House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sexual.
Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON
Madam Speaker, I will finish the quote and then come back to the question.
“We appreciate the effort to provide the criminal justice system with the tools necessary to combat this serious issue. We are hopeful all members of Parliament will carefully consider this legislation and work quickly and collaboratively to pass Bill C-238.” This is from the president of the Canadian Police Association.
To the hon. member—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Madam Speaker, when I saw this on the Order Paper and that it was up for discussion tonight, I literally ran from my office to be here. There is nothing that has taken more lives in my life than handguns. In fact, I have been to more funerals in my riding for children killed by illegal handguns than I have for members of my own family in my entire lifetime.
People only have to attend one of these funerals to have their lives changed forever. For those who have attended a sequence of them, one begins to understand that it is not the cliché that is being buried, it is a victim of so many things that have gone wrong that is being buried. The families who have to deal with gun violence in their communities are traumatized. Literally, the number of children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders in the riding that I represent, in a couple of neighbourhoods, is exceptional.
I will never forget, after a machine gun was used to terrorize a community, seeing a grandmother pull the shrapnel out of a kid's bicycle that now had a flat tire and hand to me so I could give it to the police just in case they could find the individual who had used a submachine gun in a residential neighbourhood.
The most terrifying thing is that in some of our communities, it is not even the residents in the communities who are the targets, it is just the name of the community that is targeted. The media picks up on it and it further traumatizes and stigmatizes the young people who come from some of these neighbourhoods. At the end of the day, it is young people's lives that are being taken by illegal handguns and it is time for it to end, and to end as quickly as possible.
I thank the member opposite for stepping up. We do not normally see good, strong gun control legislation coming from the Conservatives, but in this case, as I said, I do not need a party to tell me how to vote. My residents have told me how to vote and I will be supporting this bill.
The issue, however, is more than just the smuggled guns. By the time a kid picks up a handgun to shoot or be shot, it is too late. So much of what we need to do as a country and, in particular, so much of what we need to do in the city I represent is to give young people better choices, because when those better choices are there, they make the better choice.
I have seen countless examples of young people who have been steered away from a life of trouble, have been taken away from the justice system, put into restorative systems and literally rehabilitated, to the point where they are leaders in bringing down the level of violence that threatens our communities. They have changed the way young people themselves approach the challenges that some of them face and have taken neighbourhoods that had shootings that were just too many to count and returned them to relative peace.
All it takes is people coming out of prison and recycling themselves into a society that does not give them any options except a life of crime sometimes and we end up with a revictimizing of the victims, a revictimizing of these young people and it starts all over again. There are neighbourhoods that are literally on five-year cycles because of the five-year mandatory minimum sentences.
We can almost predict which community, in five years' time, will have a major bust or sweep through it with guns and other elements of criminal activity involved. We know that everyone will be getting out of prison at about the same time, in about five years' time, and it will start all over again. That is why justice reform, changing the way we police this issue, stopping guns at the border and giving kids better choices are conversations I will never back away from. It also requires us to think differently about guns in this country.
I have a sister who ran a logging and tree-planting crew in the interior of B.C. and on Vancouver Island. I understand a shotgun is used as a tool to keep people, especially tree planters, safe in very remote communities. My family was a farming family back in Australia and I certainly understand that sometimes farmers require these tools in order to keep their crops safe or their livestock alive. I understand that and I have no intention of breaking into that.
I have been to the north with my colleague from the Northwest Territories. I have seen the way country food is harvested. I understand the role that hunting plays in sustaining communities from coast to coast to coast, in particular, indigenous communities, but there is no rational reason for anybody in this country to own a handgun. Handguns are made for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to kill people.
They may be needed in the armed forces and policing. Even then I still require convincing continually because I get nervous when I see handguns pulled in policing sometimes. I have been on the police service board, I have been to police funerals and I understand the need to defend people, and police officers have just as much right to go home safely after their shift as any other Canadian.
The culture around handguns is as much what we are trying to stop coming across the border as the politics of handguns and the handguns themselves.
We put this bill in a sequence of legislation that includes strong investments in public housing, strong investments in early learning and childcare, strong investments in youth diversion from the justice system, and strong investments in looking at different ways that sentencing can work to support the re-creation and rebirth of people who have made bad choices in their lives. When we invest in education and jobs, and particularly jobs in racialized communities, the temperature changes. The danger starts to disappear, but it is never entirely gone until the guns are gone.
I have huge problems with any attempt to relax the regulations around guns in this country. I will never back away, as I said, from this conversation. They can put my face on the sides of campaign buses and they can write the hateful letters and terrible emails that are sent when one speaks out against handguns and gun violence in this country. I do not care. I just do not care. I care too much about the people and families in my riding who have had to suffer from bad gun laws in this country for too long.
It is different in rural Canada. I get that, but in urban Canada there is no need, no reason, no requirement and no justification for owning a handgun. Whether it is lost, whether it is stolen or whether it is smuggled, when that gun goes off that bullet does not stop ricocheting in our communities. Families that lost a loved one 15 years ago still walk by corners in my riding and break down in tears. Families that lost a loved one to ricocheting bullets that went through windows, or bounced off bicycles, or went through air conditioners do not forget the sound of bullets entering a living room and do not feel safe in their homes anymore.
