Debates of June 5th, 2019

Housing

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis that did not develop overnight. This is the result of years of budget cuts and neglect. This is not something that is going to be fixed overnight. I appreciate what the hon. member has said about the actions that the government is taking, but what we need now is emergency measures.

We need help with housing in Nanaimo and Ladysmith right now. We have people who are living on the streets. We have people who are vulnerable in our communities and it is a shame. It is a national shame to have people who are vulnerable and living homeless in this country, a country with so much wealth.

I would like to know what we can do to deal with this issue now, to get some modular housing into Nanaimo to help these people who are in need and to ensure that people have a good, secure place to live.

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

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has led the way in evolving modular housing. We have supported the programs proposed by cities there, particularly the City of Vancouver and the City of Burnaby as well. Those investments have shown us a way to build modular housing. I would be happy to walk the member opposite through the program that gets us there.

The other thing our government did upon taking office, beyond tripling transfers to provinces, which is a large part of where British Columbia gets its dollars to build its housing, was double the money for homelessness. To put this into context, the Conservatives were prepared to see that program lapse, the Green Party had no policy on it and the NDP was only going to spend an extra $10 million on what is properly described as an emergency.

We have put more than $2.2 billion into this program over the next 10 years. We have extended the number of designated communities. We created a separate, distinct indigenous-based program for communities right across the country, a different rural strategy and a strategy for the territories. We have also changed the rules of housing first so it can be used to prevent homelessness rather than just solve it after it has been on the streets in the communities for six months. We have also stepped up to ensure that women—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

International Trade

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2015 election, the Liberals repeatedly promised voters they would act to improve the record of Canadian companies operating abroad.

In 2016, after the election, the Prime Minister went to the UN and declared “Canada's back”. He said that Canada would pursue a seat on the security council.

Then he received an open letter, signed by 183 countries and NGOs, urging him to do something to address the many instances in which Canadian mining companies were associated with human rights and environmental abuses.

Four United Nations bodies have called on Canada to hold Canadian companies accountable for their operations overseas. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has had three hearings on the subject.

In January 2018, the Minister of International Trade held a flashy press conference, replete with labour leaders and important stakeholders, to announce the government's intention of establishing an office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise or CORE. It was an impressive photo op, one that presented an air of expectation of action.

The minister confidently declaimed, “The progressive trade agenda...includes Canada’s strong commitment to responsible business conduct and the respect for human rights of workers and local stakeholders in Canada and around the world.” He continued, “The ombudsperson will be mandated to independently investigate allegations of human rights abuses arising from a Canadian company’s activity abroad.”

Flash forward 15 months, in the fourth year of the government's mandate, and what do we have? After this long wait and much inaction, the international trade minister announced that a former petroleum industry lobbyist had been appointed as the ombudsperson, but that the proposed investigatory powers the government clearly stated CORE would have were under legal review for a month. Seriously?

For years we have been asking the government what would happen when it enacted such an office without using a legislative process. It is cutting the powers. It befuddles me that it does not understand the difference in what was done and the concerns that have been raised around the world about this shortcoming.

The ombudsperson's power is limited to recommending the government withdraw economic and political support for companies that refuse to participate in the process in good faith. The New Democrats and stakeholders, as well as the UN, have repeatedly told Canada that this approach simply does not work.

It is quite obvious the government has a serious problem when it comes to corporate accountability. The SNC-Lavalin saga offered a glimpse into the extraordinary influence that one powerful company could have on Canadian politicians at the highest level.

The people of my constituency champion social justice around the world and they expect the corporations that they patronize and work for to be transparent and accountable when it comes to corporate ethics.

Therefore, I ask the government to inform the Canadian public how and when it intends to honour its commitments fully.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not support the overall characterization the member is trying to put on the record in terms of what this government has been able to accomplish over the last four years. We have many strong advocates within our caucus. Almost every member of the Liberal caucus feels that corporations have a responsibility not only within Canada but internationally.

We do not need to be lectured by New Democrats on this issue. In the last four years, we have seen more movement by this Liberal government than we saw with Stephen Harper in the previous 10 years.

The member referenced a couple of the actions and then started mocking them, saying that they are not going to make a difference. I beg to differ. Our government has taken action. It has fulfilled its commitment.

Building on Canada's existing expertise in leadership, the government announced two initiatives to strengthen Canada's approach to responsible business conduct abroad. We created the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, and we created a multi-stakeholder advisory body on responsible business conduct, made up of experts from industry and civil society, to advise the government.

On April 8 of this year, our government appointed Sheri Meyerhoffer the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, the first position of its kind in the world. Ms. Meyerhoffer took office on May 1 and is actively engaged with stakeholders across Canada.

I would like to emphasize that this is something unique in the world. Canada, even though it has a population base of 36 million people, is often looked at by other countries in terms of having leadership. Corporate responsibility is an area in which we have demonstrated leadership. Think about it. In only three and a half years, with many different priorities, our government was able to identify this, because we told Canadians in the last election campaign that we would act on it, and we have done just that. Our government has acted on the important issue of corporate responsibility.

Private member's bills have been introduced by current and past members of the Liberal caucus that deal with corporate responsibility abroad. It pleases me to indicate to the House and to those who might be following this debate that our government is committed to many different social causes. This is but one of those issues.

There are many horrific stories around the world involving corporate abuse or misconduct. We are very much aware of it. We want to come up with ideas and find solutions that will minimize the negative impact. This is where I believe Canada can demonstrate leadership, and we have done that in terms of the ombudsperson.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are no further ahead after all that. The Conservative government had an arrangement in place that gave us exactly what we have right now. That is a shame. There is an immediacy when it comes to the human rights aspects of this issue.

Besides the cases the Canadian courts have agreed to hear, there is a legal argument mounting globally that governments and corporations have a duty of care to protect citizens, consumers and investors from risk.

This is the international community. This is several countries that already have legislation in place on corporate accountability. These are countries that already have modern slavery and supply chain transparency and due diligence reporting mechanisms in place. Canada has none of these--

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The time has expired for the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member stands in her place and says that Canada is no further ahead. I will for repeat that on April 8 of this year we appointed Sheri Meyerhoffer as the first Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, the first position of its kind in the world.

That member says that we have done nothing. That is something and it is significant. It is one of the examples I am citing to demonstrate very clearly that Canada at times has done exceptionally well at showing strong leadership on important social issues. This is a tangible example where Canada is making a difference and contributing to a healthier world corporate sector.

I appreciate the question this evening even though I disagree with the—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River is not present to raise that matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

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 12:22 a.m.)