Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I find it a bit rich for the member to say that hybrid is problematic because of the issues around interpretation. I noted last week that, when we were doing votes in the House, many of the Conservative members were out in the lobby, just steps away from the chamber. Instead of coming in to do the vote, they were doing it through hybrid. Worse still, they were not using the proper headsets, hindering the ability of the interpreters to do interpretation. Even though the Speaker repeatedly told them to either give a thumbs up or thumbs down for their votes, they refused to listen and talked anyway without the proper headsets. Now they are saying that it is not working. The member talked about resources. I sit on the immigration committee. If we want to talk about wasting resources, do members know what the Conservatives did? They wasted 30 hours debating Bill S-245, on lost Canadians. so we could not get on with business. Talk about wasting resources. On the question of hybrid, I have to say this. One would think, the way the Conservatives are talking, that the only mechanism is to use Zoom to do our business, and that is not—

Mr. Speaker, on the question of hybrid, the way in which the member was speaking was almost as though the only option is for members of Parliament to not show up in the chamber here to do the work. That is not the case. Hybrid is meant to allow for people to have an option. For example, I got COVID and had to be quarantined. What did I do? I used hybrid because it was important work that had to be done, both in the House and at committee. That is the whole purpose here, to facilitate the process so that people can use that option. Why are the Conservatives opposed to allowing people to use different options to fully participate in the House?

Madam Speaker, I have moved everything away from the mike, so hopefully it is better. The climate crisis we are experiencing is very real. We have seen forest fires in many different communities and in my home community of British Columbia, this is not a strange occurrence for us. We have experienced the heat dome and then, of course, severe forest fires, as well. I was reminded today by an indigenous leader that the most vulnerable communities are often people who have very little, and they are the people who suffer the most in a crisis like this. That includes indigenous peoples. However, for the government to really address the climate crisis, it really needs to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and redirect those dollars into renewable energy. Will the member commit to doing that?

Mr. Speaker, the hotel workers of Radisson Blu, formerly Pacific Gateway, held a rally on the two-year anniversary of the beginning of their strike, the longest strike ever in this industry. The employer used COVID-19 as an excuse and terminated 143 racialized women, or 70% of its workers. Some had worked there for over 40 years. They are the backbone of the hotel. Let us not kid ourselves. The employer wanted new workers because those workers would be at the bottom of the wage grid. The owner wanted to turn a bigger profit at the expense of the workers. This is the same owner who received $33 million in federal contracts for a COVID quarantine facility. It is shameful. The Canadian Labour Congress and the BC Federation of Labour have issued a boycott of the hotel. I ask all members of the House to stand with the Unite Here Local 40 workers and their call to hire back the workers and agree to a fair contract.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition calling on the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to enact just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; winds down the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure, ends fossil fuel subsidies and transitions to a decarbonized economy; creates new public economic institutions and expands public ownership of services and utilities across the economy; creates good, green jobs; protects and strengthens human rights and workers' rights, respects indigenous rights, sovereignty and knowledge, ensures migrant justice and emphasizes support for historically marginalized communities; expands the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit; and pays for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations and financing through a public national bank.

Mr. Speaker, 200 residents of a west end Toronto building are taking action against huge rent increases by their landlord. Their rent is being jacked up by 40% this fall. Seniors on fixed incomes, workers and families are worried sick they could end up on the street. Under the Liberals, rents have skyrocketed. We are now seeing rents double or even triple in communities. This is unacceptable. Will the Liberals stop these renovictions, put people before profits and launch an acquisition fund for non-profits to keep rents low?

Madam Speaker, for me, in Vancouver East, the issue with access to day care centres around three things. One, it is about affordability, so $10-a-day day care will make a difference for families. The other issue, of course, is about access to spaces and the creation of spaces, which is also critical, because there is a long wait-list of people trying to access day care for their children. Last but not least is a point the member raised. It is the issue around the attraction and retention of child care workers. The key to doing that centres around wages and working conditions. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, worked really hard to bring forward amendments to the bill to address this critical issue. My question for the member is this. Would he agree that, in order to attract and retain quality child care workers, we must ensure fair, livable wages as well as good working conditions for them?

Madam Speaker, I was just reading a report done by CCPA called The Harper Record. It says: Giving financial incentives to businesses to create spaces has been tried before and failed. It was such bad policy that even members of the minister's hand-picked advisory group raised objections and was roundly criticized when the government's policy folks conducted cross-country consultations on how it could be made to work. The report goes on to say, “The fallout from Harper's child care policy will be felt for years to come. Federal transfers specifically designated for early learning and child care were reduced by almost 37% in 2007-08...In 2006, only 19.3% of children five and under had access to...child care”. The NDP and my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, had pushed the government and drove the agenda to get $10-a-day child care nationally. This bill before us would address some elements of accountability with reporting, so we can have—

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the national advisory council, and the way he spoke about it, it was almost as though he was belittling it. The people who will be part of this advisory council are going to be the leading advocates for child care. To have them at the table is absolutely critical to make sure that we stay on the right path in ensuring that accessible, affordable, quality child care is made available to all Canadians. My question for the member is this: If the experts should not be at the table, then who should? Should it be the Conservatives themselves?

