Tracey Ramsey

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

I am sorry. I will have to interrupt my speech because I cannot hear over the member for Spadina—Fort York across the aisle. If he could please be respectful, I would appreciate it.

Again, after World War II, we built 300,000 units in 36 months. This is the kind of commitment that is required to help get us back to being a country where people are cared for and not left behind.

I will end by talking about three people in my riding who I know are experiencing difficulty with housing.

First is Crystal who came to us because her brother Darell was living in a tent as he could not find affordable housing. We helped to work with him to find a subsidy, but this story is not unique. I hear my colleagues talk about tent cities from coast to coast to coast, because people simply have no other option to have a roof over their heads.

Fred, a former co-worker of mine, met with me about his daughter. His daughter, Tracey, is a single mother with five kids, living with her father. He told us that the kids sleep in his living room because she cannot find affordable housing.

These are the stories that we are facing in our ridings. This is why the New Democrats will never stop talking about housing and the issues that matter to Canadians.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

This opposition day motion of my New Democratic colleague, the member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, is coming at a critical time in Canada as we face the worst housing crisis we have ever experienced: Exploding housing prices, increasing rents, shortage of rental housing, long wait lists for non-market housing and more homelessness. The portion of household expenses that Canadians are dedicating to housing has been rising while their incomes are not. I thank the member for her work on this issue.

This focus shows the heart of who we are as New Democrats, that we are here for Canadians to raise their issues when the governments of the Liberals and the Conservatives have failed to hear their cries across our country on such a critical issue.

People across our country are working harder than ever. The Liberals will simply tell us that everyone is doing fine, that their policy is amazing and that it is helping everyone. There are days when I cannot understand the level of distain they show to Canadian people when they cite this. So many people across our country are not doing fine, are not doing well.

When 46% of Canadians is $200 away from financial trouble, do Liberals honestly think that means people are doing well? The next time they pat themselves on the back for political points, I want them to think of that number, 46% is $200 away from trouble. That is not fine.

I cannot help but think these are the same Canadians who are struggling to maintain or get a roof to put over their heads. We cannot find one for them in our broken system. In fairness, some Canadians watching this debate today may be wondering what affordable housing is. People have a lot of different thoughts when we talk about affordable housing. We are talking about spending 30% or more of take-home pay on housing costs. If people spend 30% or more of their take-home pay on housing costs, they are not in an affordable housing situation.

Housing is a spectrum. It has to include homelessness, precarious housing, market rentals, social housing, co-op housing, all the way to home ownership, and no one on this scale is immune from this crisis. Anyone on this scale can be experiencing difficulties in their housing situation today.

Measures taken by the government are not addressing the urgency of the situation and 90% of the funds earmarked by the Liberals for the national housing strategy will not even be spent until after the next election, even though 1.7 million families are living in inadequate, unaffordable or unsuitable homes right now today.

Safe, affordable housing should be a right, but for too many, it is increasingly out of reach thanks to skyrocketing rents and ballooning home prices that have reached rural communities like the one I represent in Essex.

In Essex today, housing affordability and availability is reaching a critical level for people who would like to stay in their rural towns. I grew up in a small rural town. I live in a small rural town. In fact where I live, Puce is not even called the town, it is so incredibly tiny. In these communities, housing is even more significant an issue because it simply does not exist. When one does come on to the market, it is gone very quickly. Social housing is non-existent.

According to the rental housing index in our riding of Essex, 46% of households are spending over 30% of their income on rent and utilities. Shockingly, 19% are spending more than 50% of their take-home pay on their housing costs. Almost one in five people in Essex is spending half of what he or she earns to pay for housing costs alone. That is not sustainable for people.

For those who own their homes, according to Statistics Canada, 11.8% are paying more than 30% of their income for their home costs. That was in 2016. I think it is safe to assume, given the housing bubble that has reached us in southwestern Ontario, that this number has increased over the last three years. I certainly am hearing that in my office and people in our community are talking about it.

I also know that wages have stagnated and the incomes of people in my region have not been growing. People are struggling to make ends meet and income inequality continues to grow.

