Debates of April 20th, 2016

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #44

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the delay, there will be no private member's business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

I encourage members to take their discussions outside so we can continue with the late show.

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

Housing

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking up the conversation we were having about affordable housing back in December. I want to reiterate how affordable housing helps everything. It helps every kid get the best start. It helps support local business and the local economy. It helps human health. It helps shelter from domestic violence.

Over the years the NDP has proposed a number of legislative measures to support affordable housing. Examples of these measures include adopting a national housing strategy, ensuring investment in social and co-operative housing, renovations of existing housing stock, building new housing units, and funding community-based initiatives to combat homelessness.

I want to talk with the government about some of the specifics on how it may be able to follow some of those initiatives, but I want to describe two community projects in my town of Nanaimo, just to give a sense of what kind of support we are are looking for.

In Nanaimo, a new supportive housing facility is opening in May. This the Boundary Crescent facility. It is being operated by three community groups: the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society; the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society, which does such good work in our community for so many people; and Haven Society, which provides emergency shelter for victims of family violence, women and children especially.

The Boundary Crescent facility was built with funding from the province and the City of Nanaimo and it will help homeless men and women transition from life on the streets. It has a strong emphasis on serving women who have struggled with chronic homelessness.

However, we have heard that this facility, as welcome as it is, barely scratches the surface of the need for supportive housing for women with children and for affordable housing in our community. We need the federal government at the table working with indigenous communities, provinces, and local partners.

Here is another great example. Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre is proposing a 25-unit affordable housing complex on Nanaimo's Bowen Road. It is a community-led project for urban aboriginal students and families. It is the first family-focused affordable housing project funded and built in Nanaimo since 1999. That describes how starved community organizations have been of affordable housing funding.

The City of Nanaimo has committed the land and will waive property taxes. The Regional District of Nanaimo has committed funding, and great news came just today: BC Housing has announced that it is going to support some of the funding around feasibility study work and initial construction. This is the first passive energy house in western Canada, so it has a zero energy environmental footprint as well. It is something we are really proud of.

These two community examples really illustrate how much community partners need partners. I am urging the government to describe to us what specific support such projects can expect in this year as they are building and opening. Because existing affordable housing needs federal support, I am also hoping that the government can describe what specific action it is taking this year to preserve the funding to resurrect expiring housing agreements, without which—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe our government has been very clear in budget 2016 about our plans to invest in affordable housing, and I will take advantage of the opportunity that the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith provides me to reiterate our commitment to affordable housing for the benefit of members on all sides of the House.

During last year's election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that a Liberal government would re-establish federal leadership in affordable housing and create a comprehensive national housing strategy to help ensure that all Canadians have access to the housing they need. This is exactly what we are doing. With the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance last month, I am proud to say that we are taking concrete steps toward fulfilling this commitment.

In the short term, budget 2016 provides $2.3 billion in funding for affordable housing to help boost Canada's economic growth, build stronger communities, and help tens of thousands of families access housing that is safe and affordable. This funding is over and above the $2 billion the federal government already spends on housing each and every year and will be targeted to address some of the most pressing housing needs facing low-income and other vulnerable Canadians across the country.

These new investments include more than $504 million to create and renovate affordable housing and improve housing affordability, over $200 million to build or renovate affordable housing for low-income seniors, $90 million to build or renovate more than 3,000 shelter spaces for victims of domestic violence, $574 million to repair and improve the energy and water efficiency of existing social units, up to $30 million to renew subsidies on a transitional basis for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years, and $554 million to improve housing conditions for first nations people living on reserve. The list goes on. There is $178 million to address the unique housing challenges in the north and Inuit communities, and $111 million to tackle homelessness. These are significant investments and they will all be delivered over the next two years to address urgent housing needs across the country.

Budget 2016 also includes two important initiatives to support the construction of affordable rental housing. First, we will create a new affordable rental housing innovation fund, with funding of $208 million over five years, to test innovative business approaches to lower the costs and risks of financing for affordable rental housing projects. The second initiative, the proposed affordable rental housing financing initiative, would provide up to $2.5 billion in low-cost loans over five years to municipalities and housing developers during the earliest and riskiest phase of development.

