Debates of June 18th, 2018

Firearms Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, when I heard the member from Toronto speaking earlier about the tragedy in his riding, in a neighbouring riding, and the parents who had to deal with this. Absolutely, the Liberals have missed this piece. Illegal handguns are coming into this country, and we need to find the mechanisms by which to stop and eliminate illegal handguns. It is not in the bill.

The 121 out of 141 cases in this country were with illegal handguns. That is the problem. It is not addressed in this legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on something I know my colleague did not have a chance to speak about in his intervention.

We had a rural crime task force in Alberta. Many of us had open houses throughout the province. One of the things that came out, loud and clear, was the frustration from our constituents that Bill C-71, proposed to deal with gun violence, gang violence, and illegal firearms, but those things were not in this bill.

We hear the frustration from our constituents in Alberta, where there is such an increase in rural crime. I know many of my colleagues from both sides of the floor are dealing with this issue. Could the member comment a little on how frustrated our rural constituents are throughout the country that this bill had an opportunity to address one of the largest issues that rural Canadians are facing, and it failed to do so?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if members want to see emotion in a room, they should have been in those town halls. People are scared. They are frightened. They are frightened for their lives. They are frightened because their property is being stolen constantly. Those people are using illegal weapons.

Once they are caught, it is just a revolving door, and they are back out on bail, immediately. There is not enough of a penalty for people using illegal firearms.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Resuming debate. Order.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today and to share my comments about Bill C-71.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I would ask the hon. member for Foothills, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, and the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame to listen to the speeches and not be interrupting when someone else has the floor.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 was introduced in March of this year. In his speech arguing in favour of the bill, the Minister of Public Safety called it “important legislation that prioritizes public safety and effective police work, while treating law-abiding firearms owners and businesses fairly and reasonably”. He went on to add that this bill upheld the Liberal Party's commitment not to reinstate a federal long-gun registry.

I take issue with both of those claims. What I have seen with the Liberal government's Bill C-71 is quite the opposite. Bill C-71 does not treat law-abiding firearms owners fairly, and it is abundantly clear that the Liberals are moving forward with what is, in effect, even if not in name, a new gun registry.

Let us begin with the claim that law-abiding firearms owners are treated fairly by the Liberal government. I think all Canadians believe in ensuring we treat firearms owners responsibly. We understand that, in the interests of public safety, there are sensible measures that can be taken. I think all of us in this place agree on that point. The trouble with Bill C-71 is that it is not offering any sensible measures to combat gang violence, gun violence, or escalating crime rates in our rural communities.

My Conservative colleagues and I recognize that the safety of Canadians must be the number one priority of any government, and we will support common-sense legislation related to firearms that will help keep Canadians safe, but here is the problem: Bill C-71 does not do that. It has no measures to combat the increasing rates of gun violence, domestic violence, gang violence, or to address the increasing rates of rural crime either in my riding of Provencher or across the country.

All this bill does is add greater costs and regulatory burdens to law-abiding firearms owners. In fact, the bill uses the words “registrar” or “reference number” 28 times. Do members know how many times the words “gang” or “criminal organization” appear? Zero. If Bill C-71 is not targeting criminals, who exactly is going to be impacted by this legislation? How are Canadians going to be better off for it? The answer to that first question is, unsurprisingly, law-abiding firearms owners. This bill makes the same mistake the Liberals always make on this issue. It is targeting law-abiding firearms owners instead of criminals. It is high time the Liberals stopped treating lawful gun owners like criminals.

This legislation offers plenty more red tape for those who follow the law. It will certainly create a larger burden for farmers and hunters. However, for those who disregard our laws and commit crimes, there is nothing here to dissuade them from continuing.

As I often say in this place, it is among the primary responsibilities of government to protect its citizens. In fact, our previous Conservative government understood that we could be tough on crime while respecting those who own firearms legally and operate them safely. The criminal element behind firearms violence was always where we focused our attention, yet with Bill C-71, the Liberals have entirely neglected to address the criminals who use guns to commit violence, while treating law-abiding firearms owners like criminals. Why would they do this?

As is the case on most occasions with the Liberals, they are more interested in being seen to be taking action rather than actually taking meaningful action. Let me explain.

It is difficult to address gun and gang violence; we all understand that. It is quite easy, however, to increase red tape and place new restrictions on those who are already following the rules. The Liberals get the benefit of being seen to do something even though the impact of their proposals will do nothing for the serious gun and gang violence Canadians want to see gone from their streets.