In rural communities like ours, employers are not able to find workers because of a lack of housing. We need a strategy that addresses the unique needs of rural employers in communities like mine in Essex. I have many employers who come into my office who are trying to attract people from all over the country, certainly from Windsor, to come out to the county to work, but there is no place for them to live and driving back and forth every day is not an option for people. We have no public transportation out in rural ridings either. People are left to find their own way, to try to find employment and to find housing in communities where there is employment, and we know there is a severe shortage.

Human rights organizations in Canada and around the world have repeatedly drawn attention to the effects of gender inequality and discrimination in women's access to suitable housing. Senior women living alone are much more likely to live in poverty. These are serious issues that impact people across my riding.

Down in Essex, we were once a booming area of manufacturing with good-paying jobs and pensions. I see widows whose husbands who passed away had those good pensions, but they are now in homes they cannot afford to stay in or have had to sell them. They have pennies to live on, because, of course, companies have gone bankrupt and left pennies on pension dollars for widows and widowers in my area. It is really difficult for these people, these senior women, to afford the home they once built, loved and raised their family in. However, when they sell that home and look for an alternative, it just simply does not exist.

In December, I visited the Welcome Centre Shelter in Windsor. This is a homeless shelter for women. There were several women from the county from my riding there and this one woman was in tears. She was telling me how she lived in Amherstburg, one of the towns in my riding. She had her family, friends and support system there. She was forced to come into the city because she was experiencing homelessness and could not find an affordable or available rental unit in the town she had lived in her entire life. It was heartbreaking to listen to this woman's story. She has experienced so much of the spectrum of having a home, not having a home, and she cannot find a solution. She desperately wants to get back to the town to be close to her support system, but she does not see that within her reach, and that is heartbreaking.

It is important to talk about how we came to this point. The roots of the issue we are facing and discussing today are political decisions that have been made by Liberal and Conservative governments.

In 1993, Paul Martin in the Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing strategy and we lost 500,000 units of affordable housing. Then the Conservatives came to power and did nothing to address the shortage over their 10 years in power. Now, the Liberals are trying to clean up a crisis that they created, and they have been doing an incredibly poor job of it over the past three years. There are only two provinces that have continued to fund housing on their own, and that is B.C. and Quebec.

We can do this, but again, it takes investment in people instead of corporate giveaways. After World War II, we built 300,000 units in 36 months—

[International Trade, January 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that while the Liberals love to invoke Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, and my former president, right now the Liberal government has abandoned auto workers in Oshawa. It is not helping them to keep their jobs.

While the Liberals like to stand in the House and invoke labour and act as though they are the party that is standing with labour in the negotiation of this deal, I can tell the House clearly that Unifor members are contacting me every day, that Jerry Dias and I are speaking, and Colin James, who is the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa, where one of her members sits. Jenn Cowie, who is an incredible activist, is out there every single day.

Once again, governments of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike, but the Liberal government today, have left working people to fend for themselves. There are no workers out there in the cold today at GM fighting for their jobs in Oshawa who believe that the Liberal government will ever stand with them.

This trade agreement has done nothing to prevent the loss of jobs, and the Liberals have shown that they will not stand with working people when push comes to shove.

New Democrats will continue to stand with working people and with auto workers in our country. No one is fooled by the Liberal government.

[International Trade, January 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address a question that I had for the Prime Minister months ago about the new NAFTA and whether we would see a debate inside the House to have transparency and be open about what Canadians were signing onto through the Liberals in the renegotiation of the new NAFTA. What we know now is that great uncertainty surrounds the ratification.

The New Democrats were pleased to see Democrats in the U.S. have success in the new Congress. I have visited Washington and there is a significant change in tone and conversations taking place around the new NAFTA. It is quite clear at this time that Democrats in the U.S. are looking to reopen the deal to renegotiate some of the portions around the environment, labour, the high cost of pharmaceuticals and the drug patent extension in the new deal.

It will come as no surprise that the New Democrats will welcome the work of Democrats in the United States in an effort to improve the deal and see some progressive elements come to fruition in it. Unfortunately, what we have signed onto in the new USMCA is a concessionary deal. Therefore, we are hopeful that those efforts will be successful and that the Liberal government in Canada will be open to improving labour standards, environmental standards and, of course, to seeing the cost of drugs being reduced for Canadians and for all people across all three countries who will be impacted by this deal.

