Debates of Dec. 8th, 2020

National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward Bill C-230. It is an honour for me to second it.

My home was originally in Nova Scotia, and my first experience in understanding environmental racism was the horror of the Sydney tar ponds in industrial Cape Breton. They are now sort of cleaned up. They are at least buried. I am flagging that what was called the tar ponds was originally an estuary of the Mi'kmaq fishing grounds. The Mi'kmaq were forced off that land and put in Membertou in order to build a steel mill and coke oven, and the only African, Black, community in Cape Breton was between the coke ovens and the steel mill. The population had huge levels of cancer. It was the biggest toxic waste site in Canada.

I wish we had had the bill here in place then. I would ask the hon. member if she has any reflections on that, and thank her again.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for seconding my bill.

That is a perfect example, and so was Boat Harbour, which was a beautiful, pristine lagoon where first nations communities came to picnic for thousands of years. I went there and saw the degradation, and smelled the stink. I saw what it was doing to the people. Many of the people who I stood in a barricade against the mill with at that time are no longer here. They died of cancer.

It is a bill whose time has come. I think it is up to us to make sure that this happens.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time, but I am going to take some liberties here and take one more question.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by thanking the hon. member for her comments, and for her strong leadership and commitment to social justice on this file.

As a Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia, I learned numerous times during my research where indigenous people were displaced from their traditional lands, often close to their resources in lucrative areas, and centralized onto small reserves in areas that led them to be vulnerable and open to exploitation.

My question is as follows. How does the member see her bill being able to create the important awareness around these injustices? Does she feel education is an important part of this bill, moving forward?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done a lot with treaty education in Nova Scotia, and I believe that is something we need to roll out right across this country.

People do not seem to understand that the first nations people were here for 13,000 years before we ever got here. Sometimes when I hear people say, “Go back to where you came from: pick up your tents and go back to where you came from,” it just breaks my heart. I feel that this kind of bill could start the dialogue and open people's eyes and hearts to what has been going on for far too long. I believe it is up to us to fix it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to participate, especially in Private Members' Business. I am certain that I am not alone in my appreciation for the passion and ideas from colleagues of all parties in this place.

Generally speaking, we either oppose a private member's bill or we support it. On rare occasions, from my perspective at least, a private member's bill may come along that I will oppose despite being supportive of the principle being raised. This is one of those of those rare occasions for me, and I would like to share with this place my thoughts on the bill.

First, I would like to commend and recognize the member for Cumberland—Colchester for raising this very important concern. The member refers to this concern as “environmental racism”, and ultimately proposes to create a national strategy to promote efforts across this great country to redress the harms caused by environmental racism.

What does the member for Cumberland—Colchester define as “environmental racism”? One part of the bills reads as follows:

Whereas the establishing of environmentally hazardous sites, including landfills and polluting industries, in areas inhabited primarily by members of those communities could be considered a form of racial discrimination;

I happen to have a few local examples that directly reflect this problem. I will share them with the House to illustrate why I said in my introduction that I support the principle of this bill.

My first local example is Appleton Waste Services, a company that was paid by many Penticton and area residents to pick up and collect garbage and then transport it and dispose of it at the local landfill. The company did not pay its bills to the operator of the landfill, which was another local government, the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen, or RDOS, as we call it in the region. Because the bills were unpaid, the RDOS had to suspend service to Appleton Waste.

Unfortunately, this did not stop the company from continuing to pick up waste and charge their customers for it. Instead, it made a deal that ultimately resulted in 5,000 tonnes of waste being dumped on Penticton Indian Band lands. The arrangement was that this was going to be a transfer station before the waste was hauled off to somewhere else.

How did it end? Well, the company disappeared, but a massive pile of waste became a serious problem for members of the Penticton Indian Band to deal with, and it was not even their own waste. It came from the citizens of the city of Penticton.

In other words, the Penticton Indian Band ended up with a landfill, and it was, as the bill says,

in areas inhabited primarily by members of those communities

The bill states this could be considered a form of racial discrimination.

This is the first example that, in my view, speaks to the challenge that is referred to in the bill. I will provide a second local example.

Many will know the Okanagan region I come from is famous for its excellent wines, but many years ago, it was for fruit growing. As a result, there is a significant fruit industry infrastructure in many small communities, much of it aging.

In Naramata, there was an old fruit-packing warehouse that was scheduled for demolition and removal. Ultimately, the successful salvage bidder hauled the demolished wood waste away. Where did it end up? It ended up on Penticton Indian Band land, where ultimately it was burned.

In that case, charges were laid against the parties involved under provincial environmental legislation. This case eventually made its way through the courts. The defendants argued that these activities took place on the Penticton Indian Reserve, which does not come under provincial jurisdiction on such environmental matters.

They argued that they had complied with all the requirements of the local government, in this case the Penticton Indian Band.