As we deliver these immediate investments, we will also be developing a comprehensive and forward-looking national housing strategy that will promote innovative new approaches to diverse housing challenges and opportunities that exist across Canada. In this context, the federal government will be engaging the provinces and territories, indigenous communities, and other housing stakeholders across the country in the coming months.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we first started this conversation in December, these details had not been revealed. I am very glad that the parliamentary secretary is able to describe the very ambitious program that is outlined for the next two years. We look forward to working with community partners to actually get results on the ground.

We lost a lot of ground over the last decade. Hopes are very high and the need is very strong. We look forward to working with all community partners, all levels of government. I will reaffirm again and again that a roof is a right and our communities benefit when our senior partners support such community work.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is a riding with significant needs to reduce poverty. She can rest assured that helping vulnerable Canadians find suitable, affordable, and sustainable housing is and always will be a priority for this government and, indeed, for members on both sides of the House.

Over the next year, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and I will be consulting with the provinces, territories, indigenous people, and other stakeholders to develop a strategy that delivers better housing outcomes in all regions of the country, including the north, indigenous communities, and of course, Vancouver Island.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my first questions tie into my colleague's and will be about renewing social housing agreements. There could be negative outcomes for 365,000 social housing units. This is not just about the housing units; it is about the people who live in those homes: the men, women and children who could be in jeopardy if the agreements are not renewed. We are talking about a $1.7-billion budget.

Some dollar amounts were specified in the budget. The minister has talked about them too. For example, we have heard about $15 million per year for two years, but that is just for certain agreements that involve the federal government directly. Agreements handled by the provinces seem to be funded by the agreement on affordable housing, which is how the Conservatives did it in recent years. I think there are some problems with that and some things that need clarifying. That is why I am asking the parliamentary secretary for some clarification this evening.

For instance, the $15 million a year over two years is only a short-term measure. Two years is not very long. Unfortunately, this creates uncertainty and can have a negative effect. Let me explain. Consider the example of a co-operative that must choose between two renters but does not know whether, at the end of those two years, the rent subsidies will be renewed. If it has the choice between two tenants, one who can afford to pay the market price and the other who needs a long-term subsidy because he cannot work, it may give priority to the tenant who can pay.

This means that social housing is at risk of disappearing because of that. In addition, it could also make some already difficult, precarious situations even worse for certain people and certain households. As we know, waiting lists are already quite long. A lot of people are living in this kind of uncertainty.

I would also like to know if that is an indication that the Liberal government intends to continue the federal government's withdrawal from social housing that has occurred over the past 20 years. Ever since the government stopped building social housing 20 years ago, there have been some very negative repercussions. There has been no new construction since the 1990s, and ever since then the housing situation has deteriorated. Many people are even talking about a housing crisis.

Something else is missing from the budget. There is absolutely no mention of the lapsed agreements. What will happen to those people? Some people have lost their rent subsidies, and they have very difficult decisions to make: will they pay for food or will they pay the rent? It is therefore not surprising that there is a lot of child poverty.

The provinces and territories must cost-match most of the investment in affordable housing. What will happen if the province or territory does not have the money for that? According to the member for Spadina—Fort York, this money will be put into the federal gas tax fund. However, this fund goes to infrastructure, not housing. Thus, we would lose the money for housing.

Furthermore, developers could use the incentives to build affordable housing for a few years and then jack up the rent, which is another risk. We need long-term agreements to prevent that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Hochelaga.

I can assure her that the government shares her concern for low income households that may be impacted by the expiry of long-term social housing operating agreements. In fact, budget 2016 addresses this very issue with significant short-term investments to preserve existing rent-geared-to-income units in social housing projects across the country.

Our government believes that new approaches are needed to improve housing outcomes for all Canadians, including those living in social housing units. This is why we have committed to consult with the provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous people, and housing stakeholders on a national housing strategy that will identify innovative, long-term solutions to current and future housing challenges.

At the same time, we recognize that action is needed to address pressing problems in the short-term, including the potential loss of rent-geared-to-income units when operating agreements expire over the next couple of years. As well, much of the existing social housing stock requires major capital repairs and modifications.