moved: That, given that, (i) the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic system, on March 23 and May 8, 2023, (ii) the government did not heed this call, and instead appointed an independent special rapporteur who has recommended against holding a public inquiry, despite noting significant gaps and leaving many questions either unasked or unanswered, (iii) serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions, (iv) only a full public inquiry can fully restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our democratic institutions, the House: (a) call on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur, and call on the government to urgently establish a public commission of inquiry which would be, (i) led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House, (ii) granted the power to review all aspects of foreign interference from all states, including, but not limited to, the actions of the Chinese, Indian, Iranian and Russian governments, (iii) asked to present its report and any recommendations in advance of the next dissolution of Parliament or, at the latest, at the fixed election date as set by the Canada Elections Act; and (b) instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to provide a report to the House as soon as possible with a recommendation on who could lead such a commission of inquiry and what its terms of reference should include. Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with sadness that I stand here today, when the NDP has to put forward this motion. The situation around foreign interference is real. It is happening. It is impacting Canadian society. It is impacting us all. It is damaging to our democratic system. It is threatening to some Canadians who are very active in their fight for basic human rights and democracy. Despite this, the Liberal government does not see the importance of why, in looking into these matters, there should have been a public inquiry right at the outset. Instead, the Prime Minister decided, himself, that the appropriate path forward would be to appoint a special rapporteur. Now here we are; the special rapporteur has tabled a report, and there are lots of issues with the report and with the entire process. I just want to say on the public record what the NDP is calling for. Our motion essentially calls for these four things: that the independent special rapporteur, the Right Hon. David Johnston, step aside; that the government launch an independent public inquiry on election interference by foreign governments; that the commissioner of the public inquiry be selected with unanimous agreement from the House leaders of all recognized parties; and that a report on the public inquiry be tabled in the House before the next election. In addition, to get going with this work, the NDP's motion also calls for the House to instruct PROC to report to the House on the terms of reference and a possible commissioner who could lead such a public inquiry. This would allow for the greater pressure that needs to be put on the government in the coming weeks in terms of the need for an inquiry; it would also set the stage to show that this work can and must be done. Last Friday, I had a classified briefing with CSIS. I was briefed on foreign interference and how I was subjected to it by the Chinese Communist Party. The briefing was very clear in saying that I could not disclose exactly how I was subjected to foreign interference, because that would put in jeopardy the important work the intelligence agency is doing. That is something I obviously would not want to jeopardize. To that end, I am not able or at liberty to share exactly what is happening or how it is happening with regard to my being targeted. However, CSIS made it clear that I am subject to foreign interference and will continue to be a target. Foreign interference is happening. Whether someone is in support of the Chinese Communist Party, ambivalent about it or opposed to its policies, they could be targeted and subject to foreign interference. We also know that this could happen prior to or during an election, as well as at any period outside of that. We are seeing that unfold. Some of us are outspoken and have concerns about basic human rights and the genocide of the Uyghurs. Some of us voted in support of the motion in this House in that regard and have concerns about the erosion of the basic law in Hong Kong and the imposition of the national security law, for example. Such people need to be ever vigilant in terms of attempts of foreign-interference actors working to coerce, to co-opt, to reorient, to neutralize or even to try to silence our voices. Coming out of this briefing, what is clear to me is that the fight for people whose human rights are being violated, who are being silenced and even threatened, is more important than ever. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians' charter rights and our fundamental right of freedom, with the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom for peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of beliefs. The very essence of what makes us whole as people is to enjoy those freedoms and to protect them for Canadians, and not only for Canadians, but also for people around the globe. This is why we are here. This is the important work that is before us. I am here to say that, despite threats of foreign interference, I will not be deterred from fighting for those rights and fighting for the people who do not enjoy those rights. It is more important than ever that Canada and the Canadian government do everything we can to protect our democracy and our cherished fundamental freedoms for all Canadians and people around the globe. I want to send a clear message to everyday Canadians who have families and loved ones in Hong Kong and in China; it is that I know their fear is real and the dangers their families face are real. For that reason, I am saying very clearly that I recommit myself to stand with them, to fight with them and to demand action from the government to protect them. Canadians deserve answers. They deserve accountability and, yes, they deserve protection. This is not just for members of Parliament, like me, who have privilege in this place, but for everyday Canadians as well. They too are faced with foreign interference. The work that has been done so far is inadequate. Right at the outset, the Prime Minister made a misstep. However, it is not too late; he could make a correction and do what is right to rebuild the confidence of Canadians around this process. I read Mr. Johnston's report, cover to cover, several times. I did not want to misunderstand or miss the point that had been made. He made a number of recommendations. One of the key recommendations was that he would not recommend a public inquiry. He stated that this would have been the easy thing for him to do. With all due respect, I disagree. I actually think that for Mr. Johnston to say that there needs to be a public inquiry and that there should be one would have been the hard thing for him to do. I say that because he would be saying to the Prime Minister point-blank that the process the Prime Minister had chosen was categorically wrong. He would be saying that it was the wrong process and that the Prime Minister should not have embarked on it. Moreover, it would indicate that Mr. Johnston himself should perhaps not have accepted that appointment. I understand that it would be a hard thing to do to call out the Prime Minister. We do it every day in this House because it is our job; however, I guess that when one is appointed by the Prime Minister to do a job, it is a much harder path to take, to say that it is the wrong path to take. Mr. Johnston chose the easier way and did not call out the Prime Minister; instead, he said he would carry on the work, even though he should have known that he does not enjoy the confidence of all members of this House. If he did not know, he definitely should know that by now. In his report, Mr. Johnston notes how important it is to undertake this work so that it is entirely non-partisan, and he says that we need the co-operation of all members of the House. I absolutely agree with that. In my previous speech, I pleaded with members of the House to set aside partisan politics and to engage on the issue. Recognizing the importance of that, Mr. Johnston noted it in his report; however, we are in a situation where, for a variety of reasons, Mr. Johnston does not enjoy the full confidence of every member of this House. The latest of these is the discovery that his legal adviser donated to the Liberal Party. That surely should have been flagged, as Mr. Johnston was putting together his team, but it was not flagged. The team went on to carry on with this work. The legal adviser was a key member of the team in reviewing the documents from CSIS. How can it be that this went unnoticed? How is it even possible that, now that it is on the public record, there is no further action to be taken after the fact? The basic principle of the appearance of conflict alone would suffice for someone to say, “I made an error and, therefore, I will now step away.” That did not happen, so now we are in this House and the NDP's motion is calling for Mr. Johnston to step down. We have to do this work right. It is too important for us not to embark on a proper process, one that every Canadian has confidence in and one that is devoid of partisan politics. Mr. Johnston knows that much of the information he and his team have reviewed from CSIS could not be disclosed because it would put national security in jeopardy. I understand that. I do. I had my briefing. I was also told that there is much information I cannot share. I absolutely understand not wanting to jeopardize national security, but precisely because of that, the person who is looking at these documents needs to be a person whom everyone has their trust in. I am sorry to say that Mr. Johnston does not enjoy that confidence. That is a reality. No amount of talking will change that. No amount saying that we are going to look forward instead of backward, that we are going to just plough forward and push through, is going to change that. That is now a reality, and the truth is that we must change the situation so that those facts are no longer relevant in moving forward. That is why we must have a public inquiry. I am going to take a moment to turn to another aspect of the work that Mr. Johnston has provided, and what he stated in his report, which is on the question of who is reviewing the documents from the PMO. It was astounding to me. He noted the communication breakdown and the flaws within the system, and it kind of took my breath away to realize what a fiasco that whole process was, to be sure. I will touch on this. Mr. Johnston states, “I have found that the narrative that the government failed to act is not a fair conclusion based on the facts.” However, in his report, he does not explain why that is a fair conclusion. He is simply saying to trust him that it is a fair conclusion. In the report, Mr. Johnston cited the communication challenges, and we have to ask this question: Who set up those poor channels of communications? It was the government itself. In the report, Mr. Johnston cites, “If staffers are away, they may not see the binder that day.” He is referring to the binder from CSIS, the intelligence binder. He is saying that the people reviewing this critical, serious information are staffers. Mr. Johnston does not define exactly what a staffer is, but in this universe, when we talk about “staffers”, they are political appointees. Ministers appoint ministerial staff as staffers. The PMO appoints staffers, who are political appointees the PM appoints in his office. That is how we generally understand the term “staffer”. However, we have to ask why on earth a staffer would be reviewing top secret documents from CSIS. In what universe is that normal? That is not normal. That is not okay. That does not take seriously the work of the intelligence agency. I would argue that it is more than that the government, somehow, is botching the whole communications process. Right from the outset, in undertaking this work, there was no seriousness to this work. When one puts a staffer at the table like this, the staffer's goal is to look for political damage; that is why they are there, but that should not be how serious documents from CSIS on intelligence are taken. They should not be looked at from the point of view of how to address political damage. However, it seems to me that this is the approach, and I have serious problems with that. The report talks about the infamous leaked memo, which was reported by Global News on February 8. The report highlights it by saying, “National Security Officials Warned [the] Prime Minister...and his Office More Than a Year Before the 2019 Federal Election That Chinese Agents Were ‘assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices’”. This is what was reported by Global News; it is cited as a heading in the report. The report goes on to indicate that “[a]n early draft of the memorandum contained similar but not identical language to that quotation. That draft was significantly revised before the memorandum went to the Prime Minister.” I have to ask whether the rapporteur asked these key questions: Who saw the draft memo? Who was the draft memo prepared for? Who changed it, and why? We do not have any answers to that. The report is completely silent on that. However, I think that it is pertinent information.