In the end, an application was made challenging the charges on constitutional grounds. The judge ended up handing down a not guilty verdict and declaring that the application was moot, as there would be no further legal proceedings.

After listening to me explain these two Canadian examples, members will probably understand why I support the challenges addressed in this bill. However, I will now explain why I will be opposing this bill, even though I recognize these challenges.

In both of these situations there was one common denominator, the Penticton Indian Band lands that were adversely environmentally impacted by these situations were what is called “locatee lands”. As many are unaware, on some first nations not all land is band land. Some lands are locatee lands. These lands are very similar to privately held land where locatees can make land use decisions independent of locally elected band chiefs and their respective councils. In both of these cases, local non-indigenous business owners made financial deals with band members who control these locatee lands.

We all know that the federal government, more specifically Indigenous Services Canada, is supposed to safeguard the interests of aboriginal communities to prevent these types of situations from occurring. Here in Ottawa, we seldom hear how some of these situations are actually caused. This also raises a question that has to be asked. Is it the role of Indigenous Services Canada to tell a locatee family what they can or what they cannot do on their lands, or is that up to a locally elected band chief and council?

I have another question. Was the member approached by a local first nation in her riding to introduce this bill, or is this another example of the “Ottawa knows best” attitude, where Ottawa presents another series of studies to come up with a one-size-fits-all strategy, as it has been doing for decades? I do not know the answer to this question.

I see two challenges in this bill. As I mentioned, I would like to be able to support the bill. However, then I would be voting for something that could impact a large number of first nations communities in my region, without having heard how they feel about this bill. I simply cannot in good conscience do that.

I believe it is time to put an end to the era when decisions were made in Ottawa without first sitting down with the chiefs and local councillors to hear from them directly. Environmental factors clearly have repercussions for first nations. Grassy Narrows comes to mind, as well as the Prime Minister's reference to these issues, which was to thank them for their donation.

It is important to study those impacts, but the use of the term “racism” implies that Canadians are racist and responsible for these actions and does not take the Liberal government's failure over the long term into account.

Indeed, just this week the Liberal government confirmed it would not meet its clean drinking water promise, another failure. Canadians are warm and caring people and would support finding ways to better ensure everyone is healthy and thriving. What is not right is implying the fault lies at the feet of a racist country.

Canada is not a racist country and to imply that is just disgraceful. Now, I appreciate that the member for Cumberland—Colchester is well intentioned. However, I have many aboriginal communities in my riding that I must be accountable to. It is for that reason that I cannot support this bill. I do thank the member for raising this concern.

I also would like to thank the members in this place for taking the time to hear my comments today. It is a pleasure serving on behalf of the communities in my region.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting into the Bloc Québécois's reasons for not supporting this bill, I want to emphasize a few points.

First, we recognize that problems related to geographical disparities affect people's standard of living and their access to a quality environment. Second, we are concerned about the fact that newcomers and indigenous communities are more directly affected by these disparities. Last, we fully support government measures to rectify inequalities experienced by the entire population vis-à-vis the environment.

However, Bill C-230's provisions create a lot of problems, starting with a direct attack on the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces. It will therefore come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will oppose anything that undermines Quebec legislation and its jurisdiction. Also, it is not at all clear that the federal government would have the constitutional authority to implement the measures proposed in this bill.

That is not all. As my colleague just outlined, there is no definition. As we understand it, there is no definition of environmental racism. When a new concept is introduced into a law, especially when it comes from a very specific theory, it must be clearly defined. In society and in academia, the meaning of concepts may change over time, but the meaning within the law must always be clear, known and recognized.

For instance, Bill C-230 makes extensive use of the word “race”. We understand the hon. member's anti-racist and anti-discriminatory intent, and we are not in any way questioning that intent. However, we do have some concerns. The sociological construction of race from such a perspective is not a process on which there is scientific or social consensus.

This concept, yet another one that comes to us from the United States, is based on the analysis of a relationship between the social, that is, the classes, gender and race, and nature. Some folks might remember the film Erin Brockovich. It was about a woman fighting an industry, but she was talking about financial precariousness. Today her struggle continues in Greece, but she is still talking about poverty.

Ingrid Waldron, a professor and author who has high hopes for Bill C-230, looks at the real and important issue of environmental discrimination through the lens of race and colour. I do not want to contradict Dr. Waldron, but we must recognize that environmental injustice, which disproportionately affects minority communities, is more in line with a fundamentally anti-capitalist ideology.

Furthermore, in her research she addresses the conditions that fuel environmental racism:

The combination of sociopolitical factors that enables environmental racism include poverty, lack of political power and representation, lack of protection and enforcement, and neoliberal policy reform.

She does recognize that there are many vulnerability factors. Why talk about racism, then?

The term “systemic racism” is politically and theoretically charged. If we are to have an open debate, we must not be already attached to restrictive theoretical premises influenced by sociological approaches that are firmly rooted in activism. As my colleagues know, I was a teacher and a union president. I am well versed in activism. I will be the first to say that it is important. However, activism must not be the motivation for introducing a bill in Parliament.

