The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, the government appears set to ram through damaging changes to Canada's refugee determination system through the omnibus budget bill. Despite his self-proclaimed title of feminist, the Prime Minister has shown time and again that when push comes to shove, he will toss the ideals he claims to hold so dearly to the side for political gain.

Despite running on a promise to include gender-based analysis plus for all policies, we learned in February that fewer than half of government agencies and departments have a gender-based analysis plus plan. We certainly know that there was no gender-based analysis plus done on these changes hidden in the budget. If there had been, these provisions would not have been buried in Bill C-97. That is why 46 women's organizations from across Canada wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to call out the fake feminism and identify the danger the changes will put already vulnerable women and girls fleeing gender-based violence in.

This is not the only time the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have, without hesitation, moved away from their self-professed titles and claims when politically convenient.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, received royal assent on December 12, 2017. Despite being in law nearly 18 months, the government has failed to bring into force all its provisions. This has allowed sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act to continue, and it is entirely unacceptable.

On May 15, the leader of the NDP and member for Burnaby South rose in the House to seek unanimous consent for a motion calling on the government to bring into force the remaining provisions in Bill S-3 to remedy this situation prior to June 21, 2019. It is absolutely astounding to me that it appeared that the government members in this place did not support that motion. Perhaps the politics of the day once again meant that those feminist ideals needed to be cast aside.

Yesterday Canada had a historic moment. The final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was made public and provided to the Prime Minister. This historic report lays out a path for transformative justice for indigenous women and girls to, as the title states, “Reclaim Power and Place”. Within the report are 231 calls for justice.

Call for justice 1.2 reads:

We call upon all governments, with the full participation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, to immediately implement and fully comply with all relevant rights instruments, including but not limited to:...All the recommendations of the 2015 UN CEDAW Inquiry Report and cooperation with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on all follow-up procedures.

That UN report recommends quite clearly the following: “To amend the Indian Act to eliminate discrimination against women”.

Bill S-3 has received royal assent, and the UN has called on Canada to do this work. The NDP has pressed the government to do this work, and now the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report is calling on the government to do this work. Is it not time for the government to do what is right and eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous women once and for all?

Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Vancouver East and outline investments that our government has recently announced to enhance the integrity of Canada's border and asylum systems.

Recently, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction met with Amnesty International, as well as with representatives of various women's organizations to provide an overview of our proposed changes.

First and foremost, I assure the member opposite that we are committed to a fair and compassionate refugee system that provides protection to those who need it most, and despite her accusations, a GBA+ analysis was in fact conducted.

Through budget 2019, we are proposing to provide the necessary investments to our border enforcement strategy to process an increased number of asylum claims and to provide timely protection to refugees. Our goal is to encourage those truly in need to seek asylum at the first possible opportunity in order to receive it quickly and efficiently. Let me be clear: No person will be turned away if they are deemed to be at risk, and nobody will be removed without an opportunity to be heard.

As Jean-Nicolas Beuze, a representative from United Nations human rights commission, has stated, we are upholding our international and domestic legal obligations as well as a welcoming approach, as claimants will still have access to a robust oral hearing, subject to appeal, whereby they will receive Canada's protection if found to be at risk of danger or prosecution.

My hon. colleague often discusses the need to support the most vulnerable. However, the NDP's actions sometimes do not match their words. The NDP voted against providing additional settlement supports to visible minority newcomer women to reduce barriers to employment. The NDP also voted against resettling a higher number of women and girl refugees after our government moved to increase the number of permanent resident admission spaces for government-assisted refugees. The NDP also voted against five days of paid leave for victims of domestic violence.

We have listened to the concerns that were raised, and strengthened our proposed legislation by voting to ensure that the right to an oral hearing, as requested by many, is guaranteed and will be enshrined into law.

Whereas the member opposite expressed concerns with our bill, it is worth noting that the NDP was the only party not to offer any amendments or proposals to strengthen the bill, despite having been given the opportunity to do so.

Global migration is responsible for the largest number of displaced people since the Second World War, and Canada has obviously also been impacted. Unlike the New Democrats, who seem to want to drastically reduce our borders, our government seeks to maintain the integrity of immigration and asylum systems, which are based on rules and orderly migration.

We will always provide due process and uphold international law for those seeking asylum, because that is what Canadians expect from us.

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Madam Speaker, the NDP sought to actually strike out every one of those provisions within Bill C-97 that undermine the refugee determination process. Witnesses at the committee were clear in saying that it was beyond fixing. That is what we did and the government failed to listen.