Madam Speaker, what nonsense that is. It is not partisan politics; this is the report that was tabled by Mr. Johnston, and I am raising issues with the report. I will just go on and raise another issue with the report on the issue around the nomination of the member for Don Valley North. Mr. Johnston notes that irregularities were observed in the member for Don Valley North's nomination in the 2019 election, and that there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC consulate in Toronto, with which the member maintains relationships. Mr. Johnston noted that there were irregularities and that there were well-grounded suspicions. The Prime Minister was briefed on this, and then the Prime Minister concluded that there should be no action taken. Mr. Johnston noted that this was reasonable. How on earth is that reasonable when there are irregularities—

Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are blinded by partisanship, but the key issue here is that they seem to continually forget that it was the NDP, by the way, that first moved the motion to call for a public inquiry at committee and in the House. Here we are again, calling for Mr. Johnston to step down, for a public inquiry and for PROC to undertake this work. We are taking the issue seriously, not being blinded by partisanship, on the importance of why this needs to be done. People should not look only at me, as a person who has been impacted by foreign interference, and at other members of the House, but also at the Canadian public, how it is being impacted, why this work is so important and why this motion is before us. I call on the Conservatives to support this motion.

Madam Speaker, I want to say very clearly that at no point did New Democrats bite their tongues with regard to this issue. The NDP, every single step of the way, demanded accountability and called on the government to do what is right. That is exactly what we have done. No one should take my word for it; everyone can check Hansard and PROC and see what the NDP did. The member representing us, the NDP House leader at that time, moved the motion to call for a public inquiry. Who was filibustering and not doing the important work? Oh, that would be the Conservatives. It was New Democrats who took this seriously right from the get-go and continued to demand accountability, and we will continue to do that work. We will not be silenced. I will not be silenced by foreign interference, nor will I be silenced by the government.

