Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Aeronautics Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had a chance to speak about Canada-China relations since the adoption of the motion yesterday, I want to congratulate all my colleagues who were involved in that vote. I recognize especially my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills as well as my co-chair and the vice-chairs of the Canada-Uyghur Parliamentary Friendship Group. I know some of them are listening. I unfortunately cannot remember their riding names, but I am very pleased by the success of that motion and hope to see the government adopt that policy as well and advance it in following the will of the House of Commons.

When we speak about some of these issues of human rights in China, whether we are talking about the situation in Hong Kong, the situation with Uighurs or other situations, very often the community groups affected by these issues will raise with us as well the significant threat of foreign state interference here in Canada and intimidation of them here in Canada. This is the substance of the question I asked. It was about the steps the Government of Canada must take to protect Canadians from foreign state interference and to prevent elite capture; that is, to prevent the phenomenon by which the government of China tries to use money, blackmail or other kinds of tools to co-opt and control the direction of Canadian institutions.

These are very serious and significant issues. Various committees, such as the review committee of parliamentarians, have flagged the issue of foreign state interference being a defining issue. When I put forward a motion on this topic, Motion No. 55, I was joined on Parliament Hill by a number of Canadians who have been victims of foreign state interference. They spoke of intimidation, threats of violence, threats of sexual violence and just being barraged with intimidating calls and messages in response to their advocacy for democracy and human rights.

It should concern us greatly that the freedoms we cherish in Canada are threatened not only in other countries but also here in Canada for some of our fellow Canadians who are involved in speaking up about these kinds of issues. Questions of foreign state interference, of elite capture, of intimidation of Canadians who are speaking out about human rights issues in China and other countries overseas are very important.

The House of Commons has already passed a motion put forward by our leader that calls on the government to put forward a robust plan to deal with foreign state interference. We have not seen that plan yet, a plan that rises to the level of the challenge we face, in my view. I followed up with Motion No. 55, which calls on the government to work collaboratively with provinces, territories and municipalities in response to foreign state interference and also to offer support to victims.

As part of this issue of elite capture, we recently had John McCallum at the Canada-China committee. When asked questions about what clients he may have worked with previously and the questions that his work might raise about his independence, he told us that he was not able to divulge clients but that he would comply if the federal government brought in a foreign agents registry that tracked some of those questions of potential influence.

We also raised the question of Dominic Barton, our ambassador to China, who previously worked for McKinsey. McKinsey has worked with Chinese state-owned companies, and again there has been no information given. The names of those clients that our ambassador has previously worked with, which may include Chinese state-owned companies, have not been divulged.

In the midst of these legitimate questions about elite capture, the government is not providing information. I wonder if it is prepared to start doing that.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his leadership this week on the important motion that was passed yesterday in the House of Commons, which is obviously under active consideration by the government.

We recognize as a government that foreign interference presents a strategic long-term threat to Canada, to the rights of Canadians and our democratic values, to our economic interests and to our national security and sovereignty. Canadians should know that their government takes all allegations of hostile state activities seriously. The Government of Canada values transparency as a core value and works diligently to ensure that Canadians are protected from foreign influence.

As members are aware, the Lobbying Act recognizes that the public should know who is engaged in lobbying activities of public officials and it also regulates those activities. The Commissioner of Lobbying further supports these efforts through investigatory powers to ensure that there is compliance. The Conflict of Interest Act establishes clear rules for public office holders in order to minimize the possibility of conflicts arising from private interests and public duties. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Senate Ethics Officer actively work to ensure that public officer holders respect these rules. Moreover, the Canada Elections Act clearly prohibits foreign involvement in any kind of political activity regarding elections and during pre-election periods.

With respect to the exact question, the government is focused on protecting Canadian democracy from foreign influence, and a registry of foreign agent is something that we are actively considering. We are aware that some of our allies, namely, the United States and Australia, already have foreign agent registries in place and we are studying that. We want to make sure that we have a Canadian solution for a Canadian problem.

The safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad is, and always will be, our number one priority.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the parliamentary secretary would say that a registry of foreign agents is something that is being actively considered by the government. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clarify the timeline for that consideration. There are a variety of issues that we hear from the government that are under consideration, but it is important for us to know if that consideration will be brought to a conclusion at a certain point and when.

Second, what does the parliamentary secretary think of the situation we have with people like John McCallum and Dominic Barton, in one case, a former public officer holder and in the other case, a current public office holder, where they or the company they work for has an issue with client confidentiality and we are therefore not able to scrutinize and know which companies, potentially state-owned companies, they have worked for or with in the past? Does the parliamentary secretary think that is a problem, especially in the case of a current public office holder? Should the public not be able to know and judge for itself whether or not those past client relationships put the person at risk of undue influence?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the registry, all good things come in good time and due course of thorough consideration to ensure that no stone is left unturned and that we have, as I said, a made in Canada solution for Canadian problems.