I think it is worth highlighting a CBC analysis that was undertaken on this bill, because it speaks to the way the Liberals have tried to justify Bill C-71. The Minister of Public Safety used statistics going back to 2013 to suggest that there had been a dramatic surge in gang shootings since that time. “Gun homicides are up by two-thirds”, he warned. However, he chose 2013 specifically because it was an unusual year statistically speaking. The year 2013 “saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada”, the CBC analysis from March reads. As the analysis indicates, “What appears to make 2013 attractive as a point of comparison is that any year in the past half century can be made to look alarmingly high by comparing it to 2013.”

The Liberals want to be seen as doing something. They were able to manipulate the statistics to create a monster that does not really exist. The Conservatives know that there are still very real issues out there with respect to gun and gang violence, but the Liberals have shown they are not serious about addressing the difficult challenges.

Conservatives will not simply vote in favour of this legislation and play pretend with the Liberals. When the Liberals want to tackle serious crime, Conservatives will be the first to stand with them. In fact, they may consider looking back at our years in government for some pro tips in that regard. Canadians can count on us to fight for concrete actions to keep Canadians safe, focusing our efforts on the criminal element behind this violence. We will not join the Liberals' crusade to make life more difficult for law-abiding Canadians.

Second, I want to discuss the Liberals' claim that Bill C-71 somehow would not reintroduce a gun registry. Now, I know that my Liberal colleagues and the Prime Minister bristle when any assertion is made that this bill is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bring back the federal long-gun registry. We have heard the Prime Minister say that they are committed to not restoring a long-gun registry and that they are not restoring a long-gun registry; it is that simple. However, somebody needs to explain to the Prime Minister, and to my hon. colleagues, for that matter, that when the federal government is using a federal registrar to keep records on law-abiding firearms owners, that is a gun registry. It is that simple: registrars keep registries. This bill is not about restricted firearms. This is not about illegal guns. The Liberals want to use a federal registrar to keep records on non-restricted firearms and law-abiding firearms owners.

Again, the bill uses the words “registrar” or “reference number” 28 times, and the words “gang” or “criminal organization”, zero times. That is why we on this side of the House have called out this proposal for what it is. It is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that Conservatives were given a clear mandate to eliminate. I find it interesting that the Prime Minister dismissed this long-gun registry as a failure back in 2012. This was despite his vote in favour of keeping it intact earlier on. Therefore, we should not be surprised that he has changed his mind again. Now he wants a new registry, he just does not want to call it a registry. However, if it walks like a registry and if it talks like a registry—I think members know where I am going—it probably is a registry.

Here is why these kinds of registries do not work. In Canada, 93% of gun crimes that result in death are committed with illegal guns by people who should not have them. The people the government should be targeting with this bill are not legal firearms owners, but those in possession of illegal weapons. Therefore, why in this legislation are the Liberals ignoring gangs, and instead targeting hunters, farmers, and northern Canadians? I serve a rural riding. A lot of good, law-abiding people own firearms, and nobody knows better than hunters and farmers the importance of gun safety and the social responsibility that comes with owning a firearm. That is why it is deeply insulting to have the Liberals consistently impugn not only those people's ability to be responsible citizens, but the kind of moral equivalency we see the Liberals trying to draw between violent gang members, criminals, and then law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberals need to stop focusing their fire on law-abiding farmers, hunters, and northern Canadians, and focus it on felons, on gangs, and on the flow of illegal guns across the borders. However, instead, they continue to target law-abiding citizens, trying to trip them up into an offence by changing the rules.

I do not see any merit in this piece of legislation as it stands. It would not achieve what the Liberals say it will. Instead of targeting gangs and illegal guns, they have stubbornly chosen to keep law-abiding Canadians in their crosshairs. That is why I will be voting against this bill.

That said, I am pleased to highlight that Conservatives have been behind initiatives to address crime in Canada. As I close, I want to highlight the recent efforts of my colleague, the member for Lakeland, and her work to draw attention to rural crime in particular. I was pleased to second her motion, Motion No. 167, which called for an in-depth study of rural crime rates and trends, as well as the current resources available for rural policing and whether they are sufficient. This represents just one of the many efforts by the Conservatives to tackle crime and improve the lives of law-abiding Canadians. I am pleased to say that motion was passed unanimously by this House. With that, I want to close.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the conversations and the presentations. However, when I listen to the Conservatives, I wonder how they lost the last election. When they describe all the things they did and how perfect it was, I do not understand how Canadians did not choose them. They did not choose them because they did not do a good job. Let us be honest with that. They did not do a good job.