Madam Speaker, I should note also that I have been sanctioned by Russia. I am on its sanctions list, so this is the second round in which I am experiencing this. On the question, if the Prime Minister does not announce that he will proceed with a public inquiry, then he is sending a clear message that he is not taking this issue seriously. He is sending a clear message that he does not care whether or not confidence of the Canadian public is being eroded around what the government is doing to ensure foreign interference is addressed properly in the House. The most concerning thing is this: Everyday Canadians who are being impacted by this, who are afraid to attend rallies and who are afraid to speak up, and there are people faced with that reality today, will have nowhere to go. That cannot be acceptable. I hope the Prime Minister understands this, ensures that confidence is rebuilt and says that our democracy is too important to let his own personal reasons allow him to not proceed with this work.

Madam Speaker, the last I checked, David Christopherson is not the person doing this work in the House. I will say that on the record. The other thing is that I wonder if government members have read the report. The issue here is not about personality. The issue here is the work that has been done, and the report indicates a number of areas in which there are problems and concerns with the conclusion. I have not even had a chance to go through all the areas I have concerns with. I have highlighted a couple. The reality remains that Mr. David Johnston does not enjoy the confidence of every member of the House, and to do this work—

Mr. Speaker, foreign interference is real. It is happening here in Canada, and the Prime Minister has failed to address it. By refusing to implement an independent public inquiry into foreign interference, the Liberals are hurting people and our democracy. Their appointed rapporteur David Johnston does not have the confidence of the House. He must go. The Prime Minister needs to listen and do the right thing. Will he remove David Johnston and immediately launch an independent public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this Senate bill. First, I would just like to point out that the Conservative member who spoke earlier talked about how much the Conservatives support the bill. Of course, they could really show that support by ensuring that it receives speedy passage to move on to the next stage, instead of prolonging debate on the matter. Canada's built environment is a significant contributor to GHG emissions, with more than 25% of GHGs coming from the construction, use and maintenance of residential, commercial and institutional buildings. The embodied carbon is the GHG emission arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal of building materials from building construction. It is responsible for 10% of all energy-related emissions. In 2019, the World Green Building Council called for a 40% reduction in embodied carbon by 2030. To ensure that Canada meets its GHG reduction commitments, both energy use and carbon emissions need to be reduced simultaneously. This bill puts into law that, for most federal construction, GHG reduction must be a part of the planning process. It is the smart thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. Currently, this is only an internal federal policy. Wood is one of the best materials for reducing the carbon footprint in buildings. The low embodied carbon of wood products stems from the fact that the manufacturing process is not energy-intensive, because it relies predominantly on electricity and uses long-lasting forest products that have sequestered carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Great advances have been made in tall wood construction. It is now possible to build more buildings in a safe, ecologically sensitive way than in past construction. These new technologies offer an obvious opportunity to increase the use of wood in building and thus support the forest sector in Canada, which has been beset by difficulties caused by American tariffs through the softwood lumber dispute, the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, catastrophic forest fires and reduced fibre supply because of past harvests. As the largest producer in Canada, the federal government could give this sector a much-needed boost by using this cutting-edge technology at home. If passed, this bill would require the Department of Public Works to consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits when developing requirements for the construction, maintenance and repair of federal buildings. In 2009, B.C. passed the Wood First Act, which aims to “facilitate a culture of wood by requiring the use of wood as the primary building material in all new provincially funded buildings”. In 2013, Quebec adopted the Wood Charter, which requires all builders working on projects financed in whole or in part by the provincial government to consider wood in their construction plans; it also requires project managers to prove that they have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions of wood versus other materials in the pre-project stage. Different versions of this private member's bill were introduced in past Parliaments, and they were supported by the NDP. Early versions of the bill explicitly asked the minister to consider using wood. However, that text was amended in the 42nd Parliament to direct the minister to consider any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits instead; it may also allow the use of wood or any other thing, including a material, product or sustainable resource that achieves such benefits. That bill, Bill C-354 passed in the House but died in the Senate at the end of that Parliament. It was introduced as a Senate bill in this Parliament. This version of the private member's bill is inspired by new developments in wood construction technology. Large buildings constructed with mass timber can be built quickly. They are also cost-competitive, and they meet fire safety requirements. Advances in wood construction technology have demonstrated that large buildings and other infrastructures can be built with wood. Recently, the University of British Columbia constructed the Brock Commons student residence; it is the world's tallest wood building, at 18 storeys. Toronto's George Brown College is currently building Limberlost Place, a 10-storey mass timber structure, at its Waterfront Campus; this will be the first institutional building of its kind in Ontario. In 2014, the Cree community of Mistissini, Quebec, opened the Mistissini Bridge, a 160-metre-long bridge with semicontinuous arches made of glue-laminated wood beams. It is one of the largest wooden structures in Canada, and it won two national awards at the 2016 Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards. Canadian companies lead the mass timber sector in North America, with production plants in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. Because wood has lower embodied carbon than most building materials do, this bill offers us the opportunity to support innovation in the forestry sector while, at the same time, helping the Government of Canada to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. This is especially the case in these difficult times, because the sector faces large duties from the U.S. Given the developments in the technology, this idea is one that is being used more and more around the world. It makes sense to use this technology more at home. In budget 2017, the government provided Natural Resources Canada with $39.8 million over four years, starting in 2018-19, to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. Bringing this forward is our way to call on the government to continue to support this activity through government procurement. It is time for us to move forward. This bill has been around and through the block a number of times. I repeat, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, that if the Conservatives say they support moving forward with this bill, then they should show it with actions and stop the delaying tactics. Let us get on with it, get it done, support the industry and do what is good for the environment. That is the path forward.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote an urgent letter to the ministers of public safety and immigration about 700 Punjabi international students who are victims of a targeted exploitation scheme. A consultant used fake university admission letters for their student visas without their knowledge. As a result, 150 students are scheduled to be deported. This is unacceptable. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship says that victims of fraud should not be punished. We need more than words. Will the government immediately stay the deportation orders for these students and provide them with a pathway to permanent status?

