Debates of June 16th, 2021

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing up in the House of Commons in these wee hours to speak to the concurrence of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The committee, in a unanimous vote, strongly condemned the sanctions put in place by the People's Republic of China on my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, as well as the members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has been a strong advocate for human rights for those in China and across the world who are at risk or face persecution as a result of actions by the Communist regime in China. He has fiercely defended the rights of the people of Hong Kong, who are fighting the dissolution of democracy, and of Taiwan, where people faced intimidation from the Chinese regime.

In addition, he has stood up for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who are facing genocide, as recognized in this House by a motion presented by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, and being placed in forced labour. We still have not seen effective measures from our Canadian government on that motion.

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has been relentless and consistent in his fight against the Communist regime in China and reporting abuses. Now the Communist regime has placed sanctions on him. These sanctions show, as my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said when debate first started on this report earlier this month, “The stands that we take in this place have an impact on what happens in China, on the global tenor of the discussion.”

Where are we now? While the government may say one thing about the Chinese Communist regime, we have not seen actions to back it up. The Liberal cabinet abstained from recognizing the genocide of Uighurs. We still do not have any concrete action from the government to make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network. In 2020, the Conservatives called on the government again to make a decision.

The public safety minister, back in May 2019, said they would make a decision before the 2019 election, yet here we are two years later still waiting. Canada is the only Five Eyes ally to not bar or restrict Huawei from its 5G network.

June 18, 2020, at the study of the Investment Canada Act I was part of at the industry, science and technology committee, testimony was heard by the assistant director on the requirements of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In his opening statement, he said:

Corporate acquisition is not the only way through which hostile actors can threaten Canada's economic security. Threat actors can also access proprietary government information through cyber-attacks, espionage and insider threats. Insiders are individuals with direct access to the systems and intellectual property in corporate and research environments. This could potentially include business people, scientists and researchers. Put another way, today's spies also wear lab coats, not just trench coats.

Those comments are very relevant considering the debate that occurred in this place this evening. As I said earlier in my speech, the government put in place ineffective trade measures to stop the import of goods made with the forced labour of Uighurs. My colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I have been raising the issue of products made with Uighur forced labour getting into our supply chains now for several months.

There are measures on forced labour in CUSMA and the government signed onto a joint integrity declaration on doing business in Xinjiang to tackle this forced labour earlier this year. A Conservative motion at the trade committee to study if and how these measures were working was voted down.

Since then I have asked the international trade minister numerous times if these measures have stopped one shipment of products made with Uighur forced labour. Every single time I have asked, recently about parts of solar panels, we have received not an answer, but deflection.

How is it that the government cannot say if even one shipment has been stopped? Could it be because the answer is zero? After all, the Minister of International Trade told me during recent questioning that these measures are still being operationalized. Well “operationalized” sounds like either these measures are still not in place or no imports have been stopped.

It is not just Conservatives on this issue. The Toronto Star reported in March 2021 that despite government measures, products made with alleged Uighur forced labour, such as train parts and textiles, were still entering Canada. In May, Global News reported our solar panel supply chains might be tainted with Uighur forced labour from Xinjiang. We hear time after time about different products potentially made with Uighur forced labour coming into Canada and the government doing nothing to stop it.

This is why my colleague, the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills, stands in the House to put pressure on the government to act and is now facing sanctions from the Chinese regime because of it.

The government is constantly failing to report on human rights abuses by the Chinese communist regime. On this side of the House we will continue to stand up for human rights and we will ask questions that need to be asked, because the government is failing to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the excellent work she is doing on the issue of Uighur forced labour. She is doing such a good job that I am sure she will have the honour of being added to the sanctions list at some point as well.

It is so disappointing to see that the government seemed to want to be able to make some kind of an announcement on Uighur forced labour, yet after putting out an announcement it has been telling us it is not ready and is still working out details or backfilling things. By all indications, no shipments have been stopped. It seems to me that we need to see something modelled after the United States' Uighur forced labour prevention act: a bipartisan legislative initiative that recognizes the reality that so many of the products that come out of Xinjiang are at risk of involving forced labour.