What parts of this bill do the Conservatives not like? They do not like the background checks. Is there something wrong with the background checks that they do not like? Or, is the part that they do not like the fact that the police would be able to track the guns? What parts do they not like? Those two parts, in my opinion, are extremely important to Canadians. Canadians want to make sure those are accessible to them. Maybe the member can enlighten us and tell us why they do not like those two very important components in this bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question as to why Conservatives did not get elected two and a half years ago, I am looking at two and a half hours ago, at what happened in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I am thinking that the member across the way needs to get his head out of the sand, or maybe out of the ocean, and start looking at the surf clam scam in his own area of the country. I believe his brother was recently awarded a contract by the federal government for a surf clam licence, a company that did not even have a boat. If he wants to talk about reasons why people do not get elected, we do not have to look very far.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister put forward an investment of $327 million over five years to look at the gang issue and reduce crime in our country. Under the previous Conservative government, there was only a $5-million investment over a three-year period. Instead, we have $327 million to try to get at the heart of the matter in ridings like Winnipeg Centre or Winnipeg North, or in places like Toronto and Vancouver, places that are really affected and impacted by the gang violence that goes on in our country.

I would like to correct the record. The member said that the government was not doing anything. In fact, we are doing a lot of things related to this. We are building on expertise with the provinces and territories and working with practitioners, police agencies, and social groups. These are groups such as Ndinawe and Ma Mawi, groups that work in our communities day in and day out trying to make a difference.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the bill we are discussing. The hon. member and friend from Winnipeg Centre should look at the legislation carefully to see if this is something that would really address the situation he is talking about, gang violence in his own constituency, which is a significant problem. I realize that and acknowledge that this is a serious issue in his riding.

I will affirm very clearly, from my understanding of this legislation and from what I have read, that this will not help you at all, because it is not law-abiding gun owners you have a problem with. It is gangs, illegal guns, and the drug trade, which will only get worse once Bill C-45 is passed later this week by the Senate. You will have nobody else to thank for that but yourself—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I remind the hon. member for Provencher that when he says “you”, that is the Speaker, and I do not think he means that.

We have time for a very short question or comment by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the members across the way like to say, “Why do you as Conservatives not like this bill”? We like to keep things quiet within our caucuses, but the media got hold of the fact that there are a number of rural ridings on that side of the House that are very upset with this legislation. As well, I believe a constituent in the riding of the member for Lethbridge has put forward a petition that has the largest response in Canada—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this bill would do nothing to address the serious issues that the government should be focusing on: gun violence, criminality, and the illegal use of guns. I do not know why the Liberals would pit rural members against urban members in their caucus.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions I want to ask tonight to kind of wrap this up.

One of the main questions, as I sat here and listened tonight, is that I fail to understand why the Liberals do not even seem to know the basics of what this proposed law is about. I heard a number of things this evening that are concerning. They do not seem to know what the past requirements were for background checks. I heard a number of people talking about that. They do not seem to understand that they have been adequate in the past. There has been a good system in place for doing background checks, and it has worked well for Canadians. They do not seem to know that firearms owners have to be registered and be licensed themselves in order to own a firearm. Earlier we heard someone ask why we treat guns differently than some other things. Well, the reality with firearms is that one actually needs to be registered. One has to take the course and get the certification.

I was really concerned a little earlier about why the Liberals approach firearms owners in the way that they do. When the member for Oakville North—Burlington said that all gun owners are law-abiding until they are not, I wondered what she meant by that. There is some sort of attitude of superiority that the Liberals come with in regard to firearms owners, and we have seen this for 25 years. We saw it with Bill C-68 and the fact that they would never back down on that legislation. It cost them dozens of ridings across this country. Several elections later, they have come back with another piece of legislation. I think we are beginning to see both in Ontario, and with the results in Quebec tonight, that the attitude the Liberals have is starting to irritate Canadians. I think we are going to see a response to that, and an even better response from our perspective, in the next federal election.

