Anne Minh-Thu Quach

[Petitions, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with local food.

When Canadians buy local, it encourages our local farmers, our agricultural industry and our economy. Since buying local cuts down on transportation and greenhouse gas emissions, it is also good for the environment. What is more, when people buy local, they get fresh, nutritious food.

For all these reasons, and since the federal departments and agencies should be setting an example, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to host a conference of provincial and territorial agricultural ministers to develop a Canada-wide strategy on local food.

They are also calling on the Department of Public Works and Government Services to develop a policy for purchasing locally grown food for all 48,000 federal institutions across the country.

[Petitions, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today, which were signed primarily by people in my riding.

The first petition has to do with a national strategy to combat plastic pollution. Plastics are ending up in our oceans, lakes, rivers and other waterways and are threatening sensitive ecosystems, wildlife and individuals. Plastics make their way into these bodies of water in a variety of ways, including stormwater outfalls, ocean tides and currents, and direct industrial and consumer waste disposal.

For all these reasons, the petitioners are calling on the government to work with the provinces, municipalities, communities and indigenous peoples to develop a national strategy to combat plastic pollution in aquatic environments.

[The Environment, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has allowed companies to shirk their environmental responsibilities for too long. When companies do this, taxpayers end up footing the bill. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Redwater case that companies have a legal obligation to clean up orphan wells, even in bankruptcy. The Liberals have an opportunity to prove that they are putting the interests of Canadians ahead of big money.

Will they amend the legislation to clearly state that companies have a duty to clean up, yes or no?

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that my former colleague, Sheila Malcolmson, introduced Bill C-352, which proposed several solutions to the problem of wrecks in coastal areas. That bill never saw the light of day and could not be debated in the House of Commons because the Minister of Transport did not want the bill to be debated. My colleague was nevertheless very humble and wanted to work with the government and the Minister of Transport to make amendments to Bill C-64. The Liberals rejected 12 of the 13 amendments she proposed. When it comes to democracy, the Liberals say they want to do what is in the interest of the public and all Canadians, but we can see that they are not true to their word.

Several hundred vessels are rotting in Canadian waters, from British Columbia to Beauharnois-Salaberry to Newfoundland. In light of the melting of glaciers and the opening up of the Northwest Passage, a bill that protects our coastal communities and manages the dismantling of abandoned vessels is long overdue.

As members know, my riding has not been immune to this scourge. I am pleased to speak in the House, for what I hope is the last time, about the Kathryn Spirit, which, after seven years of hard work, has finally been dismantled. It risked compromising the drinking water supply for the people of Beauharnois and also for the people of the greater Montreal area, which is what galvanized everyone.

The Senate amended the bill, but it unfortunately did not talk about the amendments the NDP wanted to propose. The Senate essentially did the same thing as the government did with our amendments. It ignored the amendments that the Liberals had rejected.

However, Bill C-64 also contains some good measures. Any corporation that breaks the law can be prosecuted and ordered to pay a fine of $100,000 to $6 million. Those responsible could face additional fines or a maximum prison sentence of three years. Any vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above must have wreck insurance , which should seriously reduce the chances of another situation like that of the Kathryn Spirit from happening again.

I would like to remind members of what happened in the case of the Kathryn Spirit, an old bulk carrier that was 153 metres long and of 9,261 gross tonnage acquired by Groupe St-Pierre. That vessel was 30 times bigger than the limit set out in this bill. The bulk carrier contained thousands of litres of crude oil and hundreds of kilograms of asbestos, PCBs and other hazardous products.

Over the past seven years, I have spoken to the House on this subject more than 30 times. I have also sent letters and suggested solutions to the Ministers of Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment. I started while the Conservatives were in power and kept going when the Liberals took office. It took us seven years of hard work, but we finally won, thanks to the collaboration of local residents, the media, successive mayors and my team, which I am very proud of. We never gave up.