We have a responsibility as politicians. We have a responsibility as community leaders. We have a responsibility as neighbours to protect each other from this kind of violence. If this law takes 50 guns off the street, I will support it. If it takes 100 guns off, I will cheer. If it takes 1,000 guns out of our communities, I will be doing nothing other than giving my thanks to the hon. member for the leadership he is providing on this issue.
That being said, we also need to have a frank conversation about mandatory minimum sentences, because we know systemically how they are applied and who they are applied to, and who benefits from justice and who does not when it does not understand context. This is not a plea to be soft on criminals. If someone has picked up a gun and fired it, they are a criminal and will always be a criminal, in my view.
The real challenge, and the most important thing here, is to start to understand that we have an opportunity, a responsibility and a chance to take those bullets, and those handguns, away from our communities and make the lives of police officers safer, make the lives of clerks of the court system safer, make our communities safer, and make politicians safer as we see guns being used against politicians around the world. We have a mutual obligation to work together.
I know that there are people who have a relationship with their guns because they went hunting with their dad. I know that there are communities that need the long gun and the shotgun for food. I understand the arguments that come and the divide that exists between rural Canada and urban Canada, but I plead with people who come from rural ridings to understand that they have to help us stop burying kids in Toronto. We need everyone's help, and we cannot do it alone, with educational programs or background checks. We have to focus on handguns.
I recognize there are some people who like to trap shoot, just as there are some people who like to throw javelins, but someone cannot throw a javelin in downtown Toronto just because they want to. Someone cannot drive a snowmobile in the winter through downtown Toronto just because they want to. If someone has to have a gun and needs to pursue that hobby, please take it out of our cities. Take it away from crowded environments. Take it away from the nightclubs. Take it away from the back alleys. Take it away from a place where it will hurt somebody, because of the damage that guns have been doing, in particular with regard to who is being buried and which communities are being affected.
People are crying for laws on this. They are pleading with us for laws on this and their voices are being largely ignored in this Parliament. It has to end. It is for that reason that I will be voting for this motion, even with my concerns about the mandatory minimum sentences, because we have to get rid of handguns in this country and I will never back down from that position, ever.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I confirm that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We will do so in good faith once again. We believe that increasing penalties for crimes such as the possession of unlawfully imported firearms is the right thing to do.
At first glance, the bill is not creating new rights; it is just saying that committing this offence will result in harsher penalties for subsequent offences. One can hardly be against such a proposal.
However, I believe that we should be cautious on two counts. I said I would vote in favour of this bill, but I keep thinking that we must be vigilant about one thing. Personally, I am not keen on the idea of minimum sentencing for crimes. I think that we should trust our justice system and our judges who are capable of assessing situations on a case-by-case basis.
It is rare to find two cases that are exactly the same. There are always subtle differences. These differences must be taken into account, and judges are usually in a position to do so. Yes, it takes mandatory minimums. We are here to legislate, we want to create a legal framework and we agree on that. However, I do have a caveat. Mandatory minimums are not a cure-all. We must be very careful that we do not restrict in any way a judge's latitude to make important distinctions.
I have another caveat. We must not think that by increasing penalties for the possession of illegal firearms we are addressing all problems related to gun control. The opposite is true. This measure will likely have an impact, or at least we hope it will, since we do not want to create legislation for no reason. Still, the impact will be relatively marginal.
The Toronto chief of police recently said that more than half of the gun crimes committed in his city involved guns that were legally purchased. Illegal guns are obviously not a good thing, but although our own firearms market here, in Canada and Quebec, is subject to some restrictions, it enjoys permissions that must be controlled.
Last spring, on May 1, an order was made, and the Canadian government created a regulation that added some 1,500 types of firearms to the prohibited assault-style firearms registry. At the time, it was argued that assault-style firearms were not meant for hunting. Nobody wants to stop a hunter from bagging a deer every year, but nobody needs a machine gun to hunt deer. Many a good hunter will hunt with bow and arrow. The government does not want to ban hunting, but it says that assault weapons, weapons used to kill other humans, weapons of war, do not belong in Quebec or in Canada. The government therefore decided to ban them by order in the spring. Almost all of us agreed on that.
That being said, we look forward to seeing what happens as a result of this ban. I look forward to it, in any case, since the result will be the mandatory buyback program for firearms. Now, we heard our Prime Minister dither on that, and he spoke about an optional buyback program at one point. Someone who purchased an assault weapon that is now banned would not be forced to bring it back if they bought it before it was banned. The government is removing the teeth from this worthwhile gun control process.
This buyback program must be mandatory, and I hope that the government will soon introduce a bill for the optional buyback program. This must be done through a bill. I have not heard any talk about that yet. However, I invite our Liberal colleagues to introduce one as quickly as possible so that we can work on it and finally have a logical next step. We started off in the right direction, but now it seems we are zigzagging a little. I want us to continue in the right direction. I do not want to see any dithering.