Mr. Speaker, giant housing corporations are treating people's homes like a stock market and evicting long-time tenants to jack up rents. The Minister of Housing thinks a 1% tax on empty homes and a two-year ban on foreign investments will solve the housing crisis. He is wrong. The housing advocate says these Liberal half-measures are dangerous and short-sighted. Financial firms already own 20% to 30% of the rental stock. Will the Liberals stop corporations from getting their hands on more low-cost rental homes with a moratorium and help non-profits secure these homes with an acquisition fund?

Madam Speaker, we know Conservatives are trying to mischaracterize the entire situation. One of the effects of the harm reduction approach that is being proposed is that it helps connect people to other health services, including the possibility of treatment and rehab. However, if they do not make that connection, that is never going to happen. My question for the member is this. When Conservatives say we should eliminate harm reduction initiatives, such as safer supply, how on earth would we be able to successfully connect people to other services when we cannot even reach them?

Madam Speaker, New Democrats absolutely support the idea that Purdue Pharma should be sued and made to pay. That is something the NDP called for the Liberal government to do a long time ago. I am glad that the Conservatives finally figured that out and are now on board. However, to suggest that safer supply is somehow equivalent to what Purdue Pharma is doing is wrong. Purdue Pharma, by the way, was allowing for the drug to be made available and suggesting to doctors that this is an effective painkiller without acknowledging the addictive component of it. With respect to safer supply, it is only applied to people at the highest risk who are already addicted, so it is a fundamentally different thing. Lisa Lapointe, the B.C. chief coroner, said that the drug poisoning crisis is the direct result of an unregulated drug market. That is what is at issue. That is what safer supply is trying to deal with. Is Lisa Lapointe wrong?

Mr. Chair, the national housing advocate pointed out that the financialization of housing is a widespread issue that has negatively shaped Canada's housing system. She noted that large institutional investors and financial firms focus on making maximum returns for their shareholders. This is causing real harm to people, contributing to housing unaffordability, worsening housing conditions, and leading to evictions and displacement. Many tenants do not even know who their landlord is, because landlords hide behind numbered companies. Will the minister do as the housing advocate recommends and track the ownership of financialized housing stock?

Mr. Chair, a serious way to address this issue is to stop the profiteering in housing, stop corporate financialized landlords from sweeping up undervalued affordable housing stock and create an acquisition fund for non-profits so that they can acquire and hold that affordable housing stock for the community in perpetuity. Will the minister place a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable homes by financialized landlords, including REITs and corporate firms, and create an acquisition fund for the non-profit sector?

Mr. Chair, the minister should know that what he needs to do is put a moratorium in place and create an acquisition fund for non-profits so that they can get into the market to purchase housing units. This is like what British Columbia is doing, by the way. The federal government has not done that. The Federal Housing Advocate said that the government has a really important role to play in creating an acquisition fund so that non-market actors, such as housing co-ops, non-profits and social housing, can purchase properties for sale before they are financialized. This means that non-profits would be able to guarantee affordability in perpetuity. The Federal Housing Advocate called for this creation of community wealth instead of individual wealth. Does the minister agree with that, and will he act on her sound advice?

Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but that is wrong. The national housing strategy is missing the mark, and the Auditor General has pointed that out. In fact, the Liberals do not even know what they are doing. They are developing housing that is not helping those most in need. The minister should read the Auditor General's report. Real estate investment trusts enjoy preferential tax treatment in that they do not pay the corporate tax rate. The seven largest real estate investment trusts alone have saved a combined $1.5 billion through federal tax loopholes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the federal government will lose another $300 million in taxes over the next four years. Will the federal government stop rewarding real estate investment trusts for pushing out long-term tenants and jacking up housing prices? Will it end their special tax treatment and make them pay their fair share?

Mr. Chair, actually, it was the Auditor General who did the report. The minister should read that, by the way. When he says they have launched a review, the clock is ticking. The units are being lost. For every one unit the government builds, we lose 15. That is the reality of the crisis, the magnitude of the crisis that we are faced with today and the government says it is doing a review. Get on with it. Implement what is needed. The housing advocate has tabled reports for the minister. All he has to do is act. Now I want to turn to a different issue. The mayor of Edmonton met with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance regarding their $277-million indigenous housing plan. The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance promised that they would have the federal government's support and CMHC is aware of that. Now the Liberals are reneging on their promise. Worse still, they are blaming the NDP because they say the NDP wanted to see meaningful action on a for indigenous, by indigenous urban and rural northern housing strategy. To be clear, the NDP absolutely want that, but we also called for new allocations for other streams, including non-indigenous housing programs and for the funding of those programs to be proportional to the need for indigenous peoples. Will the minister stop pointing fingers and honour the promise to the city of Edmonton and fund the indigenous housing plan?

Mr. Chair, that comment from the minister really just goes to show he has not even read the report from the Auditor General. For years now, in the midst of this unprecedented housing crisis, unhoused people seeking relative safety in encampments have been displaced in my riding in the Downtown Eastside from Oppenheimer Park to CRAB Park to Strathcona Park, and now from the sidewalks of the streets. Decampment took place without any plans in place to ensure people can be properly housed. I have written four letters to the minister, calling on him to provide leadership with a multipartite initiative, similar to the previous Vancouver Agreement to address the crisis in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, yet no action has been taken. Will the minister show leadership and recreate a Vancouver Agreement with the city, province and community to address the housing and drug poisoning crisis in the Downtown Eastside?