With respect to other issues, our government continues to be seized with all activities related to potential interference. As I said, we have laws in place with respect to lobbying, with respect to conflict of interest, with respect to elections. Those are pieces of legislation with appropriate authorities and appropriate people responsible, who will follow up anything they consider to be inappropriate.

The government is focused on protecting Canadians and democracy here in Canada from foreign influence, and we will continue to be actively engaged in this. We will continue to take a whole-of-government approach to address foreign interference and we pledge to keep Canadians safe.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government chose to end the rental assistance program for co-ops and social housing projects whose operating agreements expired prior to April 1, 2016.

They have been excluded from phase two of the federal community housing initiative under the national housing strategy. It is inexplicable why tenants whose co-ops happen to have paid off their mortgages are not entitled to continued support, despite no change whatsoever in the tenants' need. A total of 277 co-ops are negatively impacted by this arbitrary decision, which affects over 7,500 households in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, P.E.I. and Quebec.

Equally disturbing is the fact that co-ops with operating agreements established under CMHC's then called urban native housing program are also excluded from receiving continued rent subsidy through FCHI-Phase 2.

We should not have to remind the government that one out of eight households in Canada lives in unstable, overcrowded, mouldy, cold or unaffordable housing. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report confirmed that close to 20% of urban, rural and northern indigenous households in Canada are in an unaffordable or unsuitable housing situation, a rate far above the national average.

The report identified 124,000 indigenous households in housing need, including 37,500 homeless in a given year. Equally disturbing is the finding that the annual affordability gap for indigenous households is $636 million. It is laughable that the Prime Minister claims that the new nation-to-nation relationship is the most important relationship, when the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed that only a measly 0.8% of the funding in the national housing strategy's 10-year plan is allocated to indigenous housing programs, and that funding is just ongoing subsidies for projects built before 1993.

Equally insulting is the fact that funding for new construction under the national co-investment fund earmarked to target indigenous housing only amounts to 0.5%, and 0% for all other major programs. Indigenous peoples are 11 times more likely to use a shelter. In Vancouver East, we have the largest homeless encampment in the country where 40% identify as indigenous. It is disgraceful how the Liberals fail to follow through with their promise that adequate housing is a basic human right, and their empty promise of a dedicated for-indigenous by-indigenous housing strategy has gone on for years.

By choosing not to provide rental assistance to the co-ops, the federal government is actively displacing low and limited income families, and putting them at risk of homelessness during a housing crisis in the middle of a pandemic. This flies in the face of the government's declaration in 2017 that adequate housing is a basic human right. It further contradicts the Liberal government's express wish to end chronic homelessness. The loss of these units will add to the overall loss of low income housing stock across the country.

It is estimated that 322,000 units of affordable housing were lost between 2011 and 2016. The last thing we need is for the federal government to add to that problem. Data collected by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada says that this fate has already befallen some co-op housing members. A patchwork of provincial and municipal programs have provided some temporary stopgaps to prevent member residents from losing subsidy, but those temporary agreements are set to expire this year.

Alberta has been impacted. Ontario has been impacted. British Columbia and many other communities have been impacted. Half measures will not do, and the 12-month one-time funding initiative recently announced is not enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole lot to correct there, starting with the fact that it was a $15-million announcement, not a $12-million announcement. This was done without any suggestion from the NDP that money was needed. I would further add that it is not our government that allowed those agreements to expire; the previous Conservative government did. While we have picked up all other agreements in the meantime through the national housing strategy, we have now announced an interim measure to re-enrol lapsed agreements in the provinces identified and have committed to enrolling all of them in the upcoming budget.

All of that said, the indigenous housing program to which the member speaks of, which is identified as a key core need in the national housing strategy, is currently being studied at committee after we made a commitment in the throne speech to fulfill the commitment to deliver an indigenous-led urban, rural and northern housing strategy. That work is under way and those funding opportunities are under way.

I wish the member opposite had attended committee to hear the Parliamentary Budget Officer answer questions. He said the bulk of the funding is transferred by the federal government to provincial governments, but he has failed to provide us with the details of exactly how that has impacted indigenous households, 53% of which live in subsidized units. Those dollars are funded through a provincial-federal accord, which is also accomplished under the national housing strategy.