If the fines prove to be an effective deterrent, I hope the regulations will ensure that certain problems can be avoided. There was a lot of buck passing between Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. No one was sure who was responsible for this file. I hope the regulations will enable us to avoid taking action at the last minute and instead take action before disaster strikes. For instance, some work had to be done when the wreck started listing dangerously in 2016, leaning so heavily to one side that government officials thought it might fall all the way over. Four steel cables had to be installed. One even started to fray, causing sparks. There were fears that the ship could go up in flames in 2016.

It is important to ensure that all of the liquids have been pumped out and do not refill the hold. For example, halfway through the summer of 2016, it was discovered that thousands of litres of contaminated water had been left in the holds.

The last thing I want to mention, though not the least because the consequences are serious, is that we need to act according to the polluter pays principle. The Liberal government proclaims that it believes in this principle and hammers that point home when it talks about carbon pricing.

When it came time to choose companies to dismantle the ship, the government chose to give two contracts to the very company that abandoned the ship on the banks of Lake Saint-Louis, in Beauharnois. Groupe St-Pierre, the company that moored the ship, was granted two contracts worth a total of $20 million. What is wrong with this picture?

Would it be acceptable for the government to pay me to remove my own trash that I leave behind on my own property and in my neighbour's yard? I do not think so.

That is what the government did for Groupe St-Pierre. Jean-René Dufort did a fine job reporting on this on the show Infoman.

The irony of Bill C-64 is that the transport minister's program to dismantle abandoned ships will cost $1.5 million a year over five years. What a joke.

As I just said, the Kathryn Spirit alone cost Canadian taxpayers more than $24 million. The budget set out in Bill C-64 for all abandoned vessels in Canada was blown out of the water by a single ship. That is ridiculous. It is also completely irresponsible of the Liberal government when it knows that there are thousands of wrecks across Canada that must be removed and are waiting to be dismantled. This budget is a drop in the ocean.

It is too bad that the minister rejected almost all of the proposed amendments made by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson in committee.

I can describe them after question period. I see that my time is up for now.

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, let me state that the NDP will be supporting the Senate amendments, which call on the government to protect ocean graves of heritage value. There is really no opposition to this, unless it poses a threat to the environment or to navigation.

It is important for me to rise in the House to correct a few things about Bill C-64 because abandoned vessels are a nuisance all across the country. The problem has been around for many years and is costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars.

The NDP and civil society, especially British Columbia's coastal communities, have been pressuring the government for years now to introduce such a bill. I would like to thank my former colleagues Jean Crowder and Sheila Malcolmson, who was recently elected to her provincial legislature, for their tireless work. Since the last election in 2015, NDP members have delivered more than 80 speeches on Bill C-352.

Bill C-64 does not go far enough. It includes no measures to reduce the accumulation of abandoned ships, create a vessel registration system for accountability purposes, or implement a turn-in program for recycling vessels. All these measures were proposed in Bill C-352 by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson.

Unfortunately, the Liberals were quick to prevent debate from happening. They called for a secret ballot to determine whether the House could debate that bill. I am not sure how many times that has happened, but it happened again this week. The Liberals get to decide when democracy suits them. In 2017—

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, February 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I also want to thank her for talking about veterans and all those working and making the ultimate sacrifice at sea. The NDP will support the Senate's amendments with regard to the protection of ocean war graves in Bill C-64.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Senate and the Liberals rejected 12 of the 13 amendments proposed by the NDP to improve Bill C-64. The amendments were put forward by my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson, who was denied the right to debate her own bill. She had the collaboration, support and consent of many coastal communities and chambers of commerce, especially in British Columbia. Her bill would have helped improve this bill, which has several flaws. For example, it would have dealt with the thousands of abandoned vessels still polluting our waterways and improved the vessel registration system, so that shipowners could be held liable for abandoned vessels. It would have shifted the financial burden off the shoulders of taxpayers by establishing a fee for vessel registration to cover the disposal cost of vessels.

I would like to give my colleague a sense of the situation. Seven years ago, the Kathryn Spirit was abandoned in my riding, Salaberry—Suroît, by a company that wanted to dismantle it. The company was unable to do that, so it cost Canadian taxpayers $24 million. Under this bill, that company would have had to pay a fine.

