Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, over the course of the pandemic, the independent music sector has seen its revenue decline by $233 million, and musicians' revenues have fallen by 79%. Canadian production saw an average decrease of 12.4% per year between January 2017 and December 2020. In digital media, royalties paid to Canadian creators were three times lower than those for traditional media uses. In 2020, one in four working in the cultural sector lost his or her job, but Netflix revenues increased by over 22% in the same year. Netflix and web giants like Disney+ hardly pay any Canadian taxes. Why do the Conservatives always stand on the side of giant corporations instead of people like creators and artists in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women’s Day. As people struggle with the high cost of living, the poverty rate for single moms is the highest among all family types. The Vancouver School Food Network and Coalition for Healthy School Food are calling on the Liberal government for a funded national school food program in budget 2023. Rising food costs and greedflation have put an enormous strain on families, and too often, children go to school hungry. The NDP’s Bill C-212 would help families that are stretched to the max and having trouble putting food on the table. The Liberals ran on a promise of investing $1 billion over five years for a national school nutritious meal program, but empty promises will not fill empty stomachs. I am calling for a national school food program in budget 2023. I am also calling for a guaranteed basic livable income, a low-income CERB and CRB amnesty and the refund of clawbacks from Canada child benefit recipients. Let us end poverty and bring food security to all families and their children.

Madam Speaker, Oxfam Canada, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch want to hold companies accountable for their actions and to allow victims of human rights and environmental harm the statutory rights to bring a civil lawsuit against those companies. This bill does not do that. The NDP tried to move six amendments at committee to make that change. The government members and the committee members voted against it. Some would argue that not ensuring there is action to hold companies accountable is more damaging than just pretending something is being done. Why did the government members vote against the amendments that the NDP put forward to address the issues around child labour and modern-day slavery?

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill S-211, which claims to fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains. There is no question that global supply chains continue to be tainted with forced labour and child labour. Millions of people around the world experience conditions of modern slavery. Horrifically, this includes young children who, too often, harvest the food we eat and manufacture the clothes we wear. Sadly, progress toward eradicating child and forced labour has stalled and even reversed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the report from the International Labour Organization warned that child labour was increasing for the first time in two decades. Between 2016 and 2020, the number of children in child labour increased to 160 million worldwide; 79 million of these children, some as young as five years old, are working in conditions considered to be hazardous, which means that the work is likely to harm their health, safety and morals. Economic impacts of the pandemic, leading to school closures and income loss among low-income families globally, have pushed more children into these dangerous working conditions to try to earn a living. The reality is that forced labour conditions exist in nearly every country. Canada is deeply implicated in perpetuating these human rights abuses. Under the current legislative framework, there is no corporate accountability for companies that profit from the exploitation in their supply chains. According to a report from World Vision in 2016, it is estimated that over 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods at high risk of being produced by child or forced labour every year. The agricultural and grocery industry is one of the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour: 71% of all child labour takes place in the agricultural sector, and many of these items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves. In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of risky food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago. During the same pandemic period when Canada's major grocery chains raked in record profits, the use of child and forced labour in agricultural supply chains increased. As Canadians get gouged with greedflation at the grocery checkout, corporate giants fail to take action on ending forced and child labour in their supply chains. World Vision reported that corporate social responsibility reports from Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, Canada's three largest grocers, yield “little meaningful information about what they are doing to address the risk of child labour in their supply chains.” There are record profits, yet zero accountability to respect human rights. This is egregiously wrong. Unfortunately, we know that these issues extend far beyond the agricultural sector. In 2021, CBC reported that Canadian clothing brands sold items manufactured by North Korean forced labour at a Chinese factory. Recently, I spoke about the genocide against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. This is again relevant to raise, because these issues are connected. Many products sold in Canada are manufactured with Uighur forced labour. Between 2017 to 2019, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Uighurs were forcibly transferred out of the Uighur region to work in factories across China. In 2020 alone, reports reveal that 83 global companies were indirectly or directly involved in employing Uighur workers under conditions of forced labour. From food products, clothing and textiles to the supply chains of major auto manufacturers, the use of Uighur forced labour is widespread. Canada can and must do more to uphold human rights and work to eradicate child and forced labour. The NDP wants to ensure that products imported into Canada are not produced with forced labour or child labour. New Democrats believe that Canada has a responsibility to ensure that supply chains of products sold in Canada are free from these egregious human rights violations. The government has an international human rights obligation to do this, but due to the inaction of successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada is lagging behind other jurisdictions. European countries such as France have already passed due diligence legislation, which requires that companies take action to address child labour and forced labour. Importantly, this also provides legal recourse if efforts are shown to be inadequate. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability has been calling for human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Canada. The organization has even drafted model legislation, providing a blueprint for writing into Canadian law the corporate duty to respect human rights and the environment. For over a decade, the CNCA has also been calling for an independent ombudsperson office with the power to investigate human rights complaints related to Canadian corporate activity abroad. The Liberals announced that they would create this independent ombudsperson office in 2018, yet today this is just another empty promise from the government. Instead, the government has created a powerless advisory post. It is clear that there is much work to be done. That is why NDP members, in working with policy experts on these issues, have put forward two critical pieces of legislation. Bill C-262, the corporate responsibility to protect human rights act, would implement the human rights and environmental due diligence that is needed. It would hold companies accountable for their actions and allow victims of human rights and environmental harm the statutory right to bring a lawsuit against that company. Bill C-263 would give the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise the powers needed to actually do its job and investigate and hold companies accountable. The CNCA, which includes member groups such as Oxfam Canada, Amnesty International Canada and Human Rights Watch Canada, supports these steps, but it is yet to be seen whether other parties will do the right thing. Today, we are here debating Bill S-211. From the outset, the NDP recognized that this bill was deeply flawed. New Democrats agree with the view that CNCA shares: that, unamended, this bill is damaging because it creates the appearance of action to end modern slavery without actually having that effect. As currently drafted, Bill S-211 advances none of the essential elements of an effective supply chain law. According to the CNCA: Bill S-211 would require companies to report on what steps, if any, they have taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced or child labour in their supply chains. It would only apply to a small minority of companies; it does not require these companies to stop using child or forced labour or to conduct human rights due diligence; and it is silent on other egregious human rights abuses (such as mass rape, murder and torture), as its focus is limited to child or forced labour. Recognizing the flaws of this bill, the NDP proposed six amendments at committee stage to improve the legislation based on expert testimony, yet the government rejected all of them. Canada needs to do much more to fight forced labour and child labour. The Minister of Labour's own mandate letter instructs him to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.” Bill S-211 fails to do that. Therefore, the NDP will be voting against this legislation. We will continue to advocate for legislation that actually addresses the issue and commit to eradicating forced labour and child labour. Having the appearance under this bill to be doing something is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, each year on February 14, family members, survivors and allies gather to honour missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ people. This Valentine's Day marked the 32nd annual memorial march. It has been over three years since the final report on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry was tabled. As another year passes, the crisis facing the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2S+ community is more urgent than ever. Shamefully, little action has been taken to implement the 231 calls for justice. Despite years of promises, there is still no “for indigenous, by indigenous” northern, rural and urban housing strategy. None of the $420 million announced in 2020 to build transitional housing and shelters in response to the national inquiry has rolled out. The inaction is costing lives. I am so sad that I was not able to attend the march on Tuesday; I was in Ottawa grilling the Minister of Housing about the Liberals' inaction on the housing crisis. As always, I remain committed to holding the government accountable in the fight for justice for all indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. The genocide must end. Indigenous women and girls cannot afford to wait for another year to pass by.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats pushed the Liberals to deliver a one-time $500 housing benefit to low-income renters, but now the Liberals are saying that people on income assistance or disability assistance, whose rent is paid directly to landlords, are not eligible. They are among the most vulnerable in our community. We are in the middle of a housing crisis, and families are struggling to afford to buy food with the rising cost of living. They need this help now. Will the Liberals stop penalizing people on income assistance or disability assistance and withdraw this discriminatory requirement?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to addressing the homelessness and housing crisis, the Liberals would be hard pressed to do any worse. The Auditor General's report on chronic homelessness found that the federal government does not even know whether the national housing strategy is working to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness, yet they have spent billions to develop unaffordable housing. On November 15, 2022, I asked the minister when the government will do its job so that everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home. The minister responded that he accepts the Auditor General's report and that the government would implement all of the recommendations, yet in December, the CEO of CMHC, Romy Bowers, confirmed the government will not meet its targets on reducing chronic homelessness. Her response was, “It is a very challenging target to meet.” The Liberals' failure to lead is only worsening the crisis. Skyrocketing rents are forcing families to choose between food and rent. Shelters are over capacity and tent cities are expanding. In Toronto, during a recent extreme cold weather alert, 99% of warming centre spaces were occupied. Unhoused people are dying across the country. Organizations such as the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness are sounding the alarm, calling for greater action to address surging homelessness. Rather than stepping up in support, the government's response is to exclude people who have rent paid directly to their landlord by social assistance programs from receiving the $500 rental housing benefit, which the NDP forced them to deliver. These are some of the people with the lowest incomes, including seniors, people with disabilities and individuals on income assistance, and the government is punishing them. It is absolutely appalling. Meanwhile, the CMHC cannot even deliver on funds that have already been committed. Not a single cent of the $420 million for transitional homes and shelters for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people has been released. It has been two years since the announcement, and there has been zero progress on building these projects. On the federal lands initiative, the government has disbursed only about 11% of the money allocated last year to support urban, rural and northern indigenous housing. The government's website says there is no property available. With the coinvestment fund, 115,000 units have received funding commitments, but the funding has not flowed. Projects are sitting there waiting as project costs rise due to inflation. Now the government has introduced a new funding limit of $25,000 per unit for the fund, which means many projects will no longer be viable. I have heard people say that CMHC is where projects go to die. Sadly, this seems to be the case. What will it take to get projects delivered? The minister called the coinvestment fund the flagship program for deeply affordable housing, yet in a written response to my question at HUMA, CMHC described the coinvestment fund as a supply initiative with an affordability definition linked to the cost of a unit versus market prices. It is not surprising then that the Auditor General found low-income people cannot afford much of the housing being built through this program. The government cannot even get its story straight. Some community organizations have projects ready but have been told by CMHC that the coinvestment fund has been depleted. When my colleagues wrote to the minister about an affordable housing project for seniors, the minister encouraged them to look to the coinvestment fund for support. On the same date, the minister replied to a letter that I wrote indicating that “the remaining NHCF contribution budget is limited.” The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. When will the government get its story straight and fix the housing crisis?