It is more of a comment than a question. I want to congratulate my colleague on the work she is doing on this front at the trade committee. It is too bad she was not able to get the support for a study on that from other members, but hopefully we can continue to put pressure on the government to move this forward.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a team effort. There are many on this side of the House who are asking very difficult questions at various committees and in the House of Commons. Many of our colleagues are definitely very concerned about these issues and continually press the government, asking the questions and looking for answers. We have not received any of the answers to the questions that we have been asking. We will continue to press.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague that the all-party group to end modern day slavery and human trafficking heard yesterday from experts on whether Canada Border Services had stopped any shipments. Yesterday, they had not heard of any shipments being stopped.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his update to the House. Those are the types of questions that we need to continue to ask, and to ask what is not working. If we cannot get answers, then there are some processes that are not working or there are some policies that are not working. Is there something to hide? Those are the kinds of questions that we need to keep pressing.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, congratulations and thank you for all your years of service. There has never been a more honourable gentleman or lady in that chair. Thank you very much.

I am wondering this: Could the hon. member comment more on the impact of the Uighur genocide and the human rights violations that are going on there? What actions should be taken to protect vulnerable people in China and elsewhere in the world?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would be remiss in not also congratulating you on your retirement and for the good work that you do here. On a personal note, you were one of the first people who came to me when I was newly elected and you gave me some really great advice, so I will always cherish that. Thank you.

To answer my hon. colleague's question, this is absolutely very important. Human rights are something that we, as Canadians, have stood up for as part of our history and part of our heritage. It is very important that we stand against abuses and, in particular in this case, against products that are being produced by forced labour. It is important that we have processes in place to make sure that these products are not coming into Canada. Surely Canadians would want to know if some of these products might be tied to forced labour. These are the types of questions that we are asking and we are looking for answers.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the House, my hon. colleague and I stand in the opposition, on the opposing side, so I will try to be the devil's advocate and think about what the government would be asking.

One point that I think the Liberals would make is that it is a complicated world, and the supply chain is not easily differentiated from one country to another. Is symbolism not enough? Is virtual signalling not enough? That is the first question I have.

Second, it is easy for the official opposition to keep criticizing. Does the member have anything positive to provide in this situation, maybe something about securing our future?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in our platform we have five pillars for economic recovery and one of them is securing our future. This definitely falls into that.

As part of this issue, there are some procedures in place, but they do not appear to be functioning. As one example, at the committee we wanted to study one of those features, the integrity declaration, to see if it is even working and what can be amended. We did not even have the opportunity to do that. Every time we asked a question about that, we did not get any answers. This is just one example of something that appears as if it is not functioning.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 23, 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.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has only amplified existing vulnerabilities of the homeless and those who are precariously housed. With REITs and capital funds poised to sweep up older apartment buildings as distressed assets, the older and often lower-rent market rental stock in our community is at serious risk, and the people who call these buildings home at severe risk of displacement.

I have raised this repeatedly in the House, including in December 2020, when it was reported in The Globe and Mail that private buyers were lining up to try to get their hands on rental towers, especially the older buildings, which tend to have lower rents.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, people have continued to face skyrocketing rents, ballooning home prices, renovictions and demovictions. 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 a place to live. Now veterans who served our country increasingly find themselves without a roof over their head.

Clearly, the Liberals do not feel the sense of urgency to act that at-risk renters, 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.

I raised in question period the criticisms of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and housing policy experts of the complete inadequacy of the affordability criteria in the largest parts of the Liberal government's housing strategy, pointing to the announcement of a project in Ottawa providing 65 units at only 21% of median income. This makes the housing sound affordable, but in reality, it is $1,900 a month, nearly 50% higher than Ottawa's average market rent. It is clear to anyone who is honest about the grim reality of the housing crisis that the Liberals' national housing strategy will not achieve what the Liberals claim they are committed to.

Over 40 housing organizations and advocates from across Canada jointly signed a letter to the housing minister listing 11 concrete actions the government must take to address the housing affordability crisis. The NDP fully supports these calls, such as the need to limit the ability of the REITs and large capital funds in the fuelling of the rising costs of housing and rent. This includes the creation of a housing acquisition fund that provides non-profits quick access to capital for acquiring properties that are at risk of going to these funds.

