SoVote

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

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Oct/21/22 1:47:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons to represent the constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha. Today I rise to speak on Motion No. 59 put forward by the member for London West. I appreciate her passion and initiative on this motion. The motion calls on the government to work with all relevant stakeholders in upholding a federal framework to improve access to adaptable, affordable housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities. We have an intersection of crises in this country. We have a mental health crisis. We have an addiction crisis. We have an affordability crisis, with interest rates on the rise. We have a definition of affordable housing that is 80% of fair market value. That is not affordable to most people. We have a housing crisis and we have a homelessness crisis across this country. None of these things are exclusive to each other. They have one common thread: housing. The national housing strategy put forth by the Liberal government is an epic failure. I absolutely support this motion and I support the work that is being done, but it is imperative that we speak up and call out why we are even in this position to have this motion put forth in the first place. This should have been built into the national housing strategy. Why, five years later, is this being put forth as a motion? It is absurd. It is a rinse-and-repeat cycle of the Liberal government, which is constantly in reactive mode instead of thinking ahead. Last Friday, I went to a homelessness crisis meeting in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. The winter months are upon us and I know that across this country members from all ridings will agree with me that they probably have vulnerable people in their riding that will freeze to death because we do not have a sustainable strategy in place for housing and, in particular to this member's motion, for those with invisible or non-visible disabilities. We will continue to be in a rinse-and-repeat cycle if we do not think ahead. Not thinking ahead means housing is absolutely a basic human need. If housing is put in place for people who have non-visible disabilities without supports, they will be put into a rinse-and-repeat cycle and it is just wasting money. Yesterday, I met with members of the FASD rural network, the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder network. For those who do not know what fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is, it is when a fetus is exposed to alcohol because the mother has consumed alcohol. The spectrum is very significant, ranging from visible to non-visible. Many people live in our society without being diagnosed properly and they need supports like many people. Think of it like autism or somebody with mental health issues. If they do not have the support, understanding, diagnosis or access to the supports they need, they will not succeed. It is our job as the government to put policies in place and make it accessible to access the money that is supposed to be there. Under the national housing strategy, it is a nightmare to access a lot of this funding. CMHC needs a complete overhaul. Reaching home is a program designed to say that it does good things, but it is not delivering what it is meant to deliver. Since 2015, the average home prices have nearly doubled and show no signs of slowing down. In the past year alone, average house prices have increased by over 28%. Canada now has the second-most inflated housing bubble in the world. The current national housing strategy has been in place for five years, and we are currently 1.8 million homes short across this country. We have yet to see the details, like many other programs by the Liberal government, of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund that is supposed to help boost the market rate supply of homes and address the numerous barriers to getting more supply online faster. The programs that have become available through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the national housing strategy have been so inaccessible when it comes to applying for and receiving funding that it is clear the government either is not listening or is not serious about tackling the current housing supply shortage. I can say with certainty that if members were to speak with their constituents and the builders in their ridings, they would hear that these builders are ready to put up houses tomorrow. It is the restrictions under the Liberal government that are preventing the supply that needs to be put out to help these people. It is important to also hear directly from those who would be impacted the most by this motion. The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association believes that Motion No. 59 is too narrow in scope. Empowering individuals to get ahead requires housing and services that support their individual needs. The NHS has been around for five years and has not met these needs despite advocacy from the housing sector. Why is this finally happening five years in? However, it does support the motion. My riding of Peterborough—Kawartha was ranked as the most overvalued housing market in Canada, at 107% overvalued, in April 2022. The reason for this was lack of supply. As it stands right now, we are not meeting demand and we have not been building to meet the demand for 30 years. While more houses were being built in 2021 and 2022, two good years certainly do not make up for 30 years of not building enough. The population in my community has steadily risen due to immigration, but the number of new homes built has fluctuated, and there were a number of years when no new apartment buildings were built in the city of Peterborough at all. We cannot continue to build homes at the same rate as in the 1970s and think we are doing enough. We need all levels of housing built at an expedited rate, with a focus on the missing middle when we look at the housing continuum. This motion puts a focus on housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities. Still, to fulsomely address this housing shortage we need to look at all levels of housing, from single detached family homes to mid- and high-rise apartments with one bedroom. We even need to look at tiny homes. Every single one of these pieces matters because they free up supply for those who need it most and keep costs down. What can we do better to address the current lack of housing across our country? As I have outlined in this speech today, one is the timely release of funding programs once they are announced. Housing cannot wait for a flashy headline. Another is easier applications. Many of the organizations that are applying for funding for affordable units are grassroots not-for-profits on shoestring budgets that many times are hiring staff solely to fill out applications and waiting extended periods to hear if they were successful. It is such a ridiculous system. We need to create service standards with transparency on successful applications, and accountability on how many dollars remain in specific funds and where funds are going. If we have learned one thing already in this Parliament, it is that the government needs to be accountable for wasteful spending. There is money that can be used properly and not for reckless spending. That is where we are losing taxpayer money. The ArriveCAN app should have cost $250,000 but cost $54 million, and we do not even know where that money is. How many homes could have been built with that money? The last solution I would like to propose has been suggested for many years by several organizations. This is the key to leadership, which is missing. We need to listen and we need to act. What has been proposed is a permanent national housing round table made up of all stakeholders in the housing sphere. If we are not listening to the experts on the front lines, how do we think we can make the decisions that would best suit Canadians? It is our job to bring their voices here, not take Ottawa's voice to them. The solutions exist if we ask the experts. Let us listen and then act. People with non-visible disabilities are entitled to a home just like every Canadian in this country. Maslow's hierarchy of needs includes basic shelter, food and clothing. If people do not have a place to live, if they do not have somewhere to hang their coat, to feel safe and to know that their things will not be taken, torn down or removed, they are displaced. They cannot be productive members to themselves, their partners or their employers. We have so much work to do on housing and it is a fundamental basic need that needs to happen in order to deal with the crises we are seeing across this country, such as mental health, addiction, crime and affordability. Everyone deserves access to housing. I will support this motion, but I hope the government has heard what I had to say today.