Unfortunately, since there is not enough money earmarked for this and the bill is lacking certain elements, we cannot be sure the federal government would have been able to take responsibility for the vessel.

Does my colleague think the federal government should improve its bill to ensure that the polluter pays principle applies to vessel recycling? That would save taxpayers having to pick up the tab for owners who abandon their vessels on our shorelines.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the housing strategy, and, indeed, a lot of investments are needed. The Conservatives should not really talk either. When they were in power, they cut $119 million from the housing strategy. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths today.

A number of experts would be prepared to collaborate with the Conservatives on the development of sustainable energy sources if only the Conservatives believed in climate change, if only they were not climate change deniers, and if they were prepared to find solutions for the transition. According to many experts, Alberta is the ideal location to develop solar energy to heat homes and businesses. I am no expert, but I meet with experts who are able to provide figures, strategies and plans, which the government currently does not have. A number of experts are saying that we are at an impasse, because there are many targets but no way to achieve them, since national departments have no plan.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if I were him, I would not laugh so hard at the NDP's proposals.

The Liberals invested $4.5 billion in the Trans Mountain pipeline. According to the report we received, they overpaid by $1 billion for a pipeline that is going to pollute the planet even more and contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. All those billions of dollars could have been invested in the housing crisis.

We are trying to find solutions to ensure that young people, seniors, indigenous people, vulnerable persons and women can find housing and escape poverty. There are solutions on the table. The government has consulted enough organizations that work on the ground with the homeless and people living in poverty. At some point, the Liberals will have to take a look in the mirror, try to come up with solutions, implement those solutions and invest money where it is needed. We cannot wait another 10 years or until after the next election to invest 90% of the money allocated where it is needed on the ground. I think it should be invested right now. That money should have been invested years ago.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, everybody makes mistakes. All is forgiven.

Again, I am very proud to rise in the House today to debate and support the motion moved by my colleague from Saskatoon West. This motion deals with a very important issue, the housing crisis in Canada. The motion calls on the government to do much more than it is doing right now. We are in a crisis situation. Many people are living on the streets and are forced into homelessness because they cannot afford housing, when that should be a right.

Canada is experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis. We are seeing skyrocketing house prices, rising rents, rental shortages, long waiting lists for social housing, and a rise in homelessness.

An RBC study shows that the average cost of home ownership in major cities amounts to 48% of a household's income. Half of the household income goes to housing. Generally speaking, for housing to be affordable for an individual or a family, they should be investing a maximum of 30% of their after-tax income. The study shows that on average, households spend half their income on housing. That is truly exorbitant. It is very hard to get by. In Vancouver, that number spikes to a whopping 88%. People in Vancouver have a hard time surviving when housing costs nearly 100% of their earnings. It is therefore not surprising that far too often, many graduates and young workers can neither buy a home nor find a decent place to rent.

Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze, which is based in British Columbia, conducted a study in 2016. He found that while the cost of housing had doubled across the country since 1976, and tripled in metro Vancouver, incomes had fallen for younger Canadians. After adjusting for inflation, full-time earnings for a typical Canadian aged 25 to 34 had fallen over $4,000 since 1976. This drop in earnings makes it even harder to buy a home, especially in major urban centres.

In the 40 years between 1976 and 2016, the rate of home ownership among young Canadians dropped 24%. Between 1976 and 1980, it took five years of full-time work for a person aged 25 to 34 to save a 20% down payment for a house. Because wages are down and housing prices are so much higher, it now takes younger Canadians nearly 12 years of work to save a comparable down payment. In short, it is becoming harder and harder for young people to put a roof over their heads, even working full time.

Immediate action is needed to combat Canada's housing crisis. The lack of social and affordable housing is deeply troubling. In a country as rich as ours, it is unacceptable that so many people are desperately searching for social or affordable housing.

I want to remind members that housing is a right and that Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or ICESCR. The first paragraph of article 11 reads as follows:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

As a signatory to the ICESCR, our country has a duty to take concrete action on this right to housing. This means that the government is required to provide a sufficient number of low-cost housing units and to guarantee access for the poorest citizens. This is absolutely not the case right now, since 1.7 million families are living in inadequate, unsuitable or unaffordable conditions. The problem with the national housing strategy proposed by the Liberals is that 90% of the money allocated will not be spent until after the next election.