Also, I do not think the Liberals understand that there is no right to firearms ownership in this country. I think everyone needs to be reminded of that. The only reason that we can own firearms is because the government gives us permission. When I talk to my friends with the Canadian Wildlife Federation on those kinds of things, they say that we need to help Canadians understand that. We do not have a right to own firearms. If we do not get licensed, we are criminals. They resent that, but they will accept the fact that we need to have a licensing regime in place.

Another concern is that I am wondering why those Liberals who have firearms owners in their ridings do not seem to be willing to listen to them. I want to point out that at the committee, the leader of the opposition in the Yukon legislature was not allowed to speak. I am told that there was not a single northern Canadian who was able to testify on how the bill would impact their way of life. I want to read a little from his briefing, which said, “unlike the provinces, Yukon only has one Member of Parliament. This leads to situations where the input of Northerners is often an afterthought and not taken into account. This is the case with this piece of firearms legislation..”.

I can tell members that there are others. I have another notice on this situation from members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, who are very concerned that they cannot track down their MP and talk to him about this issue. This is a member who has been around on this issue before. He should be standing up for his constituents. Why is it that the Liberals in the rural ridings, the ones whose constituents depend on having access to firearms for much of their livelihood, are not speaking out?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we heard about a few of the ridings where there was concern about this, but these Liberals need to speak out. We are getting to the end of the proposed legislation, and it is basically the re-establishment of a semi long-gun registry, where every transaction that takes place at a gun store is going to be recorded for 20 years. The firearm, serial number, the name of the person who bought it, along with their PAL number, will be recorded. That certainly has all the makings and all the components of a firearms registry, and we do not hear anything from the other side.

Another concern is why the Liberals always need to manipulate things on this file. I can go on about this for a long time. I found it very interesting that the public safety minister from Regina has appointed a number of people to the firearms advisory committee who are clearly against firearms in any way, shape, or form. It is interesting that one of them was appointed and ended up being in the vice-chair position. She was a lobbyist. She said she would step down from her lobbying activities. The agreement she signed said that she is not to “engage in lobbying activities or work as a registered lobbyist on behalf of an entity making submissions or representations to the Government of Canada on issues relating to the mandate of this committee”. However, 10 months after signing that, this person submitted a legislative demand to the Government of Canada under the letterhead of that organization, and with her signature on it.

I would go through it if I had more time, but many of the bill's provisions happen to be exactly as she has laid them out. Is she actually doing the government's bidding, or is the government doing the lobbyists' bidding, who have said they are not going to lobby the government and then turn around and do it?

I can give members another example in which the government has felt some sort of necessity to manipulate every piece of data it can on this issue. That is around the issue of statistics. As Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” With the Liberal government, that is certainly more true than almost anything else we can say about it.

It was mentioned earlier that 2013 had one of the lowest rates ever for firearms crimes. It is interesting that even CBC recognized that the Liberals are playing games with this situation. It writes, “2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada” and “every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.” The Liberals use a year in which the stats are lower than they have ever been, and then use that to set their base, and compare it to today. Today is still below the 30-year average, but the Liberals' news releases completely mislead Canadians. When the government has to resort to that kind of manipulation and misinformation, we can see that it is not very comfortable with the legislation that it is bringing in.

The article goes on to say that the “homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was...in 2008...or in 1998”, and well below 1988 and 1978, and similar to what it was in 1968. We certainly did not get that from the Liberal press release we saw.

There are a number of other important issues we need to touch on. A member across the way was speaking tonight about the Assembly of First Nations. I wanted to ask him a question. The AFN has said that it was not consulted before Bill C-71 came forward. The AFN also said that the bill violates first nations treaty rights, and that it is going to launch a constitutional challenge. It is interesting to note that we have heard nothing about that, and there has been no response to it from the government. The Liberals claims to want to work with these communities, but when it comes to their legislation, they are very happy to set these communities aside, and ignore what they have to say about it and just go on.

We have heard comment tonight about Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 playing off each other. Bill C-75 has all kinds of penalties that are basically being written off for serious crimes. For things like terrorism, we are reducing the charges. Imagine there being a summary conviction for terrorism activity. The punishment for genocide is being reduced in Bill C-75. The penalties for organized criminal activity, municipal corruption, and so on are being reduced in Bill C-75, and Bill C-71 is making the lives of honest gun owners even more complicated and bureaucratic than ever. Why is the government doing that? Why are the Liberals ganging up on Canadian citizens, while they are happy to leave all of these other gangs to go through life the way they want?