Back to Bill S-3, why has the Prime Minister, who claims that he is a feminist, not taken action to eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous people? It has been 18 months. All the government needs to do is to bring in an OIC to enact that, yet it has not done anything with respect to that. Where is the feminist Prime Minister who says that indigenous peoples and reconciliation is the number one priority? Where is the real action?

Mr. Peter Schiefke

Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate, getting back to the point about asylum seekers, as Jean-Nicolas Beuze, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in Canada clearly stated, the measure is “in line with international law”, because asylum seekers are still entitled to an oral process that considers whether they will face persecution in their home country.

Through budget 2019, we are proposing to make targeted investments for our border enforcement strategy to process an increased number of asylum claims, provide timely protection to refugees and remove those found to not be in need of protection in a timely manner.

Our proposed approach will allow Canada to process 50,000 asylum claims per year. I just want to reiterate that this is the balance that Canadians wanted us to achieve and that is what we are finally achieving.

Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP)

Madam Speaker, too many Canadians are suffering because of our government's lack of initiative to eradicate poverty. The measures in the Liberals' proposed bill are insufficient and do not go far enough. A thousand organizations and citizens from across the country are saying this, including some from my riding.

Ms. Denise wrote to me to say that she cannot find affordable housing that is accessible for her son, who uses a wheelchair. This mother is worried that she cannot properly care for her son, since housing costs are too high. Ms. Denise's concerns are shared by many others in my riding, who are asking for affordable housing units to be built. Affordable housing should be a right, not a luxury. It is a right that many Canadians do not have access to.

I could also mention Ms. Francine, who said that she cannot believe the government's inaction on social housing, especially to help retired Canadians. Pensions are still too low for our seniors to enjoy a decent standard of living.

I heard from Ms. Lyette, Ms. St-Pierre, Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Fournier, Ms. Nicole, Mr. Réjean and many others who want the pension benefit to go up because people who have worked their whole lives should not have such a hard time making ends meet. Estelle and Yvan's only priority is the old age pension, which they wish were higher. The OAS benefit is too low to help our fellow citizens achieve financial security, particularly if they have no other source of income.

The Liberal bill in no way reflects the reality of poverty in Canada. We still have a long way to go, not least when it comes to health care. Many of my constituents talk to me about that.

Mr. Houle, for example, has trouble managing his health because the cost of prescription drugs is more than he can afford on his pension.

Ms. St-Pierre has told me how hard it is to get hospital care because of the lack of equipment and personnel. Yes, I realize health care is a provincial responsibility, but the government needs to increase federal health transfers. Such an increase would considerably improve our health care system and help ensure better care for our patients. Much like housing, health care must not become a luxury. We need to focus on the progress that remains to be made.

The difficulties encountered by my constituents are the same ones encountered by thousands of other people across the country. The federal government needs to show leadership on fighting poverty or certainly regard it as a public relations exercise. After a four-year wait, the Canadian poverty reduction strategy still seriously lacks ambition and basically duplicates existing measures.

Did Canadians really need to wait for years for that, especially with the election just months away? It is smoke and mirrors. When will the Liberals finally stop ignoring Canadians, my constituents and everyone living in poverty, and finally introduce legislation that will really wipe out poverty?

Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question, because it gives us an opportunity to provide some clarification.

My colleague is calling on our government to bring forward “concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty”. The truth is that since the first day of our mandate in 2015, we have brought forward many concrete measures to lift as many Canadians as possible out of poverty.

One example is the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift more than half a million people out of poverty, including 300,000 children. To put this in context, in Toronto, the city I represent, poverty among single mothers has been reduced by 52%. That is an astonishing statistic. I do not think it has ever been recorded in parliamentary history. It is a remarkable achievement. However, we are not patting ourselves on the back, because 48% of single mothers are still living in poverty. We have more work to do.

The Canada child benefit, in and of itself, would be a wonderful achievement alone. However, the reality is that we have also done a bunch of other things that are equally important for other segments of the population that face poverty as a lifetime challenge.

For example, the Canada workers benefit is a new measure we put into this year's budget. Starting this tax year, it will provide low-income workers with even more support. Thanks to the Canada workers benefit, a single person with no children could receive more than $1,300, while a single parent or a worker in a couple could receive up to $2,300. This is a concrete measure to support people's incomes, which is one of the quickest ways to eliminate poverty. It means these people will have more money to cover costs related to buying healthy food or clothes.

We have also worked on CPP, reforming it for a lifetime and making changes that other parties said were not possible. This was done, again, in our first year. We also increased the guaranteed income supplement and restored the retirement age from 67 to 65, which will prevent hundreds of thousands of people from falling into poverty.