Dr. Waldron cites the inequalities between minority languages, including indigenous languages, of course, and the majority language of English as one of the factors contributing to the environmental burden:

While some provinces and territories have “environmental bills of rights” and legal frameworks for addressing environmental rights, gaps remain in areas related to federal jurisdiction.

Here we are. There certainly are gaps.

Last week, I spoke to Bill C-225 introduced by my colleague from Jonquière. The public engagement I was referring to and the social movements that lead to political battles have the desired impact on government action. These battles are often quite distinct from one another depending on the realities experienced.

However, the legislator faces an entirely different challenge. The legislator's responsibility is to make laws that serve justice, of course, but that must apply to all citizens. A good policy is a universal policy. It serves the common good and applies to the entire population. Moreover, universal public policies also end up dismantling inequality structures and discriminatory practices. Choosing the parameter or the lens of race to look at an intersectional phenomenon such as environmental discrimination seems inappropriate in a legislative context.

Quebec's Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse has ruled on the matter as follows:

The idea that socio-economic, cultural and political differences between groups of individuals can be based entirely or in part on biological and genetic disparities has been widely rejected by most researchers in the social sciences.

The commission added that, in its view, the relationship between the social sciences and the notion of race is a dangerous one.

Canada needs to do some soul-searching, given the reality of the work described by Dr. Waldron, if only with respect to indigenous peoples and the unacceptable conditions that exist in far too many communities across Canada.

It is hard, very hard in fact, to explain how Bill C-230 can include a provision that puts “the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province” back into the hands of the federal government, when we have clear examples of the federal government demonstrating its indifference to the legislative mechanisms that are already in place in other administrations. That once again brings me back to Bill C-225, which we debated last week, and to the sad reality of the undue precedence federal legislation takes over environmental concerns and provincial laws.

Canadian laws are much more permissive than Quebec's laws when it comes to environmental protection, and yet they take precedence over Quebec's laws. We will not give the federal government another opportunity to have even more precedence over the provinces. It already has too much. Canada needs to examine its priorities when it comes to protecting its population from climate change, pollution-related issues, health impacts and all of the inequality that permeates its environmental action. Yes, the federal government needs to address the gaps that Dr. Waldron referred to.

Like her, I call on members to think about the sad legacy of neo-liberal policies, those that adversely affect the welfare state. We need to be firm in our legislative intentions of looking out for and eliminating discrimination, but we must do so from a perspective of unity, not division. Take, for example, pay equity, gender equality, universal access to life-sustaining resources, such as drinking water in indigenous communities, and access to justice. In short, we must continue to always fight to ensure that we stop the divide from growing.

I want to remind members that the right to live in a healthy environment has been enshrined in a multitude of constitutions and national charters. The member noted it in her introduction. Why could we not consider the same thing in Canada, that is, including the right to a healthy environment alongside other fundamental legal guarantees, regardless of our biology, the community to which we belong, our socio-economic status or where we live?

Would this be another argument for discussing the Constitution? We are ready.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward this important issue in the House.

Environmental racism is a huge, but often ignored, problem. In fact, many people are unfamiliar with the concept. As she mentioned, before becoming an MP, I taught a course that focused on environmental racism, and I had my students read the provincial bill that the member for Cumberland—Colchester put forward when she was a New Democrat member in the provincial legislature. It is such an important topic and such an important bill. I was disappointed that it never passed provincially, but I am hopeful that we can move this forward federally.

Across Canada, toxic dumps, polluting projects, risky pipelines, tainted drinking water and the effects of the climate crisis disproportionately hurt indigenous, Black, and racialized communities. Systemic discrimination has been embedded into environmental policy-making, along with the uneven enforcement of regulations and laws, the targeting of indigenous, Black and racialized communities for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants, and the exclusion of these communities from the decision-making process.

We also need to think about this in the context of the fact that we export our waste to countries, predominantly in the global south, and it is often racialized communities that are experiencing the impacts of this toxic pollution. I support the bill, and I believe we need to take urgent action on environmental justice. I would also like to see the right to a healthy environment enshrined in law through an environmental bill of rights.

Environmental racism in Canada is well documented. It is a direct result of the historic and ongoing impacts of colonization. Many have seen the documentary, There’s Something in the Water, that was referenced. It is based on the report to the Canadian Commission for UNESCO by Dr. Ingrid Waldron. In that documentary, the highlighting of the stories of indigenous and Black communities in Nova Scotia fighting for environmental justice is poignant and powerful.

After visiting Canada in 2019, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes wrote, “I observed a pervasive trend of inaction of the Canadian Government in the face of existing health threats from decades of historical and current environmental injustices”. A report submitted to the Human Rights Council just this September stated that, “Pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals threaten the right to life, and a life with dignity,” and that, “the invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by Indigenous peoples in Canada.”