The national housing strategy now stands at $70 billion, and it is immediately addressing needs through a rapid housing initiative, with a $1-billion investment to get more than 3,000 units of housing into the hands of housing providers across the country to meet the needs of the homeless. We are on the verge of launching the next three chapters of the national housing strategy, which are to fortify the co-op sector; build the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing stream; and fulfill our commitment to end chronic homelessness in this country.

I will add one last thing to this point, and it is very critical. What is going on in Vancouver East is serious, and for the member opposite to bring issues to our attention on a daily basis is good work on her part to represent the needs of her constituents. She says we are walking away from the commitments we are making and are not addressing them, and she characterizes them as insufficient. That is fine insofar as we need to do more, as I will never disagree that more is better. However, to pretend that we have not done what we said is wrong, and to pretend that we did not take the initiative to fix the co-op sector that had lapsed is wrong as well.

In the question she asked that led to this late show discussion, she suggested it was just end-of-year funding. It is not. It is bridge funding to get to a permanent solution. She criticized us for having it end in 2028. The reality is we will put the entire co-op sector into one funding envelope so that the practice the Conservatives had of allowing operating agreements to expire in the middle of the night will, thankfully, come to an end in this country.

The co-op sector is stronger because of our government and stronger because of the national housing strategy, and I really wish the NDP would help us build it instead of just criticizing it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Office's information is clear. I had a private briefing with the office and it indicates the facts. The facts are clear. There is a lack of support for indigenous people from the government.

With respect to the co-op program, I ask the parliamentary secretary to check with the minister regarding the letters I wrote to him. I have even raised the co-op sector at committee directly with the minister and CMHC, so I have been advocating for it.

With respect to section 95, where co-ops have been excluded, the government did not take action until most recently with this half measure. We can call it bridge funding or whatever we want to call it: at the end of the day what we need to see is permanent, sustainable funding so people can know their housing will be protected.

I am glad the parliamentary secretary has acknowledged the crisis in Vancouver East. We have asked the federal government for fifty-fifty cost sharing to directly address the crisis at Strathcona Park. So far, there has been no response.

We need the federal government to step up and help us solve this problem. I am more than happy to work with the government to get that done.

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

Mr. Speaker, solving this crisis is not as easy as booking a ticket to Disneyland for one's family. It takes a lot more work and dedication.

Let me quote what the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada said about our announcement. It states:

“We are very pleased by this news, which closes the final gap in our ‘You Hold the Key’ campaign objectives,” said CHF Canada President Tina Stevens. “Supporting vulnerable households is more important than ever, so we thank [the] Minister...for this decision.”

The co-op housing sector knows what we are doing and is thanking us for it. The homeless sector knows what we are doing and is thanking us for it.

What is completely unclear to me is why the member opposite chooses not to report the facts and build on truth as opposed to skewing the numbers to prosecute an argument. Let us deal with real numbers and let us get real results. Like the national housing strategy has delivered, let us deliver real housing to real people in real time with real investments.

Quite frankly, the Parliamentary Budget Office misses the key component of the national housing strategy, which is that it has opened the door to every single indigenous housing provider to apply every single component of the national housing strategy in order to receive funding.

We will not stop until we properly house every Canadian we possibly can. The goal is to eliminate chronic homelessness and get everybody who needs housing housed by the end of the national housing strategy's first chapter as we prepare to write the second one.

Telecommunications

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017 the government announced a partnership with Bell Canada to upgrade the Internet in northwestern Ontario. Over $4 million in funding was announced to bring this high-speed connection to a number of communities, including Madsen and Shoal Lake 39 in the Kenora riding. These communities were explicitly promised a high-speed connection by the Liberal government. Now, four years later, many residents have been telling me that they have not seen any progress, that there has not been any improvement in their connection.

The Liberals talk very often about how much money they have shovelled out the door to support different broadband projects. I am sure that we will hear some of that in the response to my question, but it seems that time and time again they would get an “A” for the announcement but an “F” for the delivery.

We know that rural and remote northern communities are used to being left behind by the government, especially when it comes to the issue of reliable Internet access. It seems that the government is very happy to get credit for the announcement of the funding but are not so keen on implementation. That is why I raised this issue back in January in question period. I asked the government where that promised money had gone, if it was not to bring Internet to northwestern Ontario, because we know that it has been allocated, yet we have not seen the results. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a straight answer at that time.

The bottom line is that residents in my riding and across northwestern Ontario need to see some transparency. More importantly, they need to see some results.

I would like to take this opportunity to simply ask again where the $4 million was actually spent and why it has not resulted in better Internet service for the residents in my riding and across northwestern Ontario who were promised it.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am happy to highlight for the hon. member for Kenora our government's progress in improving connectivity for all Canadians.

