SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 115 - Oct/21/22

Oct/21/22 12:59:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, on the final question of when I would like to see this go to committee, I think it will depend on the wishes of other members speaking to the bill. I clearly do not intend on speaking to it again having spoken to it now, which is the way this place works. Members only speak once to a bill. I have had the opportunity to do so, but there may be other members who wish to have an opportunity too. It is incumbent on the government to schedule bills in accordance with priorities. I will respond to this idea that there is a heavy legislative agenda this fall. Let us go back over the last two years while this general concept of shifting the process has been under discussion. We had a prorogation of Parliament. We had the suspension of Parliament much beyond what was warranted by the pandemic. We had an early election, which cancelled a bunch of legislation that was working its way through the process. These are the things the government has to be accountable for. It creates an artificial urgency and then blames the opposition, which is not reasonable.

195 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/21/22 1:00:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that this bill has been studied in the Senate already, having been introduced there back in May 2020. When I reviewed the debate in the House from June, parliamentarians, at the time, agreed there was fairly unanimous support for the substance of the legislation, and there was not significant or contentious subject matter. From our conversations today, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is the third Conservative speaker to speak for 20 minutes, rather than a shorter 10-minute intervention, with speakers given some amount of latitude in each case, as is appropriate. It gives me an indication that all other parties are fairly satisfied to have this round of debate on Bill C-9 come to a close and move onto other pieces of legislation of interest to Canadians. My interest, for example, would be to see legislation addressing the cost of housing, the climate crisis and the poisoned drug supply, just to name a few. All of which have a substantial impact on my neighbours. I would be interested in hearing further reflections from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on other elements he feels more debate is required on this legislation before study follows at committee after a second reading.

216 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/21/22 1:02:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned what some of his legislative priorities would be for discussion in the House. We are both members of opposition parties, and it is the government that decides which legislation to present and bring forward. I would have opposed the early election, the prorogation, the grand suspension during the pandemic and some of these other circumstances that have made it more difficult to bring forward and advance some of these legislative items. I would also say that I do not quite agree with the framing of parties speaking to this or not. I think this is something that his party has championed as a concept. We all come into this House, fundamentally, as individuals. Individuals will wish to speak to legislation or not, depending on what the issues are that they want to raise. I think it is clear from my intervention that there were some specific things I was interested in raising and highlighting during this discussion. Hopefully, that intervention is helpful to the House. How many colleagues from other parties want to do this? Personally, I do not know. It is important for individuals to have those individual rights as members to speak to legislation affirmed on an individual basis, not on a party basis.

211 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/21/22 1:03:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North when he said we should move forward with Bill C‑9. One of the things that has surprised me a lot since being elected is the way the government imposes closure on very important bills. It did that last week with Bill C‑31. That being said, I am also surprised by the way the opposition wastes our time sometimes. A few months ago, the Conservatives made us lose an hour to vote on which member would speak. I could not believe that anyone would do such a thing. Would my colleague agree with banning this type of dilatory move that wastes our time and setting up a committee to clean up these unnecessary things? What does my colleague think?

139 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/21/22 1:04:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, there are aspects of the House calendar that should reflect the rights of individual members to bring forward issues of concern, but there are also many aspects of the House calendar that are shaped through dialogue among House leaders and an effort to have give-and-take in negotiations. We all understand that there are some tools available to the opposition that the opposition sometimes tries to use in order to engage with important priorities to create some degree of balance in this place between government and opposition. It is a legitimate conversation that the member raises about possible reforms to Standing Orders. Any changes to the Standing Orders need to preserve an appropriate balance between government and opposition. There may be ways of shifting that balance while preserving it. When this issue was raised at the procedure and House affairs committee two Parliaments ago, Conservatives said we should have the discussion, but we want to have the discussion with the recognition that changes to the Standing Orders should proceed on the basis of agreement among parties and not be unilaterally imposed by the government. That is an important principle for Standing Orders reforms, so I will say yes to the discussion, but it needs to proceed in a collaborative fashion.

213 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/21/22 1:06:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, earlier in the discussion on Bill C-9, there was emphasis on the importance of judicial independence for our judges. I want to focus on another important principle, and that is the principle that judges should be aware of community values. Canadians were shocked earlier this year when the Supreme Court of Canada actually let a person off the hook who had assaulted somebody because he was too drunk to know what he was doing at the time. They used the defence of extreme intoxication. People were shocked to hear that. Could the member comment on the importance of judges being aware of community values?