Mr. Chair, if it is such a good program, why is the minister working to kill the projects within it, with that $25,000 limit per unit? Why did the government not actually put in new allocation to the co-investment fund in budget 2023, instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul with a reallocation from the repair component of that stream? Why will the government not invest the real money that is necessary to make that program a success?

Mr. Chair, he can be proud of the fact that the housing crisis is getting worse and worse under their watch. From coast to coast to coast, it does not matter what city one is in, in cities big or small, there is a major housing crisis, and what the government is doing is not working. That is the reality. Listen to the people on the ground. Walk the streets. Open one's eyes. Come to my community in the Downtown Eastside and I will show us how desperate the situation is. People are dying. Stop with the message box and get on with the program to do what is needed. On the housing benefit, why did the government, in the middle of the delivery of the program, in February of this year, put in a new requirement, which is not in legislation, that prevented people who are on income assistance, who had their rent directly paid from the government to their landlord, from being eligible for the housing benefit?

Mr. Speaker, according to a media report, nurses are leaving the public health care system in droves and returning through private job placement agencies. The health care crisis is getting worse under the Liberals' watch. Poor work conditions, low wages, forced overtime and high patient-to-nurse ratios are causing burnout. The structural problems must be addressed, and budget 2023 missed the mark. Will the Liberals work with the provinces to ensure that nurses get the respect, resources and support they need so that patients can get the care they deserve?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I am heartened to hear my colleague's words, to say that, when we engage in this debate, it is about the importance of it and what it means for all of us, but at the same time not to take an approach that vilifies and points fingers at others. I look around this chamber and there are very few of us, truth be told, who are not immigrants, either ourselves or our ancestors. For those of us who are not indigenous, we came to this land as newcomers. Over the years, we have seen changes made. As always, when newcomers come to a country, to a new place, there are feelings of threat and fear, I guess, because of the unfamiliarity of these individuals. For indigenous peoples and their history, and we already know Canada's colonial history, it is sad to say that those fears are very real and have done tremendous harm to indigenous peoples, to which Canada is still trying to reconcile, to reconcile in a real effort, in a meaningful way, and we have a long way to go. There is no question about that. Now, with respect to other communities that are newcomers, there are those of us who came to Canada as immigrants. In my case, back in the seventies, when my family immigrated here, we were new in this country as well, but over the years we have worked hard to integrate into Canadian society. We learned the language, learned the Canadian culture and Canadian values, and actively participated in our communities. Some of us achieved different things, and I would say without hesitation that the immigrant community has contributed to Canada in every aspect and is engaged in Canadian society in every way. The contributions are significant economically, socially, culturally and environmentally, to be sure. On the situation of what we are talking about here, we are now saying we have too many immigrants and we fear that, with more immigrants coming, it would take away from what we have. I think we need to think about what some of the concerns are that have been brought up. First is the issue around ensuring that Quebec and the French language and culture are protected. I absolutely agree that Quebec is a very unique province and that it has a distinction with its language and culture, which we need to do everything we can to protect. Part of that work rests with the federal government, with its immigration measures, particularly as it pertains to ensuring that the immigration target for francophonie immigrants is achieved. Sadly, that is not the reality. The Liberal government has failed to meet the target year after year after year. In fact, the FCFA made a recommendation at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration calling on the government to adopt a new francophone immigration target of 12% in 2024 and to gradually increase it to 20% in 2036. I think that should be done. I think it needs to be done. We need to be aggressively pursuing those targets to realize that. We also need to do a lot of work to ensure that francophonie targets outside of Quebec are also met. In addition to that, the work we need to do across the country is to ensure that languages, French classes, are made available to students. I can say from personal experience that I desperately wanted my two children to have access to French immersion. What did I do? After they were born, I enrolled them in the lottery. That is the system that we have. I had to enrol them in a lottery to see if they would get picked to get into French immersion. Sadly, for my family, neither one of them won that lottery. That is the reality. To fix and address the question of preserving the French language, we need to make sure those kinds of programs are not done through a lottery, but rather, are made available for people. That is not the reality, and that is what we need to fix. That is not an immigrant problem. It is a Canadian problem that we need to face up to and ensure resources are provided and those programs are in place. When I think about the contributions of the immigrant community, especially now in this period of dire need for health care workers, during the pandemic it became very clear that the immigrant community helped Canada in significant ways, sometimes by taking on jobs that put them in danger. We saw that in the aquaculture industry. Some migrant workers actually died while working to put food on our tables. That is the reality, and that continues to be a challenge for migrant workers who are taken advantage of because they do not have full status. They should be given full status and be regularized, by the way. On the health care piece, let me put some important information on the table. Immigrants account for 36% of physicians, 33% of business owners with paid staff and 41% of engineers. What that tells me is that immigrants are engaged in all walks of life, in every profession in our communities, and they contribute significantly to our communities. More specifically in the health care sector, 23% of registered nurses are immigrants; 35% of nursing aides and related occupations are immigrants; and 37% of pharmacists, 36% of physicians, 39% of dentists and 54% of dental technologists and related occupations are immigrants. At a time when we have a major need for health care workers, the immigrant community has shown, and I believe they will continue to show, their important contributions to the caring economy and the service economy, which we all depend upon to keep us healthy in our communities. Part of the problem for the immigrant community in getting into these professions, which we have all talked about and needs to be addressed, would be for the government to ensure that credential recognition is made easier. Some provinces have embarked on that, which I am glad to see, and the numbers are astounding. The interest that has been shown is astounding. In Nova Scotia, as an example, almost 1,500 people showed interest in a new program that was put in place to start May 1. British Columbia is embarking in this process as well. That is what we need to do. We need to eliminate the barriers for the immigrant community so they can fully participate in Canadian society. This will also ensure that the talents they bring are recognized so they can practise their professions. This will help all of Canada and most certainly help Quebec as well. In fact, Quebec specifically, during the pandemic period, wanted an immigration measure for health care workers to regularize those in Quebec in the health care profession. There is no question that the value of the immigrant community is significant. We need to make sure we also facilitate the process to support them in their contributions and successes here in Canada. There are many aspects, when we are looked at as individuals, as human beings, that we have—