Our government pledged during the election campaign to provide leadership in supporting affordable housing. Budget 2016 is an important step in this direction with proposed new funding of $2.3 billion over two years to give Canadians greater access to affordable housing.

As the member for Hochelaga will know, this new funding includes close to $574 million to support the renovation, and energy and water efficiency retrofit of existing social housing units. This investment will improve living conditions for thousands of households, and will also make these units more affordable to operate and maintain over time.

More to the point in regard to the member's question, budget 2016 includes measures to preserve affordability for low income households in social housing as operating agreements expire. Up to $30 million will be provided to renew existing subsidies for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years.

This funding will be provided on a transitional basis until the end of March 2018. To receive assistance, housing providers will be required to maintain or increase the number of rent-geared-to-income units for low-income households.

For federally administered projects where operating agreements expire prior to April 1, 2016, funding from the investment in affordable housing can be used to provide rent subsidies or other forms of assistance. Housing providers should contact the housing agency in their jurisdiction to inquire about funding assistance.

As for social housing projects administered by the provinces and territories, budget 2016 will double federal funding for the investment in affordable housing over the next two years. This investment will be cost-matched by the provinces and territories. Combined with current funding for the IAH, this will provide just under $1 billion in federal funding that can be used to protect affordability for low income households living in projects where operating agreements will expire before March 2018.

As I have noted, this is a transitional measure while the government consults with the provinces, territories, indigenous, and other communities on a national housing strategy.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some very specific questions about what the parliamentary secretary just said, and I would appreciate some specific answers.

He spoke about the national housing strategy. He talked about consultations. I would like to know whether there will be consultations, and we can ignore what people are telling us, or whether there will be a partnership. Will the decisions be made together? The groups want to know.

The groups also want to know the deadline for planning this strategy. Are we talking about six months, one year, or eight years?

The other question has to do with retrofitting. We hear about energy retrofitting, but is that the only kind? For example, if the elevators in the towers in Toronto need to be replaced, can that be included, even if it is not an energy issue?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the member for bringing this matter before the House.

Canada benefits from a strong and healthy housing system, but we can do much better. We will shortly be releasing some of the details that the hon. member has asked about. We will be helping vulnerable Canadians find sound, suitable, and sustainable housing. That is a priority for our government.

I would remind the member that budget 2016 includes $2.3 billion in new funding over the next two years. We will be consulting stakeholders. We will be consulting the provinces, territories, indigenous communities, and of course, the members opposite.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my follow-up on the perils of the temporary foreign worker provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the results of yesterday's election in Manitoba. I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing premier, Greg Selinger, and to the 16 years of good NDP government in Manitoba, and what that has meant for our province.

Outgoing Premier Selinger brought his experience as a social worker and social activist first to city council and then to the Manitoba legislature as minister of finance in the government in 1999, until he took over the leadership from Gary Doer. He led a government that was focused on investing in people and in the infrastructure of Manitoba at a time when governments across the world were embracing austerity and paying the price for those policies of austerity.

In Manitoba, we had great economic performance compared to other provinces. We were building social housing and child care spaces. Over those 16 years, that is one of the unsung achievements of the NDP publicly.

However, one of our biggest accomplishments there was the neighbourhoods alive program. It is a program that provides seed funding to community organizations. It is not a model of government coming in and telling communities what to do, but building community capacity so they can guide their own future. It is a model that has applications well outside the area of community development, and could be well applied within other government departments to ensure community people are in the driver seat when it comes to government investment,.

Again, I am proud of the record of the NDP government, and we will carry on fighting. We will give the new government a run for its money in 2020.

Part of the work we are here to do is to stand up for working people. We have heard the government itself say that there are serious problems with the temporary foreign worker program. The minister has committed to a review of that program and has said that it is one of her priorities to fix.

However, when we look at chapter 12 of the trans-Pacific partnership, we have language around temporary foreign workers that essentially will recreate and perpetuate the problems of the temporary foreign worker program. Therefore, on one hand we hear criticism of the TFW program, but on the other hand, we hear nothing but praise, frankly, from the government for the trans-Pacific partnership.