1558 words

All Topics

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

Oct/21/22 1:58:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this important topic. I thank my colleague for introducing a motion on such a challenging but crucial issue as the housing crisis. On Friday afternoons, we are all like school kids waiting for the bell to ring. I have had this Friday afternoon speaking slot a few times, and there is always that point where everyone is looking at their watch and feeling a bit droopy. That is understandable. I talked about the housing crisis last time too, but let us talk about it again. I am glad this motion is up for discussion today so we can talk about it. As my colleague who just spoke said, the housing crisis in Quebec and the rest of Canada is dire and of crucial importance. I had the opportunity to talk about it two weeks ago: Scotia Bank says that we are short 3.5 million housing units in Canada to deal with the current crisis. It is a huge task. I was talking with an economist at CMHC who said that if nothing is done in the next 10 years and we allow the market to have its way, then there will be 500,000 housing units built in Quebec. There will be condos, bungalows, triplexes and various types of housing. It will not necessarily be just housing for the most vulnerable. If developers are not forced to build affordable housing for the most vulnerable, it will not happen. If we allow the market to have its way, as I was saying, 500,000 housing units will be built. According to that CMHC economist, an additional 600,000 affordable housing units need to be built to deal with the current affordability and accessibility problems. It is a huge task, a massive undertaking. The government needs to face the facts. My colleague has good intentions, but she needs to talk to her department and to those people. Her government boasts about spending $72 billion under the national housing strategy, but only 35,000 housing units have been built in five years. They are only halfway there. The strategy, which was launched in 2017, was a 10-year plan. They have built 35,000 housing units and renovated 60,000 others. That is nowhere near the goal. They are a long way off from dealing with the major housing issue in this country. I put a question earlier to my Liberal colleague, the member who moved the motion. Under Bill C‑31, $500 will be sent to individuals who earn less than $20,000, or families earning less than $35,000, and who spend more than 30% of their income on rent. That is commendable. We could not oppose sending the $500. However, Quebec has social housing. Some Quebeckers pay 25%, or less than 30%, of their income on housing. That is how it works. People with lower incomes have access to social housing that was built precisely because the federal government withdrew from housing. Quebec created a program called AccèsLogis. In reading between the lines of Bill C‑31, it is clear that 87,000 people will not be eligible for this assistance, and that is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That means 87,000 low-income people who earn less than $20,000, so people who are poor. The federal government is going to send money to people all over Canada, but because Quebec is progressive, because we address our problems, because we create programs to help the most vulnerable in our society, we are being penalized. The same thing has happened with many programs that have come before the House. Quebec is usually at the vanguard, but we have to fight for every penny, because we create our own programs to help people. Over the past few days, I also spoke with housing experts such as the staff at Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation. They told me that they had high expectations for the NDP-Liberal coalition. They believed that the NDP would pressure the government to tackle the housing crisis and build more housing. The people in Quebec I spoke to over the past two weeks are devastated by the result. Who would be against people receiving a $500 cheque? Naturally, everyone is pleased, but that is not what is needed. That is not what the organizations are telling us. I no longer remember the exact figure proposed in Bill C‑31, but it is in the millions of dollars. That money could have been used to build housing. Affordable housing could have been built over a longer period of time. We would not have to come back every year and say that there is a crisis and that people do not have the money for housing if we were to build housing right now, if we took the bull by the horns and if we addressed the problems together. Unfortunately, that is not happening. Once again, there is precious little to show for this type of coalition between the NDP and the Liberals. Once again, people