Our other substantial contribution to reducing poverty is the national housing strategy. Throughout debate today, the party opposite suggested that federal housing dollars were not being spent. I can assure members that since we took office, the $7 billion we invested in housing have been delivered to Canadians right across the country. More than one million distinct investments in repairs, construction and subsidies have been made to Canadian families since we took office. Those dollars were set to disappear and we have restored them.

We tripled transfers to the provinces, and now they are starting to build new housing. Also, we doubled money for homelessness. Money for the reaching home program and HPS has been doubled, from $100 million to over $200 million, to provide front-line services.

The reason we have lifted close to 800,000 people our of poverty is that we made investments in this in our first budget, second budget and our third budget. We continue to look for ways to alleviate the situation facing too many Canadians.

Pharmacare is coming next, which is another important step toward eliminating poverty.

This government has committed to reducing poverty in every corner of the country in every form it takes. We will not stop making those investments until we have eliminated poverty. We have already reached our 2020 goals. We look forward to eliminating poverty even more, perhaps with the co-operation of the NDP.

Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary took the time this evening to point out that there are still 1.4 million children living in poverty in Canada.

Tonight, I am more specifically concerned about poverty among seniors because they write to me every week. The hour is late, 12:20 a.m., but it is also the eleventh hour for seniors living in poverty, because they are at the end of their lives. We need to meet their needs now.

My colleague from North Island—Powell River introduced a bill that would make it possible to do that immediately. The bill would not even have to be passed. The government could take action to prevent the temporary suspension of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and should do so immediately.

Seniors should not have their guaranteed income suspended. We are talking about the poorest seniors in our society.

Mr. Adam Vaughan

Madam Speaker, as I said, not only have we appointed a minister of seniors to ensure we focus our efforts to alleviate poverty among senior, but we have also taken other concrete steps, such as the reduction of the retirement age from 67 to 65. We have also targeted senior housing as part of the national housing strategy, with 12,000 units of housing dedicated for seniors to ensure they have an affordable place to live in their later years. In addition, we put in place improvements to GIS and have fixed CPP moving forward. We have also taken steps to allow seniors to earn more, without having their CPP clawed back.

The notion that we are resting on our laurels is just not true. We recognize that since we have set targets for reducing poverty, despite achieving some earlier, means we have more work to do. We can now focus on some of the more stubborn forms of poverty, such as those among indigenous Canadians, racialized Canadians and rural Canadians. It is clear that the generalized programs do not necessarily work in those cases and specific ones now must be applied.

Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP)

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to once again rise in the House, even at this late hour, to debate some very important issues facing the people of Drummond.

I am here tonight for the adjournment debate because I wanted to come back to a question that I asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development about the difficulties that Canadians are facing on a daily basis and the way the Liberal government treats ordinary Canadians relative to rich corporate executives. When rich corporate executives ask for help, the Liberals come to their rescue. They bend over backwards to meet the demands of the wealthy, the much-talked-about 1% of our society. It is really unfair. The Liberals seem to have two sets of rules: one set for the wealthiest members of our society and another for everyone else, who has to wait.

I can give some very specific examples. On May 30, the CBC reported that some wealthy clients of KPMG, an accounting firm that serves the wealthiest one per cent, were accused of using a fraudulent scheme to avoid paying taxes and reached an out-of-court settlement with the Canada Revenue Agency. They paid no penalties, and do not have to repay hardly any taxes. It is an out-of-court settlement. They are protecting rich fraudsters.

When people in my riding make a mistake on their tax return, they immediately receive a letter sometimes accusing them of fraud and demanding immediate repayment of the full amount, with interest. The rich get off with an out-of-court settlement.

The Liberals said they would fight tax havens. However, during their term in office, they signed agreements with notorious tax havens such as Grenada and Antigua and Barbuda. These are two notorious tax havens in the Caribbean. When it comes to tax havens, the Liberals do not have the solution because they are part of the problem.

I mentioned other examples that will help Canadians and the people of the greater Drummond area. The homelessness partnering strategy, or HPS, and the Canada-Quebec agreement come to mind. According to the Table des partenaires en itinérance de Drummondville, the federal government's current approach flies in the face of the priorities, needs and practices on the ground. That is why the organization and other community groups want the homelessness partnering strategy to take a comprehensive community-based approach to fighting homelessness and wants to maintain that approach.

Will the Liberal government finally crack down on tax havens and take a comprehensive community-based approach to fighting homelessness in order to meet the needs of ordinary Canadians?

Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.)

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked about the approach we are going to take to fight homelessness. I can tell him two very clear things.

The first is that the $55-billion national housing strategy is in full flight right now. It is not coming after the next election but it is being spent on the ground, in real communities as we speak.