In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to vote in favour of a mandatory buyback program for illegal firearms; in fact, we would like that to happen as soon as possible.
In short, we will support my colleague's very virtuous Bill C-238, noting that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. I still have reservations about that, but I think it is justified in this case. We will support it.
Let me add another caveat. Bill C-238 must not be used as an excuse to not go further when it comes to the mandatory buyback program for the firearms that were banned last spring. That is essential in our society.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Madam Speaker, I am here to speak to Bill C-238, which introduces an amendment to section 96 of the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for possession of a firearm known to be illegally imported into Canada and five years for a second offence. Second, it would increase the maximum sentence from 10 to 14 years and then impose a reverse onus for bail conditions for those who are charged.
We are very concerned about gun violence in our streets. We have heard descriptions of it from the member for Markham—Unionville. We know about the terrible situation in Toronto in particular. We have talked about it a lot with the member for Spadina—Fort York and the member for Markham—Unionville. We hear about it all the time.
We want stronger laws to keep guns off our streets. There should be much stronger laws and enforcement to prevent smuggling. We are very concerned about this but nothing is being done about it.
We also believe that it is the job of parliamentarians to pass legislation that is consistent with the Constitution of our country. People have talked about misgivings around mandatory minimums. The problems we have with the bill are not simply matters of misgivings. We know there are certainly problems with them with respect to the application of the laws to different individuals. It is also the obvious and well-known idea that racial discrimination occurs with mandatory minimums. It is one of the reasons why there are more Black and indigenous people in our prisons. That has been spoken about many times.
However, the real reason is that it is unconstitutional. The legislation to increase the length of the sentence from 10 to 14 years shows the courts and the judges that these are to be taken seriously and will result in higher sentences. When we talk about section 96 of the Criminal Code, section 95 of the Criminal Code on guns and possession of guns obtained by crime has similar mandatory minimums: three years for possession of a gun obtained by crime, or prohibited weapons that were armed or loaded or had ammunition readily available. Those mandatory minimums were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Therefore, they are unconstitutional. They have no force and effect. They will not be given effect. We as parliamentarians ought not to be passing legislation that is clearly unconstitutional.
What is interesting about the case, R. v. Nur, is that the individuals who went to the Supreme Court of Canada had been sentenced to six and seven years in jail. The defence argued that the law was unconstitutional and the court agreed. It threw out the mandatory minimums in that case, but it upheld the sentences for the individuals because they were deemed appropriate. The court also threw it out because there were cases where that sentence would not be appropriate. Therefore, that law was not constitutional.
We have to make laws that are effective but that are also in keeping with our Constitution. In this case, increasing the sentence shows the seriousness of the crime. In fact, by increasing the sentence in Bill C-238, the maximum sentence one could get is up to 14 years. That sentence is higher than the sentence for the smuggling.
The law is a bit odd for that reason. It is unusual to see a law for possession of a smuggled gun to carry a higher sentence than for smuggling itself. However, that is the way the legislation is written. Perhaps that could be dealt with in the committee. The signal it sends with respect to the seriousness of the crime is very important.
To get back to the issue, we want to pass laws that are effective. We want to find ways of stopping gun violence in our cities. We know, of course, that most of the handguns we are talking about come from smuggling, so how do we get them away from the cities? They are not smuggled in Toronto. They are smuggled at the border.
We have seen a few things happen in the last number of years. One is that the number of border guards was drastically reduced by the Conservative government. Over 1,000 border guards were laid off, which was a reduction in the number of members of the CBSA whose job it is to look out for smuggling, and we have not seen any significant programs to tackle that. If we are going to tackle the crime, and if the crime is smuggling, we need to be tackling that crime at the border where the smuggling takes place.
We have not seen any action on that. We need an effective law to actually stop the smuggling, and we need enforcement by officials, police forces and the CBSA to actually do that. We try to stop drugs from coming over the border, and we should be putting an equal effort into ensuring that guns are stopped at the border as well.
In the case of sentencing, of course, it must fit the crime. This is a significant and serious crime, and it is up to the courts to do that. However, if the law we are passing is going to be deemed to have no force or effect, and there is very little doubt that this is an unconstitutional law, then we should not be passing it because it is not going to do any good.
There is little evidence that these mandatory minimums actually act as a deterrence. In fact, we heard the member for Spadina—Fort York talk about the cycle of people coming out of prison every five years and committing crimes again. Obviously, it is not doing any particular good if being in jail for several years is not doing anything other than turning people back out to the streets to commit crimes again.
We have to deal with the root causes of these problems, and they have to be rooted out with the kind of programs that we have been talking about. We also need the efforts by the police to ensure we have less smuggling going on and treat organized crime in a much more serious way.
Another thing that happened in the last five years was that several hundred serious investigations into organized crime by the national police force were laid to one side after the tragic shooting in Ottawa in 2014 of Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament Hill. Resources from the RCMP were diverted to look out for similar activities across the country, and they were diverted away from the organized crime files they were working on.
In fact, instead of putting more resources in place to do that, they were actually taken away from organized crime files. The result was, and this has been demonstrated, over the next several years gang activity, mafia-style activity and organized crime activity actually increased. There was more access to guns and cash, and that increased as a result of a lack of enforcement.