Today, as we all know, high-speed Internet is essential for all Canadians, no matter where they live. My colleague across the way has raised some very important projects in his region. I am pleased to let him know that the work is progressing well and is close to being completed. In fact, the portion of the project in Stratton and Nigigoonsiminikaaning first nation is operational, and the remaining elements are due to be completed by the end of next month.

We are committed to the principle that no Canadian household will be left behind and we are on track to meet our goal of connecting all Canadians by 2030. That is good news, but we knew that more work needed to be done, so we accelerated our timelines and are now on track to connect 98% of Canadians by 2026, years earlier than previously ever thought possible.

A recent example of our success is with our Connect to Innovate program. By the end of this program in 2023, nearly 400,000 households will have benefited from these investments. In fact, 100 communities are already benefiting from these important investments, with high-speed access now available. Canadians can also track the status of the projects in their areas with the new online tracker we launched this past fall. Not only does it share what stage the development of their project is in; it also provides the expected completion date.

However, the most significant tool we have is the recently announced universal broadband fund. The $1.7-billion UBF is the program Canadians have been asking for. It will fund broadband infrastructure projects to bring high-speed Internet to rural and remote communities. It will support whatever network infrastructure is needed, whether backbone or last mile, and it will be the best to meet the diverse geographical and regional connectivity needs all across our beautiful country. I am pleased to say that we have already begun announcing projects under the rapid response stream that will have folks connected by November of this year.

Earlier this month, the minister announced $6.7 million to connect 1,977 homes in five communities in rural B.C.; particularly in Pemberton, Steelhead, Ryder Lake, northwest of Princeton and the north Sunshine Coast. In Starland County and Stettler County in Alberta, 7,179 underserved households will be connected, and northeast of Sudbury, 74 underserved households, including 68 indigenous households, will be connected. Furthermore, 190 households in the Perth—Wellington region and 120 households in the Niagara region will be connected too. These are all exactly the types of projects this stream was intended to fund: small local projects that will make an immediate impact.

We will be making more announcements in the coming weeks and we always look forward to continuing to work closely with a variety of partners in every part of Canada to achieve our ambitious objectives. Canadians can count on us. Canadians will be connected.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seemed like she was about to answer my question, but then was not quite able to get there, so I will try again.

I am happy to know that this is, in her words, “progressing well”, but at the same time it has been four years. This promise was made quite some time ago and many residents in my communities, again Madsen and Shoal Lake 39, which I do not believe were specifically mentioned in her comments, are still waiting for this connection. It is all about the delivery, as I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows. She spoke about many projects and a lot of funding allocated by the government, but it is about delivering in a timely manner for people in rural and remote communities.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can tell us on what date residents in Madsen and Shoal Lake 39 specifically can expect to have access to this reliable, high-speed Internet as promised by the government.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that we launched the universal broadband fund to get Canadians access to high-speed Internet. The rapid response stream in particular will allow us to move forward with projects that are well advanced and shovel-ready as quickly as possible. With these projects, many Canadians will have improved service by November 2021. The impact of these projects will be felt quickly by Canadians living in rural and remote communities who do not now have access to high-speed Internet.

We will continue to provide Canadians with transparency on existing programs, like connect to innovate, and approved projects under the universal broadband fund. As to my hon. colleague's mentioning of Madsen and Shoal Lake 39, I am told that the remaining parts of those will be completed by the end of March.

My colleague, and any colleague in the House, can reach out any time. Our goal is to get all Canadians connected.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Spadina—Fort York has his hand raised. I do not know whether it is a question or a point of order. We do not take points of order during adjournment debate, but I will recognize the hon. member. Clearly, he has something he wishes to add.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order. Because this is a virtual Parliament and because usually late shows are not governed by the same rules, the member opposite, who asked me the question, repeatedly interrupted me during my answer. I am sure that while the question will get a lot of social media replay, I have the equal right to have my answer uninterrupted. I would like to restate my answer to the question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, we will not be able to permit that as this point. I have noted that this has happened on occasion when we have virtual proceedings in the House. We caution hon. members who are online not to use their online presence to heckle. The moment they do it cancels the signal to all other members who are joining online.

I note the hon. parliamentary secretary's complaint and concern about this and I will share with other Chair occupants going forward. Unfortunately, there is no process to permit points of order. In this case, I let him say his piece because I know we are in unusual and different circumstances here. We need to leave it at that for tonight. We will take his concern to heart and ensure we caution members about doing that very thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy, and I wish the other member was just as nice.

[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 6:45 p.m.)