It is so clear that we have a problem of systemic racism that our government is doing little to nothing to address. In the absence of government action or legislation, and often excluded from the leadership of mainstream environmental movements, indigenous and racialized communities and their allies have been demanding environmental justice, demanding their rights and demanding to be heard. They have recently had some success in the halting of environmentally hazardous projects in their communities, through community organizing, petition signing and civil disobedience, but they should not have to fight not to be poisoned by the air they breathe or the water they drink.

Negative health impacts caused by toxic exposures compound other existing inequalities and the challenges that indigenous and other racialized groups face: low income, poverty, underemployment, unemployment, food insecurity and poor access to health care. All of these things, in addition to more direct impacts on human health, impact environmental racism, which destroys natural environments, causing the loss of access to traditional food sources and cultural practices.

This disproportionate exposure to toxic substances also contributes to indigenous and racialized people in Canada being locked into a vicious, intergenerational cycle of poverty. The manifestation of illness due to exposure to heavy metals in turn leads to reduced income and reduced earning potential. Lower incomes and poverty are significant factors for why households from racialized communities are less likely than white households to be able to leave environmentally hazardous communities.

Many of us recognize the names of communities that have been devastated by toxic pollution, but what could have been done to stop it?

In the Chemical Valley, there are 62 large industrial facilities, or about 40% of Canada’s petrochemical industry. They operate within a few kilometres of Sarnia and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, exposing community members to a range of harmful pollutants causing increased rates of asthma, reproductive effects, learning disabilities and cancer.

There is Grassy Narrows, where ongoing mercury poisoning, first discovered in 1970, has had devastating health effects and contaminated the water and the fish the community relied on.

There is Boat Harbour, where an effluent treatment facility for the Northern Pulp mill was built and operated by the provincial government near Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia. It turned a quiet estuary and fertile hunting and fishing ground into a highly toxic site.

Let us not forget to mention what is maybe the most famous example of environmental racism: Africville.

This is not just about communities that have become infamous sites of toxic pollution. In urban areas across Canada, 25% of the lowest socio-economic status neighbourhoods, which are disproportionally home to racialized people, are within one kilometre of a major polluting industrial facility, compared with just 7% of the wealthiest neighbourhoods, where white families are more likely to live. This results in elevated risks of hospitalization for respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.

Climate change is taking a disproportionate toll on indigenous peoples. Canada is warming at twice the global rate and northern Canada at about three times the global rate, depleting traditional food sources, driving up the cost of imported alternatives and contributing to a growing problem of food insecurity and related negative health impacts. However, indigenous communities have been fighting back. They have been resilient in the face of this injustice. Canada is not adequately supporting the efforts of indigenous peoples to adapt to the climate crisis and is failing to do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs to be enshrined in law. I am glad to see the government finally tabling a piece of legislation on UNDRIP, but I am concerned its bill is watered down compared with what many indigenous organizers and people across Canada have been fighting for. We need to take into account indigenous science and knowledge in relation to the environment and its protection.

I also want to talk about the right to a healthy environment. The top recommendation of the UN Human Rights Council in September 2020 was for Canada to recognize in law the right to a healthy environment. Over 150 countries have legal obligations to protect the human right to a healthy environment. Although there are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as well as provincial and territorial laws that address environmental rights, there is no federal law that explicitly recognizes the right to a healthy environment in Canada. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, does not include any reference to environmental justice, human rights or vulnerable populations. It is 20 years out of date and badly needs updating.

For many years, my New Democrat colleagues have been advocating for an environmental bill of rights. I want to recognize former NDP MP Linda Duncan, who put forward the bill, and my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who introduced Bill C-232, which calls for the recognition of the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean and healthy environment, grounded in a commitment to upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We remain committed to implementing an environmental bill of rights and strengthening CEPA to better protect Canadians from toxic substances.

We broadly support the bill and the need to take urgent action toward environmental justice. We need to address the disproportionate environmental impacts felt by indigenous, Black and racialized communities. The bill stipulates that the strategy must include measures to address environmental racism, including compensation for individuals or communities and ongoing funding for affected communities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am afraid we are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism, which was introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The objective of this bill is to promote efforts across Canada to prevent and redress situations where indigenous and racialized communities must disproportionately contend with pollution, environmental degradation and other forms of environmental damage.

This is a valid concern that resonates particularly in the current context of COVID-19, where impacts of the pandemic have been disproportionately borne by disadvantaged groups. Numerous Statistics Canada studies point to the unequal impacts of the pandemic on various groups. One study, for example, found that immigrants and visible minorities form a larger proportion of front-line workers, including nurse aides, orderlies and patient service associates. This suggests that some groups of Canadians likely have been at a greater risk of exposure to the virus than others.