We have to deal with enforcement. We have to deal with the root causes of gun violence, and we have to make sure we have laws that are actually constitutional. We are members of the Parliament of Canada. We must have respect for the constitution of our country and pass laws that are actually effective and that deal with the problem. Let us do that.
It has been suggested, for example, by the member for Markham—Unionville, that it is effective to have people in jail for a few days after being arrested for these things. Well, that is a very easy thing to fix, is it not? We do not have to put in laws that are unconstitutional to do that. If it is demonstrated that there ought to be a cooling-off period, that could be put into law as well.
Let us find the tools to do the job. Let us try to ensure we have laws that are not only effective, but also constitutional. Let us do the job right, and see if we can work together to make that happen.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon to speak to Bill C-238, put forward by my colleague from Markham—Unionville. I want to thank the member for his work on this file and the speech he gave earlier this evening.
Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, would increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of a smuggled firearm to three years for the first offence and to five years for the second and subsequent offences, with a 14-year maximum. It would also amend the Criminal Code to automatically deny bail for these offenders in order to stop the catch and release of criminals, a circumstance that our hard-working police and Crown prosecutors experience far too often. If someone is arrested carrying a smuggled firearm, they would be required to make the argument to a judge as to why they deserve to be let back into the community. Quite frankly, they should not get to go home. They deserve jail, not bail.
Some of my parliamentary colleagues may have issues with the implementation of mandatory minimums, as we have heard this evening. I must echo the sentiment of my colleague from Markham—Unionville. Those in known possession of a smuggled firearm have it for a violent reason and their ill intent is to cause harm or death to another. That is a good enough reason for me. This cannot be tolerated in our society, and the prison time is more than warranted.
Indeed, this type of bail is already in the Criminal Code for other crimes, such as hostage taking, armed robbery or extortion with a firearm. This private member's bill ensures the punishment fits the crime. It is a common-sense approach to addressing real threats to Canadians' public safety.
Unlike the Liberal government, the Conservatives know that law-abiding firearm owners are not the problem. Contrary to Liberal claims about our approach, we know there is a problem, and we are putting forward real solutions to address it. Gun violence affects far too many people in our communities.
We heard the reports from my colleague about the untenable situation in the greater Toronto area. Sadly, on the other side of our country, even in Abbotsford and Mission, circumstances are similar. I personally know too many families who have tragically lost loved ones to gun violence.
The perpetrators of this violence did not go through the Canadian firearms safety program. They did not take the courses required to apply for a firearms licence. They did not apply for a possession and acquisition licence or a restricted possession and acquisition licence. They did not have their background investigated, their mental health checked or their domestic partner consulted. The perpetrators are not subject to the continuous eligibility screening that Canadian firearms licence-holders undergo constantly, where their names are run through the RCMP system daily to ensure that no crimes have been committed. They did not purchase their firearms from a Canadian retailer. We already have a robust gun control system in place that works, and the members opposite need to look at the way we treat criminals.
We all know that firearms laws are much less stringent in the United States. We also know that the border between Canada and the U.S. is the longest undefended border in the world. In my hometown of Abbotsford, B.C., the border is literally a ditch separating parallel farm fields in the two countries. My opa's farm straddled the border, a field on the Canadian side and a field on the American side. As kids, we would hop back and forth for fun. It does not take a genius to realize these two realities are ready for abuse and conducive to gun smuggling.
No matter how draconian the Liberal government gets with domestic firearms regulations, no matter how much they trample on the freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, the reality is that the U.S. is our neighbour. It will always be easier for criminals to source weapons from the U.S. and illegally import them to Canada.
The federal government must act accordingly. In the last election, we heard from officers of the Canada Border Services Agency that they did not have the tools to effectively interdict illegal weapons at the border. Recently, the Minister of Public Safety stated that his government would be doing more on this issue. I look forward to seeing that progress.
The Liberal government can move rapidly to prohibit Canadians from using legally acquired private property in the middle of a pandemic, doing so because it was politically expedient, but it moves like molasses when it comes to addressing this real issue.
This is an emotionally charged matter, and it is for my constituents, but for that very reason it needs to be addressed in a thoughtful, targeted manner based on real data and not emotion. We owe that to those who have been killed by gun violence and to their families. As legislators we are tasked with the honour and privilege of enacting legislation for the betterment of Canadians. However, that comes with the responsibility to ensure that legislation is sound, that it addresses an actual issue and that it will deliver the results it is intended to.
Part of that legislative process is the opportunity to debate the legislation in this place, at committee and in the other place. Such a debate was not able to take place, however, when on May 1, the Liberal government's order in council turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians into criminals. However, Canadians are pushing back. Over 58,000 of them signed a petition tabled by the member for Cariboo—Prince George, highlighting the ridiculous and internally contradictory May 1 OIC and calling for its repeal.
Another 230,000 Canadians signed a petition tabled by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, which also called for the federal government to scrap the OIC and instead pass legislation actually targeting criminals that stops the smuggling of firearms into Canada and goes after those who illegally acquire firearms. This sounds a lot like what we are proposing in this legislation.