There have been one million investments made by this government, to the tune of $7 billion, that have paired, housed and subsidized Canadians right across the country. There were more than a million families involved in that process. That is the best way to end homelessness.

Let us compare the two parties on the homelessness file. The NDP, in the last election, produced a manifesto that was I guess focused on what it perceived to be the critical issue of homelessness and housing in this country. In years two, three and four, the party opposite promised to spend zero dollars, zero dollars and zero dollars on new housing in this country. Let us let that sink in for a minute. Then what happened was the—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Unfortunately, the member's time is up.

I am sorry; the timer was wrong. It will be readjusted and I will let the member continue.

Mr. Adam Vaughan

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the party opposite in its platform promised zero, zero and zero dollars. Zero dollars to build housing in this country for something it now terms a crisis. It was a crisis three years ago, four years ago and five years ago; it is why I ran.

One thing that frustrates me about the NDP policy is the investments it was not going to make in homelessness. The NDP was going to increase spending on homelessness by the federal government by a measly $10 million. That is it, $10 million a year was your platform, and now you lecture us on how much we are not spending.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

I remind the member that even in the late shows, he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member can continue.

Mr. Adam Vaughan

Madam Speaker, the NDP's plan for homelessness was to spend only an additional $10 million. We have put $2.2 billion on the table for that program, and on an annual basis, our spending is 10 times what the NDP promised. We still get lectured on why we have not done enough to fight homelessness, even though it promised to do one-tenth of what we put on the table.

In terms of the reaching home program, it was reprofiled specifically to highlight the extraordinary achievements that have been made in the province of Quebec, which has a holistic approach to homelessness and focus on prevention and permanent solutions, and does not make homeless people live on the streets or in shelters for six months before they will be supported.

We leaned heavily on the advice that was given to us by members of the advisory panel that came from that promise, which showed us a better way to fight homelessness. Some of those results are built right into the reaching home strategy. For example, we no longer require 65% of the reaching home program to be spent specifically on rent. That is going to be replaced by the Canada housing benefit, an $8.4-billion program partnered with the provinces for rent supplements.

On the reaching home file, those dollars can now be used for services to wrap around people to get keep them housed. As well, those dollars can be used to keep people housed with supports they may need in order to not fall into the most destitute situations we find on city streets right across the country.

We have listened to the homelessness advocates out of Quebec. We have responded directly to the demands they made of this government. Not only did we listen to them, we funded them. I go back to that campaign platform. On what planet, let alone what country, city or street does a $10-million investment solve homelessness? In the city of Ottawa alone, the increase to fight indigenous homelessness is $8 million.

The NDP has now chosen to follow Doug Ford with slogans about housing, with no program design, no mention of indigenous people and no dollar signs attached to it. They can print all the bumper stickers they want. The reality is that housing advocates need two things: funding and flexibility. With this government, $55 billion has been delivered, new rules have been written that respond to the criticisms that the member just listed and we are very proud of our record on housing. I would be embarrassed to have run on the NDP platform.

Mr. François Choquette

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that, in February 2019, the Liberal Party voted against the NDP motion calling on the government to act quickly and create 500,000 decent affordable housing units over the next 10 years.

With regard to the homelessness partnering strategy, I want to congratulate the Drummond RCM's partners in homelessness as well as community groups in the greater Drummond area who are responsible for implementing the strategy, groups such as the Carrefour d'entraide Drummond inc., Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, l'Ensoleilvent, Maison Habit-Action, Refuge La Piaule, Réseau d'aide le Tremplin, and the Fondation de la Tablée populaire.

My colleague seems to be saying that the government is going to do what these organizations are asking for. In our region, we absolutely need to maintain a holistic community approach to conquering homelessness.

Mr. Adam Vaughan

Madam Speaker, we have delivered a holistic, community-based approach to fighting homelessness through the reaching home strategy. It builds on some of the very good work being done in communities in Quebec, which are providing real leadership in the way to wrap around services to keep people housed.

The national housing strategy aims to lift 500,000 Canadians out of core housing need, with a program that builds, repairs, subsidizes and grows over time. As housing is built, subsidies have to built over time. If one does not back-end load the housing program, one ends up building housing with no supports for people, and that does not work.

In terms of the NDP proposal, to build 500,000 homes, if one had the labour and construction capacity to do that, and without any subsidies, the program cost would be $175 billion to get to 80% of market. That is the NDP program. It is a slogan, it is not a program. The reality is that the national housing strategy is delivering to get to the 500,000 target. We are repairing, investing and we are making sure Canadians get their housing needs met. We are proud of that policy.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later today at 2 p.m. pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28 and pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:34 a.m.)