Former UN special rapporteur on housing, Leilani Farha, wrote to the federal government in the early months of the pandemic highlighting the importance of supporting the non-profit sector with such a fund. It was subsequently called for by the Recovery for All campaign and by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as a separate piece from the rapid housing initiative. As of yet, the government has not responded to this call.

My constituents are rightfully asking why these predatory landlords should make hundreds of millions of dollars tax-free when working Canadians often have to spend over 50% of their income on their rent. I ask the government this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the national housing strategy responds to every single one of the issues just raised by the member for Vancouver East. I am very proud to be part of a government that, for the first time in about 25 years, has returned leadership on the federal stage to the national government and has delivered a $72-billion national housing strategy, which is building in all sectors and in all parts of the spectrum of the housing challenges that this country faces.

The member dismisses the rapid housing initiative as not being an important initiative. However, the rapid housing initiative, in the last six months, has spent $1 billion to acquire close to 5,000 units of housing. We have just invested in the last budget, which is about to be voted on by this Parliament, another $1.5 billion to further extend that program. This program allows non-profits, cities, housing providers across the country and primarily indigenous housing providers, who have been a beneficiary of the last round of funding, to acquire those distressed properties. It was precisely in response to calls from the former UN rapporteur on housing and from different housing activists across the country that we built this program.

We have also taken the reaching home program from $50 million a year to $500 million a year to make sure that when we purchase these buildings, we end up with a program that also provides supports for people who are homeless, and makes sure that the housing works for them. On top of that, in the recent budget, we have also added $315 million in rent supports.

When the member opposite complains about the housing that we are building inside the market rental program and the co-investment fund and says that they are coming online at the wrong price point, she fails to understand that when we build housing we buy labour in the market, we buy land in the market and we buy supplies in the market. The only way to make it affordable, and deeply affordable, is to provide subsidies. That is why our program does all three things that a national housing strategy should do: It builds housing, repairs housing and subsidizes housing.

I will take the member back to her campaign platform and the commitment to build 500,000 units of housing. However, if members read the small print, it required cities to come up with one-third of the money. Now, if we take the national housing strategy's rapid housing initiative, $1 billion created 5,000 units of housing. To create 500,000 units, we would need about $100 billion based on the current price point. Asking cities at this time to come up with $33.3 billion to fund housing is an astonishing demand to make on cities when she knows they cannot afford that. What is really amazing is that she has absolutely no plan to subsidize to make that housing affordable, and no plan in her party platform to actually repair and maintain the housing that is going to be acquired through this fund. The NDP makes all kinds of grandiose statements and expects everybody else to pay for them, and when their programs do not get support, sits back and complains about the housing we do provide.

The national housing strategy has provided hundreds of thousands of new investments right across the country to provide housing that is both new and repaired and brought back online, and is subsidized into affordability. We are not done yet, there is more to come, there is more to do, and we are committed to making sure that we deliver on all of these fronts.

The $72-billion national housing strategy is the start. We are not finished yet. We have announced $40 billion, there was already $72 billion and there is more on the way, because we are committed to making sure that Canadians achieve their right to housing, as we have legislated. We are the first government in the history of this country to legislate the right to housing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government will not listen to me, perhaps it will listen to Tim Richter who basically said that even with this budget the government tabled, it is not going to achieve the goals that it has set out to end homelessness. That is the reality. The parliamentary secretary may not like it, but that is the reality.

I have been strongly advocating for a human-rights-based approach to housing where everyone has the right to safe housing, and where the federal government meaningfully implements the right to housing as well. The government is failing to deliver on that. The faster the Liberals admit it, the faster they get on with it, the faster they acknowledge what needs to be done to address this crisis, the better it is for Canadians. That is what I am advocating for.

I know that the parliamentary secretary would not like to hear any words of criticism, but the reality is that the Liberals are failing the people on the ground. The member does not have to go far, just walk the streets and he will see for himself that the people in the community who need housing are not getting access to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the member advocates for policy, I am part of the government that has actually delivered it. We delivered the right to housing. We have delivered additional units and additional investments, and we continue to add more investments, more components and more chapters to the national housing strategy.