Additional evidence from Public Health Ontario suggests that people living in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods have been more likely to get sick from the virus than other Canadians. Various analysis has also shown that particular groups, such as indigenous Canadians, are much more vulnerable. This is a signal that we have to take action.

This bill comes at a time when many Canadians are giving careful thought to all aspects of racism, including its environmental aspect. The public is very concerned about the systemic racism experienced by Blacks, indigenous people and people of colour as a result of institutional policies and practices.

In the throne speech, our government promised to make a concerted and tangible effort to continue the fight against racism. Significant action has already been taken with the release of Canada's anti-racism strategy for 2019-2022, which includes a $45-million investment to take immediate steps in combatting racism and discrimination.

Through the anti-racism action program, the Government of Canada is investing $15 million to fund 85 anti-racism projects that aim to remove systemic barriers faced by racialized communities, religious minorities and indigenous Canadians. We have committed to also furthering transformative change by taking action on online hate; going further on economic empowerment for specific communities; implementing an action plan to increase representation in hiring, appointments and leadership development within the public service; and taking new steps to support the artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadians, culture and heritage.

We know the bill highlights that the efforts to combat systemic racism can intersect with environmental and health concerns. We are taking action in this regard as well.

The Government of Canada is also committed to continuously improving how vulnerable populations are considered in the assessment and management of chemicals and other substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other federal statutes. Chemicals are an integral part of everyday life, essential to our health and well-being, the economy, our communities and our homes. While chemical substances may provide benefits, some may also have harmful effects on human health. Some Canadians may be more vulnerable than others to those harmful effects.

Where there is information available, departments consider this both in conducting risk assessments and in designing risk management measures. This includes consideration of individuals living in the vicinity of industrial commercial facilities and first nation and Inuit populations.

To build on our commitments to address the unequal burden of exposure of certain groups to harmful substances, in late 2018 and early 2019, the government undertook consultations on defining vulnerable populations. It was a first step toward a policy framework on vulnerable populations. Feedback received through this consultation process is helping to inform the activities related to chemical assessment and management, including the development of a policy framework to address vulnerable populations under the CEBA.

Also of note, work under the federal air quality program is exploring how to address air pollution in specific areas that are particularly stressed: so-called hot spots. This work is important, as vulnerable populations can be disproportionately impacted by the pollution in those areas

The government has committed to tackling systemic racism and we promised to base our approach on the lived experiences of racialized communities and indigenous peoples. It must be a co-operative and collaborative effort.

The first step will be to listen as much as possible to those whose experiences will guide our approach. Bill C-230 is the start of a conversation that we are pleased to have in order to address this important issue.

In closing, I would like to once again thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for introducing this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has only amplified existing vulnerabilities of the homeless and those who are precariously housed.

People continue to face skyrocketing rents, ballooning home prices and demovictions, and have increasingly resorted to living in encampments. Vancouver East continues to have the largest encampment in the country as the cold, wet weather is upon us, and we are now grappling with the highest rate of COVID-19 in the city, as well.

The urgency for action is more acute than ever. The last time the importance of housing was backed up with serious action federally was after the Second World War, when hundreds of thousands of affordable supportive housing units were built by the government to make sure soldiers returning from the war had places to live. Now, veterans who served our country increasingly find themselves without roofs over their heads.

Clearly, the Liberals do not feel the sense of urgency to act that housing providers and housing advocates do. While the Liberals have declared that adequate housing is a basic human right, their actions do not come close to matching their words. It took six months into the pandemic for the Liberals to announce the rapid housing initiative, and their promise will only bring 3,000 new units to address the homelessness crisis. When over 235,000 Canadians experience homelessness every year, even before the pandemic made things worse, 3,000 units simply is not going to cut it.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, housing providers and advocates are all saying that this is not good enough. In fact, CHRA is calling for the federal government to increase the rapid housing initiative funding by at least $5 billion. They also want to see the program extended until at least 2028.

Communities also noted that the rapid housing initiative announcement does not include any resources for wraparound social supports and services. For those suffering from chronic homelessness, supportive services are essential for their success. They are calling on the federal government to include additional resources to fund wraparound supports so that proper care can be provided to ensure their success.

In Canada, 80% of indigenous people live in urban, rural and northern communities, and they are severely overrepresented in the homeless community. The fact that the announcement did not include a dedicated rapid housing stream for urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples highlights once again how their needs continue to be neglected by the Liberal government.

The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and CHRA note that when the national housing strategy was announced in 2017, there was nothing included for urban, rural and northern indigenous peoples. Even though the Minister of Housing was explicitly told to create an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy in his 2019 mandate letter, a year later there is still no strategy.

The time to act is long overdue. The indigenous caucus of the CHRA is demanding the federal government develop a for-indigenous, by-indigenous national housing centre. They want to see an increase in the supply of stable, safe and affordable indigenous housing by 73,000 units. They want accelerated action on indigenous homelessness, along with wraparound services to support indigenous tenants' well-being and long-term success. They want accelerated action on the elimination of indigenous homelessness, and a focus on northern housing.