Numerous legal challenges against the Liberal government's firearm ban also continue to pile up, arguing among other things that the Prime Minister contravened the Firearms Act when he immediately outlawed more than 1,500 firearms through regulatory decree rather than a legislative process, and that governments cannot use an order in council to outlaw firearms used for sporting or hunting purposes, which would include the vast majority of firearms listed in the May 1 directive.
The impact of this ban on small businesses has also been devastating, as if COVID-19 restrictions were not bad enough. With all of these shortcomings, I and my Conservative colleagues are committed, as the government-in-waiting, to engage with difficult issues, to consult with Canadians and to take hard decisions. That is why I solicited my constituents for their input on Bill C-238. I distributed a survey and requested their feedback. Eighty-four per cent of respondents ranked stopping illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada as very important. The remaining 16% ranked it as the second highest level of importance when it came to their safety and that of their families.
The same high number, 84%, agreed with the bill that bail should be revoked for those charged with the possession of an illegally smuggled firearm. The Conservative Party has a plan to safeguard Canadians' public safety and reduce violent gun crime. Unlike the Liberal government, we would not waste time and money harassing law-abiding gun owners and confiscating their legally acquired private property as part of a virtue-signalling exercise that will have zero impact on reducing crime.
What percentage of respondents agreed with the Liberal approach? It was 5%. The NDP's approach, a carbon copy of the Liberals', received the same level of support, 5%, whereas 60% of respondents agreed with the Conservative Party of Canada's plan.
This private member's bill is just one important component of a broader plan that needs to take place to protect public safety. I encourage my colleagues from all parties to review Bill C-238 on its merits and send it to committee for further study.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, this morning is when I heard that the member was going to be bringing forward the legislation. I had this discussion about conflicting messages. There is a bit of a conflicting message. I want to share with members something that somewhat surprised me when I found out this had taken place in committee.
We had Bill C-71, something with which Conservatives had a great deal of difficulty. From what I understand, at the committee stage, there was an amendment brought forward. I am sure members will see the relevancy to this legislation, because this legislation seems to be at odds with what Conservatives were proposing through an amendment.
In the amendment to Bill C-71, the act is amended and this is in essence what it said. The act would be amended to the following, referencing section 11:
Despite sections 109 and 111, no person guilty of an offence set out in those sections is liable to imprisonment if, in the commission of the offence, the person causes no bodily harm to another person.
Sections 109 and 111 in the Firearms Act refer to deliberately lying in order to get a firearms licence, tampering with firearms licence or registration certificate, operating an illegal firing range, ensuring prohibited firearms are safely stored and, this one I find interesting, penalties for lying to a customs officer about a firearm or for falsifying a customs officer's confirmation document.
They wanted to remove penalties for cross-border trafficking. It seems to me that it makes a reference. The member from Red Deer was one of the members. I am not too sure if the member introducing the bill was at that committee. When we take into consideration some of the previous actions of the Conservatives, one could be a little surprised in terms of the legislation that we have here today.
Canadians are genuinely concerned. As my colleague from Toronto talked about earlier, with a great deal of passion, there are many members of this Parliament who are very passionate because they have directly or indirectly seen the harm of governments' not taking actions that are necessary in order to make our communities safer.
I think, for example, of when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stands up and talks about the banning of military assault-style weapons as something that Canadians want to see, yet on the Conservative opposition benches we are constantly criticized for that. It is almost as if many Conservatives are not really understanding the issue that we are trying to address: safer communities. Some of the actions that we have taken as a government, I believe, reinforce it, yet we get mixed messaging coming from the Conservative ranks.
We recognize that smuggling is a very serious issue, and yet Stephen Harper cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada border control officers. These are the types of things that send mixed messages, and I think it is because the Conservatives' primary concern is more about spin than it is about—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Edmonton West.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, while I appreciate my colleague's wild tales and inaccuracies about the cuts, I suggest he actually read the public accounts and see that it was the Liberals who had massive cuts. I would perhaps suggest the member stick to the matter at hand, which is—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
That is a matter for debate. Let us let the member finish. He has 30 seconds.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, it is about the border and the $390-million cut. That is a fact. The Conservatives might want to try to hide from it, but to say that it did not have an impact in terms of the services that we can provide at the borders and we are concerned about smuggling, and—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, Canada's housing crisis is rooted in the Liberals' cancellation of the national affordable housing program in 1993. Despite declaring housing a human right in 2017, the Prime Minister failed to back up his words with meaningful action. The commitment from the national housing strategy of building 150,000 new housing units over 10 years does not come close to addressing Canada's housing crisis.
One out of eight households in Canada lives in unsuitable, overcrowded, mouldy, cold or unaffordable housing. Over 235,000 people experience homelessness each year. Veterans, who served our country, increasingly find themselves without a roof over their heads. In Vancouver East, right now, we have the largest homeless encampment in the country. People in the community are in crisis, and we have been calling for urgent action.
For indigenous peoples, the housing crisis should shake any government. More than 80% of indigenous peoples live in urban, rural and northern communities, and indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to use a homeless shelter.
