that projects that were initiated and reviews that were initiated under the previous government may well continue under the same or a similar process and will not be subject to the exigencies of any new process, so I do worry about that.

I would like to hear tonight a commitment from the government that independent science will be a requirement of moving forward with this proposal, so that people in Winnipeg know that someone who is not working for TransCanada pipelines has looked at this project and has done whatever study needs to be done, and that they will have access to that science and to whatever recommendations come out of that study.

That is really what I am hoping we might be able to hear from the parliamentary secretary tonight.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that science will be considered, and I can also assure the member that the five principles will be applied to any project in process.

Our government understands the importance of sustainably developing Canada's natural resources and moving them safely to market, but we also understand that it cannot happen without Canadians having confidence in the way projects are reviewed.

The best way to rebuild that confidence is by meaningfully consulting with indigenous communities, restoring the importance of science, respecting indigenous traditional knowledge, listening to Canadians, and assessing direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions linked to the project under review, all things that our government is doing.

Canadians want us to work together—as governments, as communities, as individuals—because that is how Canadians have always worked best.