There must be no more excuses and no more delays. The time to act is now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for giving me the opportunity to speak about the rapid housing initiative, which the Prime Minister launched on October 27. This is an important new program that will quickly give more vulnerable Canadians a place to call home at a time when it is needed most.

Some of those hit hardest by COVID-19 are those who also find themselves in precarious housing. This includes seniors, women and children fleeing violence and people experiencing homelessness.

For example, it is impossible to safely shelter in place when people do not have a place to call home. Our government has recognized this and mobilized quickly to offer a number of supports to address these urgent housing needs. This includes additional funding of more than $236 million for reaching home, Canada's homelessness strategy. These funds will help communities to extend and expand the emergency measures put in place at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as provide them with the flexibility to deliver housing solutions.

Many parts of the country are now in the second wave of the pandemic. As my colleague has noted, temperatures are dropping. It is clear that we need more affordable housing. We need it urgently and our government is committed to helping make this happen.

That is where our government's rapid housing initiative comes in. This program represents $1 billion in federal investments. It will create 3,000 new permanent affordable housing units across the country. All units will be completed within 12 months from the signing of the funding agreement. It will focus on creating housing for Canadians in severe need, people who are experiencing homelessness or living in temporary shelters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the program will stimulate the economy, creating good jobs when they are needed most.

The rapid housing initiative will be delivered through Canada's national housing strategy, a 10-year, $55 billion-plus plan, but it will be delivered on a much more accelerated timeline. One half of the program's funds will be delivered directly to cities with the highest levels of housing needs in homelessness. The other half will fund projects led by provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous organizations and non-profit organizations. All projects funded through this initiative must be completed within one year. The funding can be used to build modular housing, buy land or convert existing buildings for affordable housing.

I have spoken to our partners in cities, provinces and territories in the housing sector and they advised on the design of the program. They are quickly mobilizing the seizing of this opportunity. Our government is proud to be working hand in hand with these dedicated partners to ensure our most vulnerable people can be safely housed now and can thrive in the years to come.

I will note that the parliamentary secretary for housing is one of the most able-minded individuals in Canada when it comes to non-profit housing. I am proud to have him as a member of this caucus. I know on numerous occasion he has stated these types of words and in fact he assisted me in this speech. At the end of the day, we have a caring, compassionate government like no other government before it with respect to investments in future development of a truly national housing strategy.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 3,000 units in the rapid housing initiative just does not cut it. The fall economic statement failed to indicate that action will be taken to ensure an acquisition fund will be in place to support affordable housing providers in their purchases of distressed housing, while large for-profit capital funds have been buying up distressed housing.

This was called for as early as March by the former UN housing rapporteur, Ms. Leilani Farha. She wrote to the government on April 19 about this and it is now December and the government still has not even had the courtesy to respond to her. Her suggestion is further supported by many other housing advocates, including the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. The Globe and Mail wrote an article indicating that private buyers are lining up to try to get their hands on rental towers, especially the older buildings, which tend to have lower rents.

If we wait to act, it will be too late. There can be no more excuses. It is time to act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians are in need of housing. The COVID-19 pandemic has made a difficult situation even worse, but our government is taking action and delivering strong results for Canadians. The rapid housing initiative is the latest major program we have developed to help Canadians get through these difficult times and build back better.

I ask my colleague and members on all sides of the House to do their part. I urge them to work with their local government and housing sector partners to help their constituents through this difficult time by making the most of this and other national housing strategy programs. I really encourage the member to do just that.

Air Transportation

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to have a conversation about a question I asked regarding Nav Canada and the possibility that the air control tower at the Regina International Airport may cease to exist in the not too distant future. This is a very important conversation for the people of Saskatchewan, southwest Saskatchewan and Regina. I look forward to getting an answer from the member for Winnipeg North. I hope he does not just read speaking points and that we have a dialogue, a conversation between two parliamentarians about something that is very important for not only Saskatchewan but western Canadians.

I was able to have a conversation with not only the member for Winnipeg North but also the Minister of Transport. I asked a question, and the response I got was not really favourable to the people of Regina—Lewvan. Regina International Airport is in the heart of Regina—Lewvan, and it is very important to ensure that, when we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, flights can come in and out safely. It will be a big part of our economic recovery when we see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I have had conversations with representatives from Nav Canada, and they talked about the complexity of flights that come into our air zone. One thing we need to take into account when it comes to having an air traffic control tower is that 15 Wing Moose Jaw, the training base for the RCAF, is in the same air zone as Regina. For complex flights, we want to keep our military pilots safe. There are flights coming into that air zone that are going 600 to 900 kilometres per hour, so it is a very complex situation. We need professional people at the control tower to make sure that our military personnel are safe.