The Liberals' national housing strategy has been falling well short of major targets. As a substantial part of this strategy, the national housing co-investment fund was to invest in the construction of 6,500 new housing units by the end of March 2020, but we have learned that only 736 new units have been finalized, with finalized agreements, as of February, while being subjected to a complicated and lengthy process. The rapid housing initiative of 3,000 units is a drop in the bucket, when in Vancouver alone we have 2,000 people who are homeless.
With such a dismal record, the Liberal government has resorted to counting partially processed applications. Worse still, the national affordable housing strategy has completely ignored the needs of urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples. The throne speech offers no path forward for an indigenous-led initiative, even though the need for an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy is in the minister's mandate letter.
As stated by the former UN housing rapporteur, Leilani Farha, Canada is experiencing an increase in homelessness encampments. Renters are left out of the equation. There is no federal leadership for people who cannot afford rent, while big financial actors, who are already stationed in Canada, are poised to sweep up distressed assets.
Jeff Morrison, the executive director of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, said that the pandemic has changed everything, but has also changed nothing in terms of housing. Urgent action is needed now.
We need supportive housing. We need federal subsidies. We need aggressive measures to ensure additional assets to create new affordable housing stock. We need national leadership to stop the financialization of housing, and we need to maintain the existing affordable housing stock. It is estimated that 322,000 units of affordable housing were lost between 2011 and 2016, and the national housing strategy is only providing 150,000 units over 10 years.
These are empty words without the resources. The plan is not good enough.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Madam Speaker, my colleague has correctly identified the list of the challenges the national housing strategy is addressing. What she has failed to do is understand how it is being addressed. For example, on the issue of doing nothing for renters, there is a $4-billion program that is cost-shared with the provinces to provide the new Canada housing benefit. It is active in Ontario. We are concerned that some provinces, B.C., for example, have not rolled it out, but there are now rent supplements to support people and prevent homelessness.
In respect to the numbers the member quotes about the housing completions, she is just wrong. I do not know where she is getting her numbers from. I know she asked a very narrow question to the Parliamentary Budget Office, but what she failed to understand is that the national housing strategy also delivers housing with provinces through housing accords, which are now signed with all provinces and territories across the country.
In fact, when we take a look at the achievements of the national housing strategy, what we see is that those units are being built. What I think she is referring to are the completed units as opposed to the ones under construction. While I can see there have been some challenges with COVID, again, her numbers are wrong.
Today's announcement adds another 3,000 units of housing to the housing portfolios of municipalities and, in particular, non-profits across the country. Those 3,000 units are the first installment, which comes prior to a budget announcement that is going to add the second, third and fourth installments. We are committed to ending chronic homelessness.
When the member says that nothing is being done on the urban, rural and northern housing initiative, she is again only partially right. She is describing the problem but not talking about the solution. In fact, there has been a $225-million increase to urban indigenous housing programs across this country since we took office.
We also have increased eligibility, so every single indigenous housing provider has access to the co-investment fund and to the community housing fund. The repairs, construction, acquisition, delivery and subsidizing are being done through a $55-billion national housing strategy, which as I said, was increased today by $1 billion to create 3,000 units of housing immediately to help cities deal with the COVID dynamic.
In terms of the challenges, the hon. member keeps talking about a housing program that was cancelled 30 years ago. I have a 20-year-old daughter who was born, went to school and graduated since then. If the member opposite would like to build a time machine and go back in time, she would see me on the front lines protesting the cuts that were made in the early nineties. They were a huge problem. In fact, Paul Martin told me himself that it was the single biggest mistake he ever made in politics.
I do not defend those cuts. Those cuts were wrong, but what I did do, unlike members of the NDP, is join a party that actually was committed to investing in housing, delivering new housing, repairing existing housing, subsidizing existing housing, saving the lapsed co-op agreements, stepping up on the issue of urban, rural and indigenous housing, as well as stepping up on reserves, the provinces and the cities, and directing dollars to the front lines through the reaching home program.
To give an example of how different the NDP approach was to ours, that member ran in 2015 on a campaign to promise $60 million total over four years to end homelessness. We doubled the reaching home program to $102 million in our first year. We have now locked it in for 10 years. This year, because of COVID, we increased the funding to the reaching home program. The total we will be spending on front-line services directly in cities just like Vancouver East is close to $500 million in one year. That is 10 times more than that party has ever promised for reaching home, so if the member opposite would like to build a time machine and go back in time, she is perfectly suited to do that. She will see a much younger version of me, as I said, protesting those cuts.
The difference between the member's party members and ours is that while they are building time machines we are building housing in every single province. We are repairing housing in every single province. We are subsidizing residences in every single province. We have a housing accord with every single province and territory, and now we are moving to comprehensively address the deficit in urban, rural and northern housing because, as she said, it is shameful. I will also add that I have never seen a campaign plank in their platform that ever spoke to that issue.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, what nonsense that is. If the member keeps telling himself and patting himself on the back to say what a great job he is doing, the Liberal government will never solve the homelessness crisis that it created.