are devastated and it feels like we will never see the end of this. I will now address Motion M‑59. I spoke about this earlier, however, tonight is homelessness awareness night in Quebec. I believe that is in keeping with the theme of the motion. Homelessness awareness night is a very important event in Longueuil and everywhere in Quebec. I would like to salute the organizations in Longueuil that are preparing for this event. I will join them this evening as soon as my work day is over. It will be a big night and the vigil will be held outside. There will be singing, people will be participating in the vigil and there will be a big parade through all of Longueuil to raise awareness about homelessness. As we know, the pandemic has been very challenging for many people. A lot of people fell through the cracks. Now we are seeing more mental health problems, which can lead to substance abuse and other problems, so homelessness is increasing and becoming more visible. There are organizations in Longueuil and across Quebec that are doing tremendous work. I commend the people who are getting ready in Longueuil, whom I will be joining shortly. Many organizations are doing great work. They are committed, they have empathy and they are wonderful. I commend them. Let us talk about the motion before us. We should define what we are talking about before we get into the discussion. What is a visible disability and what is a non-visible disability? It is a rather specific concept. A non-visible disability is one that cannot easily be seen, one that might not be noticed if the person does not talk about it. This often means the person might have a disorder of some sort, but no one would know if the person does not talk about it. Still, the disorder might have serious repercussions on their quality of life. The concept of a non-visible disability can be so complex that it is often hard to even talk about one non-visible disability, which is why it might be better to talk about non-visible disabilities. I was surprised to learn that, despite the received wisdom, it is estimated that only two in 10 people with a disability use a wheelchair, and 80% of reported disabilities are non-visible. Non-visible disabilities are more common than we think. Examples include visual or hearing impairments and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. There is also dyslexia, dyspraxia and a wide range of other illnesses. The disability can be recent and may be temporary. During a difficult period in life, a person may contract a condition that later goes away. A person with a non-visible disability often has a hard time being recognized as disabled by others. Their disability is not acknowledged. The disability may be misunderstood by the people around them, who do not understand the difficulties the person may encounter while trying to accomplish even simple tasks. To the people around them, it is easier to see these deficiencies as character traits. Often, a person who appears impulsive, lazy, detached or irritable may actually have a specific disorder. In fact, people with these disabilities tell us that getting their disability or disorder recognized is the biggest problem they run into. The lack of physical manifestations, such as a wheelchair, garners them less sympathy. We do not see it, so we do not feel it. The fact that the people around them do not recognize their disability can affect the person's mental health. If those around them lack understanding and leniency, a person with a non-visible disability can experience great psychological distress. Obviously, non-visible disabilities can cause problems for the person's life in society and relationships with others. A person who parks in a spot reserved for people with disabilities but who seems to be able to get around normally may be criticized by passersby. However, perhaps that person has a chronic illness that means they tire easily while walking. There are people who suffer from chronic fatigue. That is a big deal. The same thing goes for a person who uses the washroom reserved for people with disabilities when they do not have reduced mobility. They will often get nasty looks, but perhaps they needed to use that washroom because they have a digestive issue or other condition. There are other disorders like autism, ADHD and those we talked about earlier, such as bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, giftedness and dyslexia. As I have said many times, we do not have enough time to talk about important things in the House. This is an important motion and we are going to support it. The government is not doing enough in terms of housing. I would like to say that we need to continue to work on this particular issue. The Bloc Québécois stands behind the government.