Also, as I am sure the member for Winnipeg North would know, we have the world-famous Snowbirds at 15 Wing Moose Jaw, which fly out of Moose Jaw. They can take up the same airspace as the international airport in Regina. Therefore, the safety of all these complex flights should be taken into account when we are having this conversation.

When it comes down to it, Regina is also a provincial capital. If we did not have an air traffic control tower in Regina, it would be the only provincial capital in the country that did not have safety measures in place. I think that sends a signal to people, not only in Regina and Saskatchewan but in western Canada. A provincial capital that does not have an air traffic control tower sends the wrong signal.

I remember as clear as day on election night when the Prime Minister said that he heard what western Canadians were saying. He said he was going to be there to make sure their concerns were heard, but we have not seen that in the last year.

For this one reason, I think it is time for the Liberal government to step up and assure western Canadians that the safety and complexity of all these flights in the Regina International Airport's airspace are taken into consideration. For once I hope the government is listening to western Canadians and will take the complexity and safety of our Snowbirds, our Royal Canadian Air Force and all of the pilots at 15 Wing Moose Jaw into consideration when it makes these decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will put my notes to the side and make it a discussion more so than a speech. I assure the member I will take the time to raise the issue with the minister. I do not say that lightly.

I spent a few years in Saskatchewan in my younger days. In fact, I am very familiar with the Snowbirds as I went to the air show in Moose Jaw. I am also very much familiar with air traffic control because I was actually a member of the Canadian Forces and I was an air traffic control assistant. I worked out of the tower in Lancaster Park, which had the longest runway at 14,000 feet. The space shuttle could land there, which is something I have reminded the current minister of. I also have family who live in Regina. Go Riders. We all love the Riders.

We understand the importance that airports play in our communities, whether they are the smaller airports we see scattered throughout the Prairies, the ones in larger centres like Regina or our international airports such as the Calgary airport. I am sure my friend has been to the Calgary airport. It is a massive and growing airport. We have different types of airports that provide all sorts of services. I understand the importance of towers. I also understand the importance of issues, having worked on radar, air zones and so forth. Safety is important.

Nav Canada has a high level of expertise that I do not have and I suspect the member opposite might not necessarily have. That is why it is important we get that good understanding. If there is something that can be done that is practical, I assure the member we are listening and very much interested in what we can do to further the cause.

One of the nice things that just came out in the budget presentation, the mini-budget, was the idea that we need to have a prairie investment fund. I see that as a sign to the Prairies that the government is very much concerned that all three beautiful Prairie provinces, and I have lived in all three, get the attention they need. I understand personally the importance of our airports and towers.

I will take the member's comments and at some point have that discussion. I do not know when, but I will have that discussion with the minister.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. He will know, having worked in an air traffic control tower, there is a difference between what they do and what flight information services do and the services they provide.

I ask him to make sure, when he does have that conversation with the Minister of Transport, that the minister knows the complexity of the flights going on at the Regina International Airport. I believe, and I hope the member opposite would agree, flight information services provide a valuable service, but it is not quite the same service as an air traffic control tower in the fact that there are a few different words such as “you may land”, “you could land” or “you are cleared for takeoff”.

The member will understand these words and the differences between the services provided by the different entities. I hope he will help me in making sure the Regina International Airport has an air traffic control tower going forward, based on the complexity of the flights, the Snowbirds, the 15 Wing air force base in Moose Jaw and the seriousness in ensuring the brave men and women who serve there have the safety and services they deserve.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Edmonton, I would work in two capacities. One was with search and rescue, which by the way is in Winnipeg right now, planning the flights that would ultimately go onto radar and different airspaces. If I was not working there, I would then be in the tower and my responsibility was to take the planes from the tarmac and get them just prior to the runway so that they could ultimately get the air traffic controller's instructions to tell them they were cleared for takeoff.

I have a fairly good understanding. If my friend is prepared to make the call to Nav Canada to try to set up maybe a Zoom discussion sometime after the session has come to an end, I would be very much interested in taking part in that call and maybe we can come up with something we can jointly send to the minister.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in adjournment proceedings. My question goes back to remarks I made in question period. While it was a question, I am not sure that we got a real answer.

Of course, this goes back to the WE scandal. This summer, we saw the now infamous Canada student service grant presented to Canadians worth $912 million. Before the program was able to launch, it was cancelled. We had the Prime Minister apologize for failing to recuse himself. The then finance minister apologized for failing to recuse himself.

The WE organization was right at the centre of it. The reason the recusals would have been necessary for the Prime Minister and for the former finance were that members of the Prime Minister's family had been paid nearly half a million dollars by the WE organization. He then he turned around and gave approval for Canadian tax dollars for this organization to administer a half a billion dollars.

The former finance minister's challenges came out of him having his daughter directly employed by this organization. He accepted $40,000 in free vacations from this organization. Both the then finance minister and the Prime Minister were at the cabinet table when this was approved.