There is another issue around mental health. We heard a member earlier tonight talk about how proud she was of her amendment. I am sure she had good intentions when she put it forward, but we are not just criminalizing activity anymore; we are criminalizing possible intent. She mentioned that CFOs will make the distinctions. How are the CFOs going to decide if someone is suicidal or not? What CFO wants to take on the responsibility for the entire province in trying to find every person with a mental health issue? It was pointed out earlier that there are police and veterans who have PTSD who want some help for their mental health issues. Are they going to come forward? Why would they do that with a bill like this when those kinds of things come into play in their lives and in their careers, and with a tool they use every day in their occupation?

We can be very proud of the record we have. We brought in a number of pieces of legislation, which have been criticized tonight. In terms of youth violence, we brought in the youth justice fund. The guns, gangs, and drugs component of the youth justice fund was launched to focus on the rehabilitation of youth. We created the youth gang prevention fund. We are very proud of that. We supported a national crime prevention strategy, and there is the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund. We passed bills that dealt with organized crime and the protection of the justice system. We were always trying to protect the victims, while making sure criminals were the ones who paid the price for their crimes.

This bill is a long way from that. Why an entire bill that is supposed to deal with gun violence and gangs does not mention either of those things, and targets normal, law-abiding citizens, I will never understand.

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

Housing

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I asked the government to follow through on its promise of housing rights being human rights. Instead, the government has shown time and time again that it does not embrace the rights-based approach. This was clearly demonstrated when the national housing strategy underwhelmed us with its half-measures to addressing the crisis of homelessness in Canada.

In 2016, my colleague from North Island—Powell River presented this legislature with a bill that would have enshrined the right to housing in our bill of rights, “...the right [of an individual] to proper housing, at a reasonable cost and free of unreasonable barriers.”

This is what we asked for Canadians and this is what the government refused to promise its citizens.

How can the government promote its plan for a human rights-based approach to housing without declaring housing to be a human right? The national housing strategy discussion paper states that "there is no universal definition of what a human rights-based approach to housing means". This is government-speak for not wanting to do the hard work to build a consensus around a definition in Canadian human rights law. Consultation is only the first step. A government that came to power with the mantra of hope and hard work should not be shying away from that hard work, but instead leading the way.

Every year, there are 235,000 people experiencing some form of homelessness in Canada and almost three million Canadians spend more than 30% of their income on housing. In the face of these shocking numbers, the stated goal of the government to reduce chronic users of shelters by 50% is extremely disappointing and hardly the goal of a government that has any intention of enshrining a human rights approach.

In fact, many provinces and municipalities have more ambitious goals and so this goal for the national housing strategy is underwhelming and will leave far too many Canadians homeless.

Last month, Canada underwent its third cycle of the universal periodic review at the UN Human Rights Council, and member countries expressed concerns that a nation such as Canada, one with such an advanced level of development, has rates of poverty and homelessness that are far above expected totals.

One peer reviewer from Portugal recommended that the legislation implementing the national housing strategy fully recognize the right to housing and provide for effective remedies for violations of that right.

The government has until September to decide which recommendations it will accept and which it will reject. The world is watching and waiting to see how Canada will respond to these recommendations.

The recent report by the advisory committee on homelessness convened by the government also recommends a more ambitious goal for ending homelessness. The UN special rapporteur on the right to housing is also disappointed by the government's low targets pertaining to ending homelessness, as am I. It shows a lack of ambition and a lack of urgency when we only aim to reduce homelessness by 50% over 10 years. We can and must do so much better.

The 2018 budget stated: "housing in shelters doesn't just provide a safe place to sleep, it saves lives." This is true, but if we couple this statement with the national housing strategy goal of a 50% reduction in chronic shelter users, we see a government emphasis on sheltering those who are homeless, not on permanent housing and not on stepping away from prevention and addressing root causes.

A truly rights-based approach policy would focus on ending homelessness, not managing it, and not dealing with some people who are homeless, but all Canadians who are homeless. Canadians deserve the right to security, affordability, good health, and safety in the form of adequate housing. Will the government reconsider its opposition to enshrining the right to housing in legislation?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her sustained focus on housing and on tackling homelessness. It is a shared set of values in terms of the goals we are pursuing as a government.