The member referenced the comments of Tim Richter, the head of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. Yes, this one single budget has not fundamentally ended homelessness overnight in Canada. That is a challenge that several budgets will be required to achieve. However, our budgets are lined up and are achieving those results.

The 5,000 units in the rapid housing initiative was not something the NDP asked for; it was something our government worked with the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness on to deliver. It is something that our government worked with housing providers to deliver. Now that we have the first $1 billion out the door, $1.5 billion is now on the way, and those housing programs will house a further cohort of homeless Canadians.

We know that it is a large challenge. We know of the inactivity of the previous federal government. We inherited a government that was spending $250 million a year on housing. We have put $72 billion into the housing strategy; $26 billion has been spent so far. There are hundreds of thousands of units across the country, and $1.3 billion alone in the city of Toronto to repair public housing. However, when we talked about repairing public housing, the House leader for the NDP said that repairing housing should not be part of the national housing strategy.

I can assure the member opposite that if we do not repair housing, if we do not subsidize housing and if we do not build housing, we do not solve the chronic housing crisis in this country. If we do not do all of those things—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Seniors

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the middle of the night to talk about something that is very important and needs to be talked about, no matter what time of day it is, specifically this government's capacity for creating division and creating different classes of Canadians, particularly when it comes to seniors.

Not only did the government choose to create two classes of compensation for damages created by the Phoenix system, but it also attacked seniors by not doing right by them. What it should have done was allow them to access compensation for all the problems they had with Phoenix along with everyone else.

This is not complicated. This is about a retired public servant who wants compensation because he had problems with Phoenix—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but I must ask him to change his headset, because the sound quality is not good enough for the interpreters.

The issue seems to be resolved. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is much better now.

I am not exactly sure where I was, but I was most likely criticizing the federal government for creating two classes of seniors, especially retirees in the Phoenix system.

When one retiree tried to claim his benefits, he was told there was no form to claim them. That form would not be available until the fall. That is not surprising because, in its latest budget, the government also created two classes of seniors: those aged 65 to 75, which we will call young seniors, and those 75 and up, which we will call seniors.

This budget is problematic for them for one simple reason. People who were 75 or older in June 2020 will get a single $500 payment in August 2021 and, starting next year, their guaranteed income supplement will go up by 10%.

Why did this government choose to help only some seniors, not all seniors including those aged 65 to 75?

That is what we want to know, what everyone wants to know. That is certainly what seniors want to know, and what seniors' groups in my riding want to know. I have never received so many emails as I did after this budget announcement. People are shocked, and rightfully so. There is no reason why people 65 to 75 years of age should not also receive government assistance, because the cost of living is going up for everyone, especially the cost of gas and groceries.

Am I to believe that people 65 to 75 years of age spend less than people 75 and up? Absolutely not, that would be ridiculous. It is difficult to imagine how disappointed these people are with the government's most recent budget.

Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president of the FADOQ network, which is the largest network of seniors organizations in Canada, said that providing financial assistance to seniors was a good gesture, but that those under 75 who are eligible for old age security receive absolutely nothing, zilch. She simply cannot understand why that distinction was made and why the Liberal government chose to create two classes of seniors.

These people were also victims of the pandemic. They were isolated, sometimes mistreated because they were unable to see their loved ones who, in turn, could not help them during the pandemic. They literally feel abandoned by the Liberal government.

Here is the question I would like to ask tonight: Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on dividing seniors into two classes so that those who just retired, or the younger seniors, receive less than seniors aged 75 and over?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to congratulate you on your distinguished career in Parliament. You are an honourable man. You have conducted yourself with great dignity as a member here and you will be greatly missed.

It is a pleasure for me to answer the question from the member for Mégantic—L'Érable about the harm the Phoenix system caused to retired federal public servants.

First, let me say that the government has the greatest respect for its dedicated and hard-working public servants, both retirees and those who are currently employed. All current and former public servants—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I thank him for his kind words, by the way.

We are having a slight problem with the audio. The member's headset looks to be the correct standard, but I wonder if the microphone in use is the one on the device.

The problem seems to be resolved.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government.