The future right now of the deal is quite uncertain, but there is a positive path forward that will see improvements made to this deal. I am hopeful the Liberal government will have wide open arms to them on behalf of Canadians. It is an opportunity not just for us to improve the deal on those three areas I mentioned, but also to address the still lingering and very harmful steel and aluminum tariffs. We now know that somehow Russia has been able to have aluminum tariffs removed, yet Canada has not. Therefore, we need to take every opportunity at this time to improve our trading relationship with the United States. Again, I hope we will welcome these additions and look for improvements in the lives of Canadians.

At the heart of the new NAFTA are millions of people who work every day for a decent life for their families and communities. Twenty-three years ago when NAFTA was being originally negotiated by Mulroney Conservatives, they tried desperately to sell Canadian workers on the idea that it was more than just a trade deal. They tried to make the case that the trilateral deal would bring prosperity to everyone across the continent. They claimed it was going to be an equalizer for all.

Working people studied NAFTA carefully and began to raise the alarm bells that it would not work. Labour and civil society brought their concerns to the streets over the weak side agreements that they rightly claimed would do nothing to change the inequalities. We have seen this play out across our country as well.

The Conservatives pressed on in the original NAFTA and now, in 2019, we can see the impact this idea, which was promoted by them, has had on working-class people. Successive governments have neglected to address the alarming reality that the NAFTA promise of 1988 has not led to an increased standard of living for all. The only benefit has been for those who already hold the power and the influence.

Income and wealth inequality in Canada today is at a crisis level. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby rightly pointed out today, 46% of Canadians are $200 away from financial trouble. Working people, like those in Oshawa who are fighting for their jobs, will be impacted by the new NAFTA. Despite the fact that Liberals are saying everything has been solved in the new trade agreement, that again is not reaching working people.

Today I rise with my question for the Liberals. If trade deals like the new NAFTA are so good for working people, why are the auto workers in Oshawa out fighting for their lives right now, and I would note with no Liberal representation in sight? All of those workers have noted that as well. If these deals are so good for working people, then why, after signing this deal, does the harm continue to impact working people who are losing their jobs while Mexico is growing?

[International Trade, January 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to talk to them. We have to do something now.

On Sunday, the U.S. administration lifted sanctions on the Russian aluminum giant, Rusal. Meanwhile, Canada is still slapped with Trump's tariffs that are hurting Canadian businesses and workers. Let me get this straight. Trump is saying that Canada is a national security threat, but Russia is not?

Canada is the closest trade and security partner the U.S. has. Canadian workers are tired of paying the heavy price of losing their jobs because the Liberal government will not stand up for them. What is the plan to remove these devastating tariffs?

[International Trade, January 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP remains steadfast in our support for preserving the integrity of supply management. Unlike Liberals and Conservatives, the NDP believes that Canadians should not have to make dairy concessions in any trade deal. Negotiating with Donald Trump is not easy, but the Liberals have been bullied into a bad deal instead of fighting for a fair deal that is good for people.

Fair trade must support local and small family farms, as well as rural communities like mine in Essex. The new NAFTA is a failure for these hard-working Canadians.

[International Trade, January 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time on this historic day, our first day inside the new chamber inside West Block. It is quite a stunning, beautiful building. I am very thankful to all who had a hand in creating this space for all of us to come and serve in.

As international trade critic, I rose in the House months ago to ask the Prime Minister where the Liberal progressive trade agenda had gone. In signing the new NAFTA, we have given up so much, including damaging hits to supply management, the increased cost of drugs, and our only possible chance to get rid of the steel and aluminum tariffs, which are crippling.

The new NAFTA is not the win-win-win that the Liberals promised. I cannot get a straight answer from anyone on how they think this deal, in which we gave up so much, is going to benefit Canadians.

Farmers in Essex know that the Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, have thrown them under the tractor when it comes to trade. Dairy farmers have become the loser in every trade deal that we are signing—CETA, CPTPP and now the new NAFTA. After being told repeatedly by the Liberals that they would defend supply management, how can any farm family in Canada believe anything this Liberal government has to say to them? Not only did we give up market percentage, which we know will continue to be cracked open with the sunset clause—another thing the Liberals promised they would not agree to—but the Liberals somehow have managed to tie the hands of dairy farmers from exporting also. The new NAFTA actually sets export levels lower than last year's levels. How much more can farm families take from the current Liberal government?