By the way, in the last election, the NDP called for half a million units of affordable housing to be built. Where is the government on that delivery? Even as it stands right now, the co-op sector, those housing projects that had their agreements expire prior to 2016, do not qualify for subsidies. Now those individuals and families are at risk of losing their homes.
The parliamentary secretary can brag about all the stuff he wants to brag about, but the reality is this. The government needs to open its eyes and take a look. We have a housing crisis. People are sleeping in tent cities. The former UN housing rapporteur is saying that the situation is worse under the Liberal government.
It is time to get on with—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Madam Speaker, again, the member opposite is just plain wrong.
If she wants me to stop patting myself on the back, perhaps I could quote somebody who she will listen to. This tweet was received today:
The announcement day was very welcome and will get out to good use. Thank you for your continued work on housing. Please also champion new powers for cities to help address priorities independently.
That came from a young man who is a city councillor in Toronto. His last name is Layton, Mike Layton, the son of Jack Layton. If the NDP are not prepared to listen to Jack Layton's son, I will search the country for somebody else. If they want me to go mayor by mayor, or premier by premier, or to go to individuals who are homeless in this country, tent by tent, I will tell them what we are doing. I will open my eyes and ears to those conversations.
I will make sure that we do not rest until we end chronic homelessness in this country, because that is the pledge we made in the throne speech. I can only pray that the NDP wakes up in time to support it.
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Madam Speaker, there is a digital divide between rural and urban Canada. It is now over five years ago that the CRTC designated broadband as an essential service, yet far too many of my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster remain disconnected without access to rural broadband. Canadians in rural and underserved communities right across the country also find themselves in the same situation.
Today, in 2020, only 40% of Canada's rural communities have access to an Internet connection that meets the minimum threshold of broadband speeds that have been set by the CRTC. When it comes to mobile broadband, Canada comes up short on connecting all Canadians. There remains no mobile broadband access or inadequate mobile access in too many rural communities and major transport routes.
Five years ago, when the CRTC made that designation, it was already accepted back then that access to consistent and quality broadband services contributed to people's economic productivity and their equality of opportunity.
Broadband services were recognized as necessary to allow for meaningful participation in our digital economy. Now, during a pandemic, the need for mobile access and high-speed Internet connection has only been exacerbated. COVID-19 has moved so much of our everyday lives online. More Canadians are working from home; students are attending classes from home; groceries are being purchased online; government services, like Service Canada, are being accessed online; and many health care services are moving online. With social distancing measures in mind, more Canadians are using the Internet to stay connected with friends and family.
The last point is particularly poignant for Canada's seniors and those who find themselves more vulnerable due to COVID-19. Without access to broadband services, social distancing can quickly become social isolation. The need for mobile and Internet connection for all Canadians is undeniable.
During question period a few weeks ago, I shared David's frustration, a constituent of mine who lives only kilometres from Lloydminster, in the Alcurve area, with no cell service near his home. In a letter he shared with me, David described the hurdles he faced when more and more businesses, even doctors' offices, were using text notifications. He also shared concerns about not having a cell service available to him at his home, with rural crime growing exponentially in the area. This is a very serious public safety concern that I know is not unique to only him.
David and too many of my constituents are being left behind as the digital divide between rural and urban Canada grows. Unfortunately, when the Liberal government is asked about its plan to deliver broadband to all Canadians, its only response seems to be that more Canadians are connected now than under previous governments. That response is not satisfactory and does not give rural Canadians the confidence that the government will meet its commitments or the goal set out by the CRTC.
What is perhaps even more confidence-shattering is the email that my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, shared in the House just last week. The email received by him from the office of the Minister of Rural Economic Development indicated that the minister had no levers on the issues relating to rural broadband and had nothing to say on those specific issues. The Minister of Rural Economic Development should have much to contribute to any conversation relating to rural broadband. Knowing how critical broadband access is to the full participation of our modern economy, she should be the strongest advocate for rural broadband at the cabinet table.
The Liberal government needs to ensure broadband infrastructure is available to all Canadians. What is the minister's concrete and—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development.
TelecommunicationsAdjournment Proceedings
Long Range Mountains Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Gudie Hutchings LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster about the need for Canadians in rural communities to have access to reliable and affordable telecommunications services.
Our government recognizes the vital importance of broadband and mobile services so all Canadians can fully participate in digital economy. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced how critical these services are to our economy and society. As a member representing a large rural riding myself, I understand first-hand the importance of getting all Canadians connected.
The federal government has made billions of dollars available to support connectivity and to connect rural communities from coast to coast to coast. Under the connect to innovate program, we are investing over $585 million to improve high-speed Internet. This program has been successful thanks to collaboration with the private sector, provinces and territories. Our partners have provided significant funding, with investments totalling more than $1.2 billion.
Connect to innovate is delivering real results, making a real impact across the country. This program will bring improved Internet connectivity to over 975 communities, 190 of which are indigenous communities. This will improve access for approximately 250,000 households by the end of 2021 and will connect another 400,000 households in total.