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/21/22 1:06:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, it is a very important question. Judges obviously have to think about the wider aspects of the context. I profoundly disagreed with that decision on multiple levels. I also think decisions like that just underline the importance of the legislature stepping up and asserting its role. At times, when it has been convenient, the government tries to treat the Supreme Court as if it is some infallible body protected from error and that it is simply our job as legislators to understand the minds of our Supreme Court and work things out as directed. Sometimes, that is the tone of the rhetoric that we hear from government members. Not only is that not philosophically defensible, but that is not in keeping with our constitutional tradition. We have tools, including the notwithstanding clause, whereby the legislature can engage in dialogue with the courts in a way that disagrees and says that the legislature thinks the court got it wrong. That back-and-forth needs to proceed on the basis of rule of law of course, but it is important for us to do our job as legislators and not buy into this false narrative of judicial infallibility.

198 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Oct/21/22 1:08:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. Today I am particularly thinking about the Cree communities in upper James Bay, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Peawanuck, Kashechewan, Moosonee and Moose Factory, plus the people who have been spread across Canada, all of whom connect back to a horrific institution called St. Anne's residential school. It is important, as we talk about the act to amend the Judges Act to reflect on one of the darker decisions of the Supreme Court, its refusal to look at the miscarriage of justice that was committed against the children at St. Anne's, giving no reason or explanation. When we talk about amending the Judges Act, I think of a great parliamentarian, Rona Ambrose, who spoke up about the need for judges to get basic and legal education in dealing with sexual assault, because we have seen a number of really bad decisions, which have been referenced here. However, it is also important that our judiciary understands the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the obligations of Canada, and that includes the courts, to address issues in terms of the equity and rights of indigenous peoples. If we look at the cases of St. Anne's residential school, it is clear that any indigenous person looking at this would wonder how it is possible to get justice in Canada. It is not a complex issue. I will talk about a really powerful woman, Evelyn Korkmaz, who suffered horrific sexual violence as a child at St. Anne's, and the collusion of the Grey Nuns, who covered it up. When she went to the hearings to tell her story, the first thing the adjudicator told her was that he was a proud member of the Knights of Columbus. They were there to adjudicate crimes against the Catholic Church and the first thing she was told by the adjudicator was that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus. Then he told her he knew the nuns of St. Anne's, that he knew that order and that they were good women. She said she knew right then that she was not going to be believed. In any other court process, that case would have been thrown out, but not in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. One of the reasons the adjudicator did not believe Evelyn Korkmaz's story of the horrific sexual violence was that the other defendant in the case, Canada, had the legal obligation in the hearings to prepare the evidence. The adjudicator looked at the evidence supplied by the Department of Justice Canada and it said one line: that there were no known incidents of sexual abuse at Fort Albany Indian residential school. What was not told to the adjudicator was that the justice department had 10,000 pages of police testimony and witness names of rape, torture, violence and forced abortions on children in that evil institution. I think of this man who goes by the name of H-15019. He suffered horrific sexual violence. He went into the hearings to expose Father Lavoie and the justice department lawyers said he was not believable because Father Lavoie was not in the institution when the man claimed he was. As proof, they presented a two-page person-of-interest report, which was their legal obligation, on all the known potential perpetrators. A two-page person-of-interest report said Father Lavoie was not there. What the justice department was sitting on were 2,472 pages on a sick evil man who, through four decades, raped multiple generations of children. The case of H-15019 was thrown out, and when they tried to have his case reopened, the justice department and the federal government forced this case to the B.C. superior court, even though this happened in Ontario. Why would they do that? They did that because they knew that the survivors did not have the money to go to the B.C. superior court. How could anyone claim that this was a just process? What happened in that case was that, after the justice department decided to suppress the evidence, it shut the hearings down and denied justice. This is not a very complex issue. Multiple legal battles went on for 10 years and, finally, Parliament called on the government to settle with the St. Anne's survivors. The former minister sent, on March 18, 2021, a request to have the cases of St. Anne's reviewed. We thought, finally, there would be justice. That is all the survivors wanted. They wanted to review what had happened with the suppression of evidence. However, if we read the report, the request for direction sent by the federal government, it did not ask the courts to review this to get justice for children whose rape and torture had been suppressed. It did this because it said that people speaking up about St. Anne's was making the government look bad. It is right there in its request for direction. Do we know who it blamed for making the government look bad? It blamed former senator Murray Sinclair, because he said that there cannot be reconciliation without justice for St. Anne's, as well as Dr. Pamela Palmater, who raised issues about what happened at St. Anne's. Edmund Metatawabin, the survivor of the abuse, who speaks for the survivors, his name is in the government request for directions, saying that he is making the government look bad for the abuse that he suffered. Interestingly, of course, I am in there for about 30-some pages, but I do not mind that. However, Osgoode law professor Jennifer Leitch was named by the government as making them look bad because she wrote, “The government’s non-disclosure raises significant concerns about the scope of the information available to the adjudicators; the claimants’ abilities to establish abuse allegations and the scope of the compensation.” A professor of law said that this is a flawed process. The instructions given to Justice Pitfield to look at this excluded many of the horrific cases and he was directed that he was not to talk to the survivors. What kind of justice system is that? He examined 427 cases and he came back in his preliminary and he said that 81, at least, had a serious need for re-examination. That is 20% of those cases falsely adjudicated. However, in the final report, he said, no, it was just 10, student on student, with no blame to clergy, no blame to staff, no blame to government and no involvement with survivors. Of course, the survivors took this to the Supreme Court. When I talked to the survivors yesterday about the fact that the Supreme Court would not hear their case, they said that they were not surprised because this was a never a fair fight. They went with pro bono lawyers. There were days where they could not afford their own bus fare to get to the hearings, yet Canada spent millions of dollars on lawyers to shut this down. It was never a fair fight. This is why I refer to this when we are talking about Bill C-9. I am not questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court. I am questioning the lack of understanding of the obligation, in this time, to understand the obligations under truth and reconciliation to say that we have a higher level of justice to attain here. One of the fundamental arguments of the government was that the survivors were not entitled to procedural fairness. Procedural fairness has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. What it meant was that the fact that they did not bother to supply any evidence and they lied in hearings, that was okay, because the survivors were not entitled to the basic principle of procedural fairness. If we look at the evidence that the government brought forward as to why procedural fairness was not a right, they put it under sealing orders so that people could not see it. What is this, Soviet-style justice? Phil Fontaine, who signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, wrote that they would never have signed this agreement if they were giving away fundamental legal rights under this process, which would give them fewer rights than they would get in court. Of course, Canada ridiculed Mr. Fontaine's response and said that this issue of procedural fairness was completely irrelevant. It is completely relevant. On this day, the day after the Supreme Court has shrugged and said that, whatever happened at St. Anne's, whatever happened with judges who misread the reports because they were lied to by the justice department, whatever is said about perpetrators of horrific abuse, and we have many of their names, such as Bishop Leguerrier and Arthur Lavoie, those men got away, and the survivors are still living with injustice. They deserve better in this country. They never asked for huge compensation. They asked the government to sit down and recognize that what was done to them was one of the most horrific, evil acts ever committed against innocent children. Those innocent children have had their legal rights undermined time and time again by a system that wanted to shut this process down. If we are talking about amending the Judges Act, we have to look at what happened at St. Anne's and why there was no understanding on the judge's part of the need to hold this government and the justice department of Canada to account.