1696 words

All Topics

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

Oct/21/22 2:08:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the law is clear that adequate housing is a human right, but many of the 22% of Canadians with disabilities are being left behind. The National Housing Strategy Act embeds Canada’s international human rights obligations to implement the right to adequate housing, but as this motion points out, the national housing strategy is missing recognition of the additional barriers to housing faced by persons with disabilities. The motion has the opportunity to correct that. Article 19 of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities notes the equal rights of all persons with disabilities to live independently and to inclusion in the community. That is not happening under the government. The Government of Canada is failing to live up to its obligation to ensure adequate, accessible and affordable housing. We see the housing crisis manifesting in communities across this country. There are people in Canada suffering, and the government has a responsibility to fix it, to build homes, to have affordable homes, to stop the homeless crisis in Canada and to recognize that persons with disabilities have even more barriers to housing. Canadians with a disability are greatly overrepresented in the homeless population. Forty-five per cent of Canada’s homeless have a physical or mental disability, and core housing need is at least 16% higher for persons with disabilities. In British Columbia alone, nearly 4,000 people living with disabilities are on a wait-list to find an accessible home. Housing demand far exceeds availability. Only 5% of units in B.C. are targeted for accessibility despite the fact that 15% to 20% of Canadians live with one. It has been said that the only true disability is the inability to accept and respect people’s differences. Living up to the legal obligation to protect human rights means understanding equity and addressing long-standing inequities. How can those inequities be fixed if the decision-making tables are missing those perspectives? This motion seeks to begin to correct that. That lack of representation at decision-making tables is also contributing to poverty. There are links between poverty, homelessness and living with disabilities. According to one IRIS report, people living with disabilities are twice as likely to live below the poverty line. In fact, living in poverty is likely to increase instances of disability. While there are no concrete numbers on how many people experiencing homelessness in Canada live with disabilities, we know that there are many. The Center for Justice and Social Compassion estimates that 45% of all people experiencing homelessness are disabled or diagnosed with a mental illness. Given that the Canadian survey on disability showed that 13% of Canadians self-identified as having a disability, this shows just how overrepresented people living with disabilities are in the homeless population. Street Health Toronto found that 55% of people experiencing homelessness had a serious health condition, and of those, 63% had more than one. In a report by the Daily Bread, it was reported that almost 50% of people frequenting Toronto food banks have a disability, and that includes persons with invisible disabilities. Invisible disabilities, such as anxiety, depression, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, are not always seen out in the community, but it does not make them any less limiting in this ableist world. Long COVID, for which there is no single test and with symptoms varying from person to person, joins the list of invisible disabilities with very real impacts. This reality needs to be addressed and investments in supports and benefits are required from the government. Accessing those supports and benefits must be easier. Accessing benefits has always been a barrier. Complicated processes and confusing paperwork are all too often more challenging for persons with disabilities. In The Globe and Mail, Michael Prince wrote about how people with severe and prolonged disabilities face many challenges when trying to get their benefits and appealing decisions when their applications are rejected. Prince claims that the system is “structurally flawed” and asks: Who suffers? The clients and their families, who confront new obstacles to access [programs] vital to their well being and financial security. When the very systems put in place to support persons with disabilities are themselves exclusionary and unaccommodating, it is no wonder that these people are living in poverty and falling through the cracks, and when that system is keeping them from housing, their basic human right is being violated. The government needs to stop this violation and build the accessible, affordable homes required. When I was first elected, I asked an Order Paper question about accessible housing. I asked about what accessible housing we are losing each year in this country. CMHC came back and said, “CMHC does not collect data on accessible units that have been lost or decommissioned.” I also requested some stats from CMHC about federal funds used to build accessible units and to convert existing units to accessible housing. Its response only included the national housing strategy program, even though I asked it for data since 2010. This meant that no data was collected on accessible housing until 2017, and for the first three years, from 2017 to 2020, there was nearly no data. Only in the last two years, 2020 and 2021, was there any data of any measurable consequence. Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to deliver on housing for all Canadians. How could they not, if they were not even collecting the data? The need to act cannot wait. We cannot have one more person with a disability forced into a tent on the street like the ones we see every day on our way to the House of Commons here in Ottawa. As the motion says, we must “prioritize the creation and repair of accessible units through [the national housing strategy] programs”. The government cannot move fast enough on that. Let us not forget how Canadians got into a situation where housing is unaffordable and inaccessible. Conservative and Liberal governments have overseen the financialization of housing. Instead of protecting our social and accessible housing stock, they encouraged upzoning and gentrification in the name of density, forcing persons with disabilities living in poverty out of their homes. Density dreams are for developers and investors. The financialization of housing is only working for the super-wealthy and is leaving the rest of Canadians behind. The National Housing Act has legislated that the Government of Canada’s housing policy is required to recognize that the human right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law and that housing is essential in the inherent dignity and well-being of the person. The government must do better. The housing minister must live up to his words, and has committed: that...every single project that seeks to get money from the federal government to build housing, whether it's private sector, government, another order of government or the non-profit sector, we have minimum accessibility requirements. Unless they fulfill accessibility requirements from our government, they don't get a single dime from us. He also said, “barrier-free housing for Canadians with disabilities is a priority of the national housing strategy and always will be”. Even if M-59 does not pass, the NDP will hold the government to those words. I must point out, though, that I am not sure the government has an achievable goal here, as we are still waiting to hear what the government means by the word “accessible”. In the HUMA committee, I asked specifically for information around the government's definition of “accessible” because I have experienced that it is very hard to get the market to build accessible housing. When the response came back from CMHC, the word “accessible” was only written once, and the accessibility definition was not included. The government needs to do better to identify what definition it is using in its commitment to accessible housing. In closing, I appreciate the member for London West's highlighting the gaps at the decision-making tables around housing and in the national housing strategy and the need for a more inclusive understanding of housing needs in Canada. With the failings of the government in providing accessible and adequate housing for indigenous people, people with disabilities and more, I encourage the government to do better and to start realizing that one size does not fit all, and adding to that the aging population. We need a better approach to accessible, affordable housing in this country, and the debate today is an important step for all of us to think about how to solve the problem of a home for everyone in Canada in a more inclusive way.