It is shocking the way the Liberals have sold out our farm families. I know that the Liberal member will stand in this House and want us to believe that after selling our supply-managed farmers down the river, they will now provide them with some form of compensation. As farmers across Canada are saying, “We do not want the government's money for selling our farms; we want to keep their farms healthy and thriving.”

This model is not working, and Canadians are not happy. People in my riding of Essex want safe, local milk products, and they take pride in knowing where they come from. They know that farming is the backbone of rural economies. Without successful, thriving farms, we risk not just our food security, which is enough of an issue on its own, but the livelihoods of our small towns like the ones I represent in Essex, which have become economically tied to farming communities and families.

They also know that we are talking about the quality of milk products. We are looking for the little blue cow and making sure that the choices we make for our families are ones we can trust. Canadians do not want to wonder if the milk products have bovine growth hormone or antibiotics; they want to know that they are choosing safe local food.

I want to talk about the automotive sector for a minute, because I am sure that the government member will stand up after me and talk about how amazing this deal is for the auto sector. We have to look no further than Oshawa right now to know that no matter the language in a trade agreement, corporations will continue to do as they please, keeping the tilt of jobs from Canada and the United States toward Mexico.

After the devastating announcement at GM in Oshawa, Canadians are learning that no amount of language in free trade deals, including the new NAFTA, will stop corporations from leaving Canada and heading to Mexico, where they are taking advantage of a low-wage economy and a country that is not respecting the environment. Workers are left to fend for themselves, despite the fact that the Liberals will say that this agreement is so good for the automotive sector.

Where are the Liberals when auto workers are fighting for their jobs in Oshawa? They are certainly not on the front lines. We hear absolute crickets from them. As proud as they say they are about the new NAFTA, where is that pride in standing up for auto workers today who are out on the lines, fighting for their jobs, fighting for the community of Oshawa, and all of the impact that it will have across the province of Ontario?

These are just a few of the reasons this deal is not the win-win-win that was promised and why working people and farm families continue to be an afterthought in trade agreements that are nothing more than corporate sweetheart deals.

My question is this: Why do the Liberals and the Conservatives keep signing trade agreements that hurt the working class and farmers?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With respect to the appointment process of the Chair and the members of the board of directors of the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) did the President and any other member of the board disclose to the Deputy Minister any advice that, if adopted and executed by Invest in Canada, would provide them with a personal or professional financial gain, or bring one to a member of their immediate families or to any organization to which they are affiliated; (b) are the Chair or any other member of the board authorized to disclose to the members of other boards of directors (i) documentation, (ii) deliberations, (iii) records, (iv) advice obtained, (v) updates, (vi) commission data; (c) did the President or any other member of the board report an apparent conflict of interest; (d) did the Chair and any other member of the board object to a discussion or formulation of a recommendation that would conflict with their other interests; and (e) to what regulations, laws or policies relating to conflicts of interest and ethics are the President and any other member of the board subject?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With respect to the federal agency Invest in Canada and its board of directors: (a) what is, to date, the total amount of expenses of the Chair of the board and the members of the board, broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of implementing a national strategy to attract foreign direct investment to Canada; (c) how many new partnerships have been created, to date, with the departments or agencies of any government in Canada, the private sector in Canada, or other Canadian stakeholders interested in foreign direct investment; (d) how many activities, events, conferences and programs to promote Canada as a destination for investors have so far been created; (e) how much information has so far been collected, prepared and disseminated to assist foreign investors in supporting their foreign direct investment decisions in Canada; (f) how many services have been provided to foreign investors, to date, in respect of their current or potential investments in Canada; (g) who are the foreign investors that the agency has met, to date; (h) what are the suppliers outside of the federal public administration which the agency has used to date; (i) what, to date, are the providers of legal services outside the federal public administration on which the agency has relied; and (j) what are the filters and anti-conflict-of-interest requirements to which the members of the board are subject?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to federal spending in the riding of Essex, for each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose of the funding?