I want to correct the record, though. When we released the national housing strategy, the UN rapporteur on housing made the following statement, which she issued to the world:

This is an important step that is in keeping with Canada's commitment to the right to housing contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment Canada made in 1975 when it ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The rapporteur also said:

I am glad to see that the Government has now made a significant shift in its approach. It is finally moving toward a more inclusive understanding of human rights, recognizing all people as rights holders, including those who live in inadequate housing and those who are homeless.

The national housing strategy and our rights-based approach to housing stands distinct from the NDP position in two very important ways. The NDP position, which is simply to have a right to housing, does not necessarily provide a way to deliver the housing that is a right for a person. Declaring it a right will get people, perhaps, into a courthouse, but it will not get them into homes. It may introduce them to lawyers, but they need landlords. While it creates sort of a hope that they can prosecute their way into housing, the reality is that the UN convention talks about having a system of housing that people have a right to access. We have to do two things: create that rights-based approach, and create that system.

The national housing strategy is a $40-billion investment over the next 10 years that addresses the full continuum of housing needs. The member opposite says that we are not being ambitious enough in reducing chronic homelessness by only setting a target of a minimum of 50%. She is correct. Other jurisdictions, Victoria for example, with our $30-million investment, paired with the city's investment and the province's investment, will end homelessness within two years and be at effective zero.

We think there is much progress to be made, but we also know and understand that hidden homelessness is not documented properly in this country. Better data is needed. While we step in with a robust $40-billion program, and we house hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country, lifting many out of poverty in the process, the reality is that new people will stream into the system, and we have to account for that in the way we make projections. We are doing that.

I want to contrast our $40-billion investment, which is being spent this year, right now. I was in British Columbia just a weekend ago, in Nanaimo, opening a housing project. We are opening them in Victoria. We are opening them in Vancouver. We are opening them in Toronto. We are opening them in Nova Scotia. It is an extraordinary renaissance that is happening across the country with the national housing strategy, and it comes as we start spending close to $4 billion a year on housing. We will do that over the next 10 years, increasing the funding as we grow the system.

I want to tell the House what the NDP position on homelessness was when we walked into the last election. This is not a new crisis, and nobody on this file thinks it just suddenly started in the last year or two. This is a 10-year program for a 20-year catastrophe that was in the making.

The NDP, in its approach, was only going to spend $10 million a year to solve homelessness. We are spending $200 million a year on the program that they were only going to spend $10 million on. That is an inadequate response by any measure. When it came to new, affordable housing construction, for the last three years of the mandate, based on its campaign platform, the NDP was going to spend zero, zero, and zero.

I would like to ask the member opposite, in response, how they would solve the housing crisis by not spending money and underinvesting in the sector. That was the NDP platform. That is what the NDP proposed: no housing system in which to achieve one's rights as a human in this Canadian system.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that it is for Canadians or the opposition to pat the government on the back for what I feel are half-measures when it comes to addressing the crisis of homelessness.

A government that is committed to a rights-based approach would not have a goal of a 50% reduction in chronic shelter users. It is my job to ask the government to match the action and investment with the urgency of the problem, which I do not feel it has done. The current goal of the national housing strategy falls well short and does not match the crisis we are facing.

All Canadians have a right to housing, not just a temporary shelter. A home should not be a reward but a fundamental human right. A right to housing is fundamental to the true realization of other human rights, like the security of a person. Canadians have a right to housing, and I would like our laws to express that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will restate this. The party opposite ran on a platform that promised to spend $10 million extra a year on homelessness, because it thought the crisis was extraordinary. The Liberals spent $100 million above and beyond what was being spent. In other words, we are spending $200 million a year, which is 20 times more than the other party, and the other party says that we are being timid and inadequate. The only thing worse than the government not achieving much more success on this would be if the party opposite had been elected and had kept its promise.

When it comes to the right to housing, it is pointless to have a right to housing if the housing people need is not provided. The party opposite, while it talks about a right to housing, now has the opportunity to support a rights-based approach. It talks about it being a crisis, and it has an opportunity to support our budget that is putting more money into housing than that party ever dreamed of putting in a platform, let alone actually investing in real housing.

If the party opposite is serious about the housing crisis in this country, it should be commending us for taking the bold action we have taken, supporting the legislation we are putting in front of this House—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:09 a.m.)