1621 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 1:18:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member and thank him for sharing his thoughts on what is no doubt a very important issue. Some of the personalities we all know, whether it was the former senator or someone I classify as a good friend, Phil Fontaine, and there are some deep-rooted concerns there. However, my question is in regard to seeing if what is brought forward would provide the tools necessary to ensure there is a higher level of accountability and at the same time respect judicial independence. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of moving toward change, and if what is being proposed within the legislation is, in fact, something that will move us closer to a higher sense of accountability within the judicial system.

134 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/21/22 1:19:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I guess when I began working with the St. Anne's survivors 10 years ago, I had this naive belief that Canada's justice system would work. I believed that the justice department of Canada would follow the law. It was the decision by justice department lawyers to obtain the evidence, prepare their defence and know who all the perpetrators were but then black the names out and not turn over those documents that undermined this process. I think it is hard even for judges to believe that this could have happened, so they accepted the justice department's excuses. It is political at the first level. On the issue of reconciliation that we talk about, there is no possibility of reconciliation without justice for St. Anne's survivors. There needs to be an understanding of what went wrong in that process and what has gone wrong in other cases dealing with indigenous people before the courts so that the judges understand the need to have a broader view of their roles and responsibilities.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/21/22 1:20:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his comments on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. The member gave some heart-wrenching stories about people who feel that they were not treated fairly by our justice system. However, a very important principle in Canadian justice is the independence of our judges and our justice system. Does Bill C-9 find the right balance there?