1467 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 2:18:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the residents and visitors who remain here in the gallery late this afternoon to listen to this wonderful debate. It is wonderful to have them join us here this afternoon. It really is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 59 on housing for persons with disabilities. I would like to begin by thanking the member for London West for tabling this motion. Her constituents are served so well by her advocacy and strong leadership on this issue. Since 2015 we have made extraordinary progress to advance the rights of persons with disabilities, yet barriers still exist in public spaces, housing, buildings and parks, and even in information and communications technologies. That is why we are taking bold action to drive the creation of accessible and inclusive communities. As members may be aware, on October 7 we launched Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan. It was a proud moment, and it served as the culmination of years of fruitful collaboration between the disability community and government. During this collaboration, we heard extensively from persons with disabilities about the issues, including accessible and inclusive community design, which brings me back to the overarching values that guide every aspect of our work with persons with disabilities. I would like to take a moment to talk about the principles outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Canada is a state party to this convention, as well as to its optional protocol. It means we recognize the right of all persons with disabilities to live independently and to live in a community. The convention provides us with two very important articles on inclusive housing, which I believe are rather relevant to today's discussion. Under article 9, as a state party to the convention, we are taking action to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to the physical environment, including housing. What is more, article 28 of the convention sets out that persons with disabilities have the right to adequate housing, including access to public housing. Our work is also guided by gender-based analysis plus. We developed the GBA+ to assess the implications of intersecting populations across Canada, including persons with disabilities, which means that when we create housing programs we need to consider the ways a person may experience intersectional barriers, so that we can minimize or remove those barriers at every step of policy development. A report from the COVID-19 Disability Advisory Group recommended that we recognize the increased risks of gender-based violence for women and girls with disabilities. It also recommended that we address the urgent need for low-barrier shelters and housing, as well as services and other supports. Indeed, accessibility in housing and shelters is a key priority for us. It is a key component of our plan to achieve a barrier-free Canada by 2040, and I will now speak about how we will get there. I will begin by speaking about the Accessible Canada Act. Let me be absolutely clear: The government is committed to advancing accessibility and inclusion across Canada. This is clear in our disability inclusion action plan and was first codified in the Accessible Canada Act landmark legislation, which became law in 2019. We implemented this groundbreaking act as part of our effort to proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility across seven priority areas, including the built environment. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we do this work in consultation every step of the way with the disability community. We also created a new organization, Accessibility Standards Canada, or ASC, which became accredited this past year, and we are in the process of creating national accessibility standards. I am also happy to remind members that in November 2021 the ASC and CSA group began collaborating on the development of three accessibility standards, including a standard on accessible homes. That work is well under way, and as the CEO of ASC has said, they are developing standards focused on equitable technical requirements. We are also working to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to housing through the home accessibility tax credit. The tax credit helps seniors and persons with disabilities stay in their homes by offsetting the cost of expensive renovations that make their homes more accessible. These include, for example, the installation of wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathtubs, wheel-in showers, the widening of doorways and hallways and the building of a bedroom or bathroom on the ground floor. Budget 2022 doubled the home accessibility tax credit. The qualifying expense limit has been increased to $20,000 in 2022 and subsequent tax years. This includes a tax credit of up to $3,000, which is twice the previous amount. That is more money in the pockets of Canadians with disabilities. We also introduced the national housing strategy, the largest and most ambitious federal housing program in history. Through the national housing strategy, we are taking steps to advance the right to housing for all Canadians, with a priority on the most vulnerable. This includes persons with disabilities who require more affordable and accessible housing options. Under this strategy, at least 2,400 new affordable units are being built for persons with developmental disabilities. All funding programs include accessibility requirements and thresholds that must be met by developers. Now I would like to revisit the disability inclusion action plan, with a focus on pillar three on accessible and inclusive communities, which also includes accessible housing. The disability community has been very clear during consultations on the disability inclusion action plan. The design of physical spaces, including apartments and homes, is often inadequate and inaccessible. This is because disability is often not considered in the initial stages of design. Pillar three of the action plan addresses the physical and attitudinal barriers that far too often prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in public spaces, like community buildings and workplaces. It will also influence architects and planners to adopt an inclusive mindset when they design housing projects. While physical accommodations are important, there is always more that we can do to create inclusive spaces. For example, having calming spaces and quiet areas could be very important for some persons with disabilities. Some people might need these places to be connected to services and programs that support the independence of persons with disabilities. Others may need written information in large print or in plain language. The initiatives that I have mentioned represent a paradigm culture shift, one where persons with disabilities are included from the very start. Through the disability inclusion action plan and ASC standards, we will drive even more profound changes. In closing, I would like to once again thank the member for London West for her motion and leadership. Her constituents and Canadians with disabilities are being well served by her passionate and effective advocacy. Together, we will build an inclusive Canada for all.