In addition to these households, the program will benefit anchor institutions, such as schools, libraries and medical facilities all across the country. Students will have access to online resources. Workers will be able to do their jobs remotely and access online training. Entrepreneurs will be able to execute their ideas and reach global markets.
We are also leveraging other sources to improve connectivity, such as Infrastructure Canada programs. In March 2019, we announced $33 million in Prince Edward Island to connect 30,000 homes. In July 2019, we partnered with New Brunswick to invest $40 million in a fibre and fixed wireless project, which will benefit 83,000 rural households. In July of 2020, we partnered with British Columbia to invest $1 million in two fibre projects to improve access in east and central Kootenay.
Canada's telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, is also taking action to expand Internet and cell access through its $750 million fund, which is sourced from an industry level. In August, the CRTC announced the first five projects under its fund to improve Internet access in northern and remote communities. These projects will connect over 10,000 households in 51 communities. The significant majority of these communities are indigenous. The CRTC will make further announcements for the rest of the country in the months ahead.
Building on these efforts in budget 2019, our government announced historic investments of $1.7 billion in broadband. It is our country's single-largest investment to advance our goals. Our actions are guided by our 2019 connectivity strategy, which is a road map for achieving universal access all across Canada.
As indicated in the recent 2020 Speech from the Throne, our government will accelerate the connectivity timelines and the ambitions of the universal broadband fund to ensure that all Canadians have access to high-speed Internet. We have been engaging with stakeholders to ensure the fund responds to rural needs and look forward to a program launch very shortly.
We will also take advantage of other measures to promote rural access. This includes investments in low-earth orbit satellites to ensure even the most challenging northern and remote areas—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Madam Speaker, all I heard in that response was that billions upon billions of dollars have been invested in rural broadband and connectivity. That statement does nothing for my constituents. It does not give my constituents confidence that they will have broadband access in the near future.
I mentioned in my remarks that shopping is done online, students are doing school online and doctor's appointment are even done online. With crime growing in rural parts of Canada, it is important that Canadians have access to a mobile connection so they can call the police or call for help whenever they need.
Not that much has been completed, so I want to remind the member opposite that 60% of rural communities still have no broadband Internet.
Gudie Hutchings Liberal Long Range Mountains, NL
Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical need for reliable communication networks to navigate everyday life for every person. Our connectivity investments will be an important part of Canada's recovery.
Through projects and programs approved by our government, we will connect an estimated 1.4 million households. Through the Conservatives' signature broadband program, the projects approved by the previous Conservative government connected just 334,000 homes. That means our government will connect four times more households than the previous Conservative government did. One of those projects is a $5.9-million investment under the connect to innovate program, which was awarded to FlexNetworks, to bring new and improved Internet to 14 communities from Saskatoon to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
We have a strong track record of delivering results, and we will build on that success as we build a brighter future for rural and remote and all indigenous communities.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to talk about a very important issue facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. People across Canada have been watching what is happening in Nova Scotia to the Mi'kmaq, to the Sipekne'katik people, and demanding that the government uphold the rule of law to keep Mi'kmaq fishers safe.
All Canadians deserve to be safe and have the security they need. This year has been marked by unfounded and unjust violence against Black and indigenous people in Canada and the United States. What has happened in Sipekne'katik cannot be dismissed as just another event. It must be seen as the act of domestic terrorism and that is what it is.
We can talk about how shocked we are and about how this is not Canada, but for indigenous people and for Mi'kmaq fishers, this has been the reality for generations. I speak about how the RCMP watched things unfold, the burning of a lobster pound, the intimidation, the assaults that took place and the cutting of traps. DFO and the RCMP sat idly. Only two arrests have been made since then. For weeks, we have been calling for the RCMP to bolster forces to provide safety and security to the people there and that has not happened.
I just want to talk about how the response has been different for the Haudenosaunee and the Six Nations. The government showed up with what seemed like a militarized barricade and used rubber bullets on indigenous protesters. I think we are all horrified to be learning of the news of a Secwepemc man near Williams Lake getting literally assaulted by the RCMP just yesterday.
The government needs to get body cameras on RCMP officers now. They need an independent investigating officer, not just for the violence inflicted on indigenous people by the RCMP, but also when charges have not been laid and the RCMP have sat idle.
In 1999, the Marshall decision upheld the right for the Mi'kmaq to practise their inherent right to fish. They have the constitutional and treaty right to earn a moderate living and when they attempt to practise that right, they are stopped by DFO and are harassed by non-indigenous fishers. The acts of violence are nothing new and the indifference from consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments remains the same.
In 1999, the fisheries and oceans committee, of which the hon. member for Malpeque was a member, said that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was caught off guard by the Marshall decision and were unprepared to stop violence and have conversations with fishers.
Here we are 21 years later still talking about the Mi'kmaq fishers and their right to a moderate living, and still talking about how to respond to the acts of terror against them. We are talking and talking with no action. It is beyond time the government take its so-called “most important relationship” seriously. The Minister of Fisheries must empower her department to act before violence happens again, ensure that negotiators come to the table with the resources to support that nation so they can accommodate their right to a moderate livelihood and hold people who choose violence to account. I am asking for this urgently.