Madam Speaker, part of the motion says, “tripling Canada’s population has real impacts on the future of the French language, Quebec’s political weight, the place of First Peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure”: I want to address this issue. I appreciate the member's work at the immigration committee. I have come to know him and respect a lot of the work that he does. However, I think we are embarking on a very dangerous path, where we could signal that we are going to be vilifying and blaming the immigrant community for the health care crisis we are facing, the housing crisis we are facing and the problems that we have seen as a result of colonization of Canada for indigenous peoples. It is not the immigrant community that should be carrying that weight, but rather, it is the governments that should be carrying that weight.

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the provinces and territories need to step up and address that issue, but the federal government also needs to do the same. Because the federal government, with its immigration measures, only allows migrant workers to come to work in Canada with the identified employer, they are not able to work elsewhere. Those with the talents to work in other sectors are unable to do so because of immigration restrictions, even though they meet the criteria and have the credentials. The federal government has a role to play to fix that problem. At the end of the day, I hope we can all recognize the value of those in the immigrant community. Instead of vilifying them, blaming them and turning our guns on them, we should say that we are one community and we welcome immigrant communities. It does not have to be one or the other.

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I fear with this motion. That is why the NDP is not going to support it, as it ties housing to the immigrant community. The housing crisis exists because successive Liberal and Conservative governments failed on housing. They cancelled the national affordable housing program, they cut funding, and then they were developing initiatives that do not meet the needs. They are not tackling the core of the issue, which is corporate landlords. Instead, they continue to give them special tax treatment. The issue here is not the immigrant community. It is the lack of action from successive Liberal and Conservative governments that has caused the housing crisis, and I would argue, also the health challenges that we face today.

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that has been raised in the speeches is about the fear of the dwindling impact or representation for Quebeckers. Part of the issue is the immigration targets that the federal government has failed to achieve in ensuring new francophone immigration targets are actually met. The government adopted its targets and it has not met them. The FCFA has recommended the government adopt a new francophone immigration target of 12% in 2024 and gradually increase that to 20% in 2036. Does the member think this is what the government should do?

Madam Speaker, we are talking about immigration. Of course, there are many different ways we can have newcomers come to Canada and be part of those immigration levels. In fact, currently, there are many migrant workers who are already here in Canada, including undocumented individuals. At the bare minimum, we are looking at at least half a million individuals who are in that category. They are already here. They are already contributing in many ways. Would the member support the call for the regularization of these many newcomers who are already in Canada and for that to contribute to immigration level numbers?

Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees. There is no question that there needs to be a public inquiry, one that is completely independent and transparent. To that end, my question for the member is this. What does he think is necessary in order to ensure the process is one that all parties could agree to? For example, would the commissioner be chosen with the participation of all leaders in the House to make sure that it is something that we believe will be completely independent?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's reasoned voice in this House where the hyperpartisanship has reached through the roof. The matter here is too important to get into that sort of back-and-forth hyperpartisanship. The issue around the significance and importance of an independent inquiry, along with measures that would send a clear message to any country that tries to interfere with our democracy and intimidate Canadians, needs to be taken seriously. Aside from the public inquiry, which we absolutely agree with, as the NDP was the first to call on the government to put an independent inquiry in place, what is the measure that needs to be in place to send a clear message to all countries that try to undermine out democratic system? What does the member think we need to do to ensure that is put in place?