70 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/21/22 1:22:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech. I would like to hear what he has to say about the fact that, in the bill before us, the voices of victims are not really heard when the review panel decides to dismiss a complaint. The review panel may propose actions, such as therapy or an apology letter, and can impose certain sanctions on the judge. However, we never hear about the participation of victims. Could they be consulted more? I would like to know whether that is an improvement that could be considered when the bill is studied at second reading stage.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/21/22 1:23:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is important to ensure that the system protects the rights of victims. In the case of survivors of St. Anne's and other residential schools, the problem is that the government established an alternative process, an alternative tribunal. In this system, there are no tools to give the victims and survivors recourse if the court's decision is problematic. As a result, the court must protect the rights of survivors within the tribunals for Indian residential schools, which are part of an alternative system.

94 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Oct/21/22 1:24:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, we live in an era of mistrust and distrust, which is at the same time sad and disturbing. It is sad because Canadians would like Canada to be a place where we trust each other. It is disturbing because the erosion of trust in our society causes friction and discord. We have to wonder where it will end, and whether we can continue to function as a society if we do not have any trust or respect for each other. As a Conservative, I find it easy to mistrust the Liberal Party. It has a track record of actions and politics that I think are detrimental to Canadian society. At the same time, I acknowledge that the members opposite, despite their political affiliation, all put their names forward for election because they had, and all still have, a strong desire to serve Canadians. Last year, in a Maru public opinion poll, members of Parliament ranked at almost the very bottom of the list when it came to respect for their profession. We can take little pleasure in being more respected by Canadians than owners of social media platforms or car salespeople and advertising professionals. The lack of respect for politicians is a sign of the times, but I think honest reflection would be that all too often the practitioners of politics have behaved in a way that loses them the respect of the people they serve. Once again, I find that sad. I bring up the matter of trust because that is the purpose of the legislation we are debating today. In the poll I referred to earlier, firefighters, nurses, doctors and farmers were all high on the list. Judges were in the middle of the pack. Judges command the respect of the majority of Canadians, but perhaps not as much as they used to. Bill C-9, with its amendments to the Judges Act, is an attempt to strengthen an integral component of our Canadian system of justice. This bill would amend the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office, and it makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the minister of justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process also applies to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour. Bill C-9 modifies the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office, and another for offences that would warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. It seems to me that there is a benefit to outlining this process. The bill also states the reasons a judge could be removed from office, including infirmity and misconduct. I am looking forward to when this legislation goes to the justice committee to be examined in greater detail. As well, I would like to hear the opinion of Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the new federal ombudsman for victims of crime on frustrations victims have had with the judicial review process. I wish to congratulate Dr. Roebuck on his new position, which he takes up this coming Monday. It is a pity though that the Liberals took more than a year to fill such an important position. A cynic might suggest they do not think the rights of victims are a priority. I am not a cynic. I know the Liberals do care about the victims of crime. Perhaps the delay in finding a new ombudsman for the victims of crime was because so many government resources were devoted to the ArriveCAN app that no-one remembered to put up the job posting. I think it is fair to say that Bill C-9 is about increasing trust in an age of mistrust. I do not want to live in a society where the very institutions of democracy are threatened because they have lost the trust of the people. Canadian judges already enjoy a high level of trust. However, as I noted earlier, they do not top the list. If this legislation would indeed help increase the public's trust in the judiciary, then it is worthy of our support.