The money was announced two years ago, but 90% of it will not be spent until after the next election. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for people living with stress, anxiety, depression and addiction issues, because the funds are not flowing. The government is handling this crisis as though it is no big deal, as though it is not even a crisis.

Even government members, following the Prime Minister's lead, boast about making housing available to vast numbers of Canadians. The harsh reality is that there may be as few as 15,000 new units and about 100,000 repaired units. All of the money that has been spent had already been earmarked. That is not tackling the crisis; that is just maintaining the existing housing supply.

The member for Spadina—Fort York grudgingly admitted that the Liberals inflate figures to rhetorical advantage. That is absolutely scandalous. We know that families and children are suffering because of the nationwide housing shortage. What should I tell Claude, a constituent of mine who is having a hard time making ends meet while he waits for housing? The Liberals just see housing as something to be used to rhetorical advantage.

I will outline the situation in the biggest city in my riding. There is a desperate lack of social and affordable housing in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. A family making less than $21,000 must spend between 40% and 70% of its income on rent and hydro. Thousands of people back home in Salaberry—Suroît are in that situation.

Claude, whom I mentioned a moment ago, is a young man in his 40s living with an illness that has kept him from working for the past two years. He gets some assistance from the provincial government, but nothing from the federal government. His monthly income is a little over $1,000, which is not very much. Half of his income goes to his rent and hydro. After he pays all his bills, he has only $80 a week left to buy food and clothing or to get a haircut. He has requested subsidized housing, but since he just moved to Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, he will have to wait for several months before he can even apply. Even once he does apply, he will be on a wait list that is between three and five years long.

In a country as rich as Canada, why do our vulnerable citizens have to wait so long just to get a roof over their heads, when housing is a right?

This has been going on in Canada for decades. The Conservatives and the Liberals have let the situation deteriorate. No, the right to housing should not be fodder for rhetoric. We are talking about the lives of millions of Canadians, among them thousands of people in my riding. Anyone who does not believe me can talk to people working on the ground, like Christina Girard, the coordinator of the Comité logement Beauharnois, who says that there is an urgent need for new social housing units.

This housing crisis is particularly hard on women, whether they are by themselves or have children. Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has a very high rate of single-parent families, or 32.4%, compared to all of Quebec, with about 25%. Women are strongly affected by not being able to afford rent or the possibility of ending up on the street, which can cause mental health or addiction issues. The most common solution to this instability is to provide single-room housing, in spite of the health risks associated with this type of housing. The bathrooms and kitchens in these buildings are shared and are rarely in good shape.

A study shows that the rising use of single-room housing, where the other rooms are shared, exacerbates women's inequality. The authors of this study observed various types of abuse against women in this type of housing, including lack of security, difficult living conditions, paternalistic rules and even employees demanding sexual favours in exchange for providing access to the women's mail. Abusive acts coupled with women's unstable situations make them more vulnerable to eviction and force them to challenge such abuse.

In 2015, in the Suroît area, 8.6% of families with children between the ages of 0 and 17 lived below the poverty line, after taxes. In Salaberry-de-Valleyfield alone, the average cost of housing is $678 a month. The Valleyfield housing committee intervened 533 times in 2017. In 2018 there were 366 homeless persons and 1,176 people at risk of becoming homeless in the Suroît area.

The situation is so urgent and alarming that housing issues are part of the social development plan of the Beauharnois-Salaberry RCM. Reeve Maude Laberge invited me and other municipal and provincial elected officials to discuss a strategy and to ensure that housing, among other things, is a priority. When a rural area is not a priority, as is the case with our area, it is difficult to obtain funding for affordable housing, since we are not a major urban centre. All the money is spent in major urban centres, and regions like Salaberry—Suroît are left with the crumbs. We have the data to prove that rural areas have a desperate need for housing, and it is about time that the minister woke up and changed the funding.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House to support the motion moved by my colleague from Saskatoon West urging the government to invest—