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the NDP House leader, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. This is such an important debate, and let me put this in some context for all members in the House. A hundred years ago, the government of the day brought in the Chinese Exclusion Act to say that Chinese peoples were not welcome in this country, to make a very clear statement on that. After that, those who came to Canada to help build the railway connecting British Columbia to the east, from coast to coast, which allowed for Canada to exist today, after all their blood and sweat, they were also put in a position of extreme discrimination, with the most dangerous work and the least amount of pay. Many died in that process. Let us be clear that this is Canada's history. A hundred years later, we are in the House debating foreign interference. In the passing years, what has happened? Discrimination and hate have ebbed and flowed. I immigrated to Canada as a little girl back in the 1970s. When I landed here with my family, I experienced discrimination right from the get-go. I looked different. I dressed differently. I did not speak very much English. I was mocked. I grew up denying, working so hard to do what? To belong. I worked to deny myself of my own natural heritage. I did not know any better as a little child how to belong, except to say that I was not Chinese. Now I am smarter, thank goodness, than I was when I was just a little girl. Over the years I have come to realize what a gift my parents afforded me, to immigrate to Canada to give me the opportunities to thrive, to have access to education and to be me, free of pressures and to enjoy the freedoms that Canada affords me, and all of us. Let it be very clear that I am Canadian and I have a natural heritage. The situation that is going on today is so distressing to me. Somehow members of the House, both on the Liberal and the Conservative sides, think that this is just about politics. It is not just about politics. It is about people and the lives of those people. It is about our collective future. I cannot imagine what it is like for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to find out that he and his family are being targeted by the Chinese regime. When I think about that, the dread washes over me. Let us be clear for the member that he has privileges too. He is a member of the House and he has afforded to him, and rightfully so, various protections. However, many other Canadians are faced with these kinds of threats and they do not have access to any protection. They do not even have a voice, and their lives are in danger. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Aside from having experienced discrimination growing up and all the way through, even now, I am receiving hate mail, but I will not bore members with that. My grandfather, who came before me, used to tell me stories when I was a little girl about how, when he went on the bus, he was thrown to the back of the bus and pushed off it. He has now passed. He shared horrific stories of the discrimination he experienced. We have had to fight so hard to make gains and get to where we are today. What is happening? During COVID, people said to my face that it is the “Kwan virus”. That is what they said to me. Since that time, with all of this hyperpartisanship that has gone on, my teenaged daughter got on the bus to go to school. What happened to her? Someone spat on her and yelled racial slurs at her. This is what is happening on the ground and how it is impacting people. Let us just set aside partisan politics for just one minute. Right from the get-go, when this issue came up, the NDP said that we should have a national inquiry into this foreign interference. The NDP moved the motion back in February in committee and gave notice. After much filibustering by some members of the House, the motion finally passed. After that, in March, the NDP brought that motion to the House of Commons to be voted on and got support from all the opposition members, as well as the independent members. That motion also passed. However, instead of doing the right thing, the government decided that it would have another process. Therefore, it escalated the situation, forcing dribs and drabs of information about the risks we face to be released through the media. In the meantime, what are we doing? We are undermining our democratic system and continuing to cast that cloud over people who look like me. That is what is happening, and in that process, people get hurt. Someone who is engaged in the pro-democracy movement for Hong Kong contacted me to say that they received a death threat. That is how serious it is. Now, I was born in Hong Kong, and it absolutely breaks my heart to see what is going on in Hong Kong right now. That person reported the death threat to the RCMP. Then what happened? Nothing happened. Who do we think will come forward to say that this is happening to them when there is no recourse? Who will dare to speak up when even a member of Parliament and his family could be threatened? This is the situation we are faced with, so let us take a breath and stop this partisanship. We should stop this bickering and get on to doing what is right. Our lives depend on it. People who look like me get hurt every day because of it, and some people do not have a voice. The worse thing of all is that the undermining of Canada's democracy; this democracy is something that I cherish and do not take for granted. Where my parents and grandparents came from, they did not have the right to democracy. Chinese people had to die and go to war to fight for that democracy here in Canada. That is our history. That is what has happened in Canada. I think that the national inquiry also has to be completely independent and transparent. It has to meet the political tests of all parties. Maybe we can all just sit down and say, “Hey, let us sit together and get this inquiry under way, get the mandate under way and get a completely independent person to do this job so that we can stop this in its tracks.” That is what we need to do. Moreover, we need to send a clear message to those countries that attempt to meddle with our democratic process. China is definitely one of them, but there are others as well. It may be Russia, Saudi Arabia or even the United States, which we know also meddles in our democratic system. Let us just be honest about that and get to the bottom of it once and for all. I implore all members of the House to set aside their partisanship and do what is right for people, for humanity and for democracy. If we say we are against discrimination, racism and hate, then we should take a breath and stop the gamesmanship that is being played right now. All that does is escalate the situation. This is not good for Canada, and it is not good for our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for owning up to the fact that what he said was inappropriate and making that apology. I do appreciate it. To the question about what would be a completely non-partisan public inquiry, which is absolutely essential, it would be for all the party leaders to come to an agreement on the mandate and who the commissioner is. It has to be completely above board and completely transparent. It needs to pass every single test, because so much rides on it. If there is a shadow of a doubt being cast anywhere in that process, it undermines all the important work that needs to be done, and people like me will never get out from under it. It is too important for that. Too many people's lives have been put in danger, and too many people have died fighting for democracy for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the government should have initiated a completely independent public inquiry. It should have engaged all party leaders in the House to agree to a process and a commissioner, so there would be no question about who would be leading this work and the mandate related to it. There would need to be interim reporting of this work so we would put an end to it. All this bickering about who knew what, when, where, how, etc., could be investigated under a national inquiry so there would be no blaming this way, that way and the other way. In the meantime, what is absolutely essential as well, is for other work to be under way, which is why New Democrats support this motion. As an example, we support a foreign agent registry. We support fully that the police stations operated by the Communist Chinese government should be shut down. Equally important, there should be absolute accountability by those countries that are interfering with our democracy. There has to be accountability and measures taken to send a clear message that, no matter what country is attempting to do this, Canada will not tolerate it.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what is happening, it is clear there is an ongoing tit-for-tat situation of she-said-he-said-they-said without getting into the central issue, which is to take partisanship out of this debate and for the Canadian government to make a course correction regarding the action that needs to be taken by putting in place an independent, public inquiry. Aside from the points in the motion, the other piece I am wondering about is this. Does the member agree that what is also important is for Canada to work with its allied countries to come up with a common strategy to deal with the threat of foreign interference by any country?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals abandoned their responsibility to build social housing, and Canadians are paying the price. Under this Prime Minister, the cost of a home has nearly doubled. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments allowed corporate landlords to buy up affordable housing stock and jack up the cost of housing for renters and homeowners alike. Will the Liberals stop treating housing as a commodity and commit to building at least 500,000 units of social housing and co-op housing so that families can find a home that they can afford?

Madam Speaker, the member just made the comment of having “all hands on deck” in a crisis. What is missing, of course, over all these years with the housing crisis is the fact that both Liberal and Conservative governments have given a free pass to corporate landlords. Real estate investment trusts walked away without paying their fair share of taxes to the tune of $1.7 billion for the seven largest REITs in Canada. Over the next four years, they will walk away with another $300 million. That is almost $2 billion that could be invested into housing, so why did the Conservatives give corporate landlords a free pass? Why did they not put people before profits?