I would like to hear a commitment from the government today that the Liberals' study of the temporary foreign worker program will include within its scope a study of chapter 12 of the TPP to ensure that what they say they are fixing with the one hand, they are not taking away or putting back with the other hand.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for his comments on the election of the Conservative government in Manitoba and the NDP's record in that province.

I will proceed to answer the question I thought I would get.

Our country depends on global trade. The reality is that the global trading environment has changed since NAFTA and the WTO, and there are many barriers that our companies face in getting products, people, services and even data across borders on a day-to-day basis.

On February 4, the government signed the TPP in order to ensure that Canada would remain at the table, and that the Government of Canada would be able to continue consulting with Canadians. As the Minister of International Trade explained in her open letter to Canadians, signing the TPP is only a first step and does not equal ratification by our government. Signing does not affect the objective of the Government of Canada to continue consultations, including holding a full parliamentary debate on the outcomes of the TPP.

The government has already met, and will continue to meet, with a broad range of stakeholders, including businesses, unions, farmers, civil society, academics, and youth. The Minister of International Trade has met with unions and labour associations such as the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Canadian Labour Congress.

I have met with a number of groups, including Unifor. I can tell the hon. member that we have not taken a position. Indeed, everything we hear is not positive. We hear both positive and negative. Therefore, he erred in his statement in that regard.

As previously stated by the member of Burlington, since the swearing in of the Minister of International Trade in November, the government has had more than 250 interactions with over 400 stakeholders to discuss the TPP.

The mandate of the Minister of International Trade is to consult Canadians on Canada's potential participation in the TPP, and that is what we are doing and will continue to do.

The government is determined to create well-paying jobs for Canadians and protect the integrity of our national labour market. Canada's general approach when it comes to temporary entry in its free trade agreements is to authorize the entry of certain business people based on a reciprocity principle. That means that temporary entry is offered only to trade partners who are prepared to do the same for Canadian business people who are looking to export and invest abroad.

Temporary entry usually covers visiting business people, investors, people transferred within a company, and highly specialized technicians and professionals. Furthermore, the integrity of Canada's labour market is also protected by safeguards respecting requirements on compensation, education, and experience.

Canada's free trade commitments regarding temporary entry are determined jointly by Global Affairs Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; and Employment and Social Development Canada. This helps us gain access to foreign markets, while limiting access to segments of the Canadian labour market that are deemed vulnerable.

The government is committed to adopting a responsible approach in reviewing all the details of the trans-Pacific partnership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the government has heard positive and negative things about the TPP. There are lots of negative things to hear about the TPP. What I said was that I have not heard them say negative things about the TPP. I have only heard them say positive things, so I do not believe I hear it in that regard, unless the parliamentary secretary has some negative comments about the TPP that he would like to share with us tonight, which he knows members of his party have put on the record, of which I am not aware.

I would agree with the parliamentary secretary that Canada depends on trade, but what it does not depend on, the last time I checked, is bringing over temporary foreign workers who have no security here and who could be sent back at any time by the employer. They are being exploited because they are afraid to raise workplace safety and health concerns. They are afraid to complain if they are not being given their due wage, and in the meantime they are undermining the position of Canadian workers here.

The concern with the temporary foreign worker program, and it is a concern that the government acknowledges, is that this will be repeated under the TPP. What we want to hear is that the government's study of the TFW program will include a study of chapter 12 in the TPP to ensure that this does not become a back door for another TFW program that is now enshrined in a trade deal.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to consulting widely on these questions of labour mobility in Canada.

With regard to foreign workers in the TPP, the workers envisioned there tend to be professionals and others who have higher paying jobs and higher education levels and who tend to work with companies that they are moving with in the normal course of business. It is not the same clientele that is envisioned by the temporary foreign worker program as we have known it.

As a trading nation, Canada's economic growth is directly linked to international trade. The government strongly supports free trade as a way to open markets to Canadians' goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create well-paying middle-class jobs.

The government has committed to bringing forward the TPP to a debate here in the House, and therein we will hear both positive and negative comments about the TPP. The fact is that we are committed to open consultations. This is a promise we made during the election and one that we are seeing through.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 7:30 p.m.)