1169 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Oct/21/22 2:26:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite timely that we are considering Motion No. 59, which calls on the government to work with indigenous governing bodies, service providers to people with disabilities, housing providers and other relevant stakeholders, including the provinces, “in upholding a federal framework to improve access to adaptable affordable housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities”. This is at a time when we are seeing in media reports that folks who have disabilities and folks who are housing insecure, both of whom are unable to get the support they need and unable to find affordable housing, are instead opting for medical assistance in dying. We are in a situation where we are failing Canadians. We are failing Canadians who need us the most. This is going to require the federal government to get to the table with the provinces. We need to solve this crisis, which is resulting in people opting for medically assisted death because they feel so hopeless. It is incumbent on the federal government and incumbent on its partners to resolve this, because certainly we can all agree that this is not what the medical assistance in dying framework in Canada was designed to do. We can all agree that the folks among us who are struggling in poverty and folks living with disabilities should not be left to feel like death is their only option. We need to offer them hope. While this motion is laudable, the outcomes are items the government could have included in previous legislation or could be in existing frameworks. Certainly, we would demonstrate to people that this is taken seriously by the government if the Prime Minister were to sit down with the first ministers to discuss health care funding and if we had transparency about the conversations that were going on between the federal housing minister and his provincial counterparts, a relationship that appears strained on the federal side. It is important that we address this as a House. It is important that we offer hope to all Canadians, including Canadians who are housing insecure, Canadians who are experiencing homelessness and Canadians who are living with disabilities. It is our responsibility as legislators and it is an important conversation to have today. It is also important that the government takes it seriously and advances meaningful steps that will resolve the concerns and crises that Canadians are living with.

401 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/21/22 2:30:13 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

64 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/21/22 10:26:50 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, this bill would have been passed, had the Prime Minister not called an unnecessary election back in August 2021. Bill S-5 would have likely passed the Senate. I do not want to prejudge the work that it would have done, but it likely would have passed. Many of us had been looking at the bill beforehand, and I am sure it would have gotten due review in the House. As the member knows, the Speaker can recognize any member who stands up and wants to speak to a bill on behalf of their constituents, just like I did. I would never want to stop members from speaking up on behalf of their constituents.

116 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 11:53:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find most unfortunate is that, at a time of global turmoil, when people across the world are facing the impacts of not only inflation but also climate change, the government, which is taking action, faces an opposition in the Conservatives that is raising and amplifying people's anxiety instead of providing solutions. What are their solutions? To take something they know gives more money back than it takes to fight climate change and to stand up against dental care for those families who need it and support for low-income families who are renting. That is not responsible.

102 words