We look back to very recent history and this is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history found guilty of breaking ethics laws. We have seen that detailed in the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau Report II”. That was, in the first instance, for the Prime Minister's trip to billionaire island. In the second instance, it was his interference in the criminal prosecution for his friends as SNC-Lavalin.

We now have an issue that will be the subject of the third report coming from the Ethics Commissioner where we have this situation where the Prime Minister's family received half a million dollars and he turned around to give that organization half a billion dollars.

What happened when the committee investigations got too hot for the Prime Minister on the eve of documents to be disclosed to the finance committee and documents to be released to the ethics committee? The Prime Minister shut down Parliament.

We do not have to remember too far back into history when the Prime Minister said that sunlight was the best disinfectant. When the Prime Minister prorogued, he said there would be lots of time for questions when the House resumes. Then the House resumed and what did we have? Over 40 hours of filibuster from the Liberals at committee.

We are going to hear from the parliamentary secretary about Conservatives looking for scandals under every rock, but the question to the parliamentary secretary is very clear. If there is nothing to hide and if the government has the courage of its convictions, why not just let these matters come to a vote? Why filibuster? Why give rise to the appearance of corruption if, as he will tell us, there is none? We have seen them obstruct, filibuster and look to block rightful questions by the official opposition and by parliamentarians into the conduct of the government. It is unbecoming of a Prime Minister. It is shaking the confidence Canadians have in their parliamentarians and in Parliament.

We need to get back to good, ethical government. I look for Canadians to have that opportunity after the next election by electing a Conservative government with the Prime Minister being from the riding of Durham. In the meantime, we need the current, temporary occupant of the Prime Minister's Office to do his part and let the sun shine in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not be surprised to hear that we already have a good, ethical government, a government that understands and appreciates the importance of accountability and transparency. The opposition parties saying this is a scandal does not make it a scandal.

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to participate in a lot of the discussions on this topic, primarily because of other commitments, but I would not concede to the official opposition that there is this huge scandal. It is interesting when my friend references, as he did today in his three or four minutes, that this is the first Prime Minister who has been held in violation by the Ethics Commissioner. There is nothing of that nature.

It was Stephen Harper who brought in the Ethics Commissioner, so it is not as though the commissioner was there for other prime ministers. However, the member tries to give the impression that we have a really bad prime minister. The Ethics Commissioner, after all, found a couple of examples where the Prime Minister made some mistakes, which the Prime Minister owned up to. He apologized where he needed to apologize.

The focus of the Conservatives in opposition, since day one, has always been what I would classify as character assassination. They do not care what the policies are. They go after the Prime Minister, the minister of finance, or any minister, and talk scandal, whether it exists or not. That is what they want to talk about.

The member referenced the filibuster, saying the Liberals are bad because we have been doing 40 hours of filibustering, as the Conservatives are being somewhat mischievous and looking under every rock for a scandal. They are calling for civil servant after civil servant to go before the committee. I think my colleagues did a good job of ensuring that this government continues, even though the opposition continues to look for made-up conspiracies, in some cases.

We continue to be focused on the coronavirus. That has been clearly demonstrated. While Conservatives would rather have civil servants answering questions about conspiracy, we prefer civil servants doing what they do best, which is serving Canadians by minimizing the negative damage of the coronavirus. That has been our priority, and that has been demonstrated with the many programs we have introduced.

We have been talking a lot about vaccinations lately, and justifiably so. I asked the Conservative opposition during debate the other day where the thousands of questions about the vaccination issue were during the summer, in July and August. No, they wanted to fan this whole notion that there is this huge scandal. There was no huge WE scandal. Yes, there were some mistakes, and those mistakes are very well established, but the government continues to focus its attention on the pandemic.

As much as the Conservatives try to divert our attention, we are continuing to focus on the coronavirus. I would encourage my friend to try to influence his caucus colleagues to do likewise.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite never fails to disappoint in his responses to my comments and questions.

The Conservatives brought in these accountability measures and were not found guilty of breaking any of them because we did not. Then Canadians elected the Liberal government, which immediately fell into the trap we set for it. What was the trap? Do not break the law. Do not break the rules. That proved impossible for the Liberals. Nothing needed to be fabricated. No conspiracies needed to be formed. We have seen time and time again with the Liberals that the only thing they want to do, other than help themselves, is to help their well-connected insiders.

The member opposite needs to implore his colleagues to do the right thing and let the sunshine in and, guess what, the opposition will hold them to account on financial matters, the pandemic response and their ethical transgressions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member we are doing the right thing. I am not saying we have been an absolutely perfect government. There have been areas where we have made some mistakes, but when that has occurred we owned up to those mistakes and where necessary apologized. We continue to work co-operatively with the Ethics Commissioner and other independent officers of Parliament.

However, let there be no doubt. We are going to continue our focus on combatting the negative impacts of the pandemic and supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Those are the priorities of this government and they will continue to be its priorities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8 p.m.)