739 words

All Topics

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 1:31:13 p.m.
Watch

moved: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to work in consultation with representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, the Federal Housing Advocate, Indigenous governing bodies, service providers to people with disabilities, housing providers, and other relevant stakeholders, in upholding a federal framework to improve access to adaptable affordable housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities, which should: (a) consider the presence of an expert on persons with visible and non-visible disabilities to the National Housing Council, and that the expert provides advice to the ministers on the application of the National Housing Strategy (NHS) to persons with disabilities; (b) consider amending section 4 (Housing Policy Declaration) of the National Housing Strategy Act to include a recognition of the additional barriers to housing faced by persons with disabilities; (c) prioritize the creation and repair of accessible units through NHS programs; and (d) ensure that the right to adequate housing is applied equitably across all vulnerable populations, specifically persons with disabilities, both mobility and other. She said: Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to rise today to address the House for the first time as the member for London West who was elected for the first time last year in 2021. It is an honour for me to be able to speak to this motion. What a privilege to be able to come into the House of Commons and move a motion that would transform the lives of the people who actually sent me here to move that motion. On that note, I want to take the opportunity to thank my family for allowing me to come here every week. I leave them behind in the riding to do the work that I do, which has such a tremendous impact on Canadian lives. I also want to thank the good people of London West. When I was on city council, I was their voice on affordable housing. I was talking about accessible housing. They gave me the opportunity to come here to the House to continue to do that work, so I thank London West. On that note, I want to thank my team. We have been working for a whole year to come to this motion. It has been a long journey. It has been a lovely journey. I also want to thank every single partner and stakeholder who advised me, spoke to me and held my hand through the writing of this motion. Access to affordable housing and accessible housing is one of the challenges encountered by many individuals living with disabilities. As legislators, we need to do more to ensure these issues are addressed with tailored legislation. That is why I am excited to present Motion No. 59. I am honoured to speak for the first time in this House on the motion to seek a federal framework on housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities to ensure that persons living with disabilities have access to inclusive, affordable and adequate housing facilities. Disability is often seen as a barrier to obtaining housing and maintaining a stable residence. As part of the consultation I conducted with people who are affected by these realities, I had a chance to hear from Yvonne. Yvonne is a resident of my riding in London West, and she told me the challenges she usually faces when trying to access housing and how non-inclusive it is for her, especially because she has a non-visible disability. In her interaction with me, she mentioned the lack of funding to pay for rent as the price for the units outweighs the amount she can spend, and also the difficulty in finding a place that is accessible for a person living with a disability. Yvonne talked about the importance of having all levels of government working together to address this issue. About 100,000 Ontarian adults have an intellectual disability. An estimated 40%, or 40,000 of these individuals, have a concurrent mental health diagnosis that many are not able to see. I got to hear from the Reena Foundation, an organization that works with individuals living with developmental disabilities, and it reiterated to me the challenges faced by its members, such as long wait times for accessible housing. In Ontario alone, at least 16,000 people live with developmental disabilities and are waiting for housing supports. There is a projected 40-year wait time, and that is unacceptable. In the last two years, COVID has financially affected many Canadians. In the case of persons living with disabilities, they were highly impacted due to some not being close to their families or lack of community supports. The most recent figures show that in Canada more than 13% of the population lives with a disability. That is about four million Canadians who live with a disability. Out of those people, more than 400,000 adults with more severe disabilities are considered to be in core housing need. Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home, including Canadians with disabilities. Findings from our partners, such as Inclusion Canada, have found that people working in shift and contract work and struggling to pay their bills are often faced with discriminatory practices by some landlords. In 2017, the Institute for Research and Development on Inclusion and Society and eight other organizations presented a report to the United Nations about human rights issues related to housing for people with disabilities in Canada. In it, they pointed out that many people with disabilities have a hard time holding steady employment, particularly higher wage jobs. The rate of poverty among these working-age adults with disabilities is twice as high as among able-bodied Canadians, or 20% versus 10%. This also highlights the constrained housing options that make affordable housing prices, tenure options and locations more restricted at lower incomes. Over 30% of adults with disabilities live in rental housing, and almost 45% of that group now live on low incomes, compared to 25% of renters without disabilities. Among lone parents, we found that people with disabilities are much more likely than people without disabilities to have low income. The reality is that homelessness is another challenge faced by people living with disabilities, and we have to do everything to address that. On any given night here in Canada, about 35,000 people are homeless and living in shelters. On an annual basis, there are about 235,000 people who are homeless in Canada, and an estimated 45% of our homeless population are people living with visible and non-visible disabilities. The government has been working to ensure that access to housing is equitable and accessible for all Canadians. Since 2015, we have invested over $30 billion for affordable housing and brought in Canada's first national housing strategy, our more than $72-billion plan, which has already helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians get the housing they need. Through the national housing strategy, we have helped create, maintain and repair more than 36,000 units of accessible housing across the country. This is certainly good work, but more needs to be done, and we recognize that. Housing is at the heart of budget 2022, with investments such as a new housing accelerator fund to help speed up housing projects, a more flexible first-time homebuyer incentive, a rent-to-own program that helps renters become homeowners, and a measure to prevent renovictions. I am proud of the work that the government is doing, but I also recognize that more needs to be done, especially when it comes to our Canadians who live with disabilities, especially non-visible disabilities. That is why I am moving this motion today. I am happy to call on the government to have the presence of an expert on persons with visible and non-visible disabilities on the National Housing Council to provide the best possible advice to relevant government ministries on the best approaches the national housing strategy can use to benefit persons with disabilities. It is clear that the housing policy declaration in the National Housing Strategy Act as it currently stands showcases the government's commitment to a human rights-based approach to housing policies. This certainly applies already regarding the government's policy when it comes to accessible housing for persons with disabilities, both visible and non-visible. We have to ensure that every Canadian has access to barrier-free housing that meets their needs. In this motion I am asking that the government consider amending the housing policy declaration under the National Housing Strategy Act to add an emphasis on the recognition of additional barriers to housing faced by persons with disabilities, which would strengthen the government's commitment to a human rights-based federal housing policy in regard to persons with disabilities, including for future governments. The reality is very different for racialized persons with disabilities. It is much more complex and challenging, and they face compound disadvantages. When layered with disability stereotypes, racialized minorities are faced with more barriers in accessing housing. One of the ways to address this issue is to prioritize the creation and repair of accessible units through our ongoing national housing strategy programs, as this would contribute to more available accessible housing units that would be provided to those who need them, regardless of their social status. It is my sincere hope that this motion can bring all parties together to support it because this is exactly what Canadians sent us to this House to do. I have spoken to many people who have no disabilities, but as I think we can agree, every single one of us in this room, given the four million Canadians who live with visible and non-visible disabilities, knows one of those people. I am asking my fellow members of this House to help me move this motion forward. I am asking that we do this for the benefit of Canadians. Let us vote together in support of this framework that would ensure accessible, affordable housing for persons living with disabilities. I urge all members of this House to join me in supporting the motion, and I look forward to any questions and debate that my colleagues may have.

1707 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/21/22 1:43:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a group of people in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove who had been working on a large affordable rental project, but because of higher interest rates, it has now become unviable, at least within the affordability range. I wonder if the member for London West could comment on the importance of the government understanding the fiscal and monetary dynamics that lead to inflation and higher interest rates and that make housing affordability so much more complicated.

81 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/21/22 1:44:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her meaningful motion. As we know, housing is important. For people with visible or non-visible disabilities, it is very important. I would ask a question on a different topic, however. Bill C‑31 raises certain issues with regards to housing. The government is giving $500 to people who make less than $20,000 and put more than 30% of their income towards housing. Unfortunately, with the current wording, 87,000 people living in social housing in Quebec are excluded from this assistance. They are low-income individuals, but they will not be eligible for this assistance. When the federal government withdrew from housing in 1993, Quebec took charge. We set up programs, and because we acted in this area, now we will be penalized. The federal government will send money to the rest of Canada, but will not help the poor people who need help in Quebec. I would like to know if my colleague would agree to remove the 30% criterion that is in Bill C‑31, which is an obstacle at this time.

185 words

All Topics

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Oct/21/22 1:45:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question. I really appreciate the passion for affordable housing that he brings to the House. As I said earlier, budget 2022 is built around affordable housing. That has been proven. It is in our report. We have invested a lot of money in the affordable housing system. Once again, as I said earlier, the motion I moved today seeks to help people with disabilities. That is what I am trying to do here, and I hope that the members opposite will support this motion so we can adopt it.

106 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Oct/21/22 1:46:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would really like to thank the member for London West for highlighting some of the gaps in the national housing strategy and for putting forward this motion. It really does go to show why it is so important to have folks who have worked with housing in community. My question is around the mention of repairing housing, and I just wondered if the member could expand a bit on how the government can do more of that.

80 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

Oct/21/22 1:46:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I equally appreciate the member on the other side, her policies on housing and the work she has done in her community. I am very happy to sit in the House with her. I am calling on the government to repair the units with a lens to including access to non-visible disabilities. We have programs, many programs. In my riding I can mention a number of them that the national housing strategy has responded to, and I am asking in this motion that we begin to repair those housing units in the national housing programs to be able to include non-visible and visible disabilities. I hope she will also join again in supporting this motion, so we can pass it, because this is critical for a lot of Canadians. I heard their voices.

137 words