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to debate this very important motion. We are talking about health care and health care delivery. One of the things that Canadians cherish is our universal public health care system. I will tell members a story of my own history. Our family immigrated here to Canada. At that time, when my parents got the green light to come to Canada, they also got the green light to go to the United States as well. They made the ultimate decision to come to Canada. Why did they make that decision? It is because Canada has universal public health care. That is the reason why so many immigrants choose to come to Canada and make Canada their adopted home. I will tell members how important that was in our case. I come from a family of eight. We are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. There are six children within our family. Living in Hong Kong, my parents knew that there was no way they would be able to continue to raise a family with six children. I, particularly, was a sickly kid. I was sick constantly. Every typhoon season, I swear, I had bronchitis. My mom would be worried sick, and she would be carrying me on her back to take me to the hospital. She would constantly take me to visit the doctors, to get medication, to get the help that I needed. They knew, my parents knew, that this was not sustainable. They could not afford it. When they moved to Canada, the one thing that saved our lives, that saved my life, was that access to health care. My parents were making minimum wage. In fact, my mom, when we first came, made $10 a day as a farm worker to support a family of eight. That is how we survived. Going to see a doctor was never a worry because it was free. That is what makes Canada so great. What are we talking about now today? We are talking about premiers across the country, Conservative premiers, who want to privatize health care, who want to create a two-tier system, to say to people that, if one has money, one can access health care, get first in line and cut the queue. What is wrong with that picture? It is not the Canada we envision, that we choose to come to, yet we have a Prime Minister who flip-flopped on his perspective. He was clear to say, in the 2021 election, that he would not support two-tier medicine and that he would not support for-profit health care. He did not say that this was what he was going to do when he got into government, that he would see it as “innovation”. What has happened? My goodness, in 2023, he has flip-flopped. Now he is saying that Doug Ford's strategy to go forward to deliver health care for Ontario, a move in the direction of privatizing health care and expanding private clinics, is innovative. The Prime Minister said that this was innovative. There is nothing innovative about that. That is putting people in a situation where they cannot access health care when they need it or where they need it. When we talk about health care, what are we talking about exactly? It is about our well-being, every fibre of who we are and how we exist. If we do not have health, we have nothing. That is why we must stand to protect public universal health care against this erosion that these Conservative premiers, Doug Ford, Danielle Smith, I can go on, want. All of these Conservative premiers are wanting to head down that road. It is the wrong direction. It is not what Canadians want. If we look at our Conservative colleagues, where are they? Well, they want to go down that path exactly. Why? It is because it benefits their friends. If we look at the information, even on an economic basis, it makes zero sense to do private health care expansion. It actually costs the system more money. Not just for the individual, but it costs all of us more money. It is an erosion of our collective well-being. In British Columbia, we have walked down this path before. We had Dr. Brian Day with the expansion of Cambie clinic. They wanted to expand it. They wanted to go in the direction of private health care clinics for surgeries and other health care services. The matter was brought to the court and the court ruled that it was an erosion of Canada's public health care system and that it would cost the system more money. It was a violation of the Canada Health Act, and it was struck down. The court decision did not allow the Cambie clinic to proceed. It went all the way to the Supreme Court on a constitutional argument. The court refused to hear it and said it was a no go. Did anybody learn from that? No. Premiers have lined up, and they are going down that track to say we need to privatize, hurting Canadians. Right now, more than anything, we need to put every effort into our communities to support people. We need to support people in our communities, support our health care workers and expand the public health care system. We are not doing that. The Conservatives are not going down that track. They are looking to see how we can expand private health care. The Prime Minister is so disappointing. It is so disappointing for him not to stand up and say, “No, that is not innovation. This is not the track that we are going to go down. We are going to fight tooth and nail to support public health care.” There is an opportunity here to make it right. One thing my mom taught me long ago was that, if someone knows they have done something wrong, they should correct it and learn from that mistake. There is an opportunity for the Liberals to do exactly that. Our motion today gives them that opportunity. We are calling for the government to close the loophole within the Canada Health Act and say no more. We want the government to say we are not going to have this debate anymore, we are not going to go down this track, and we are going to stop it. The way to stop it is to close that loophole in the Canada Health Act. Furthermore, the government, with health care spending and the transfer of dollars to the provinces, can also say to the provinces and Conservative premiers that, if they think they are going to use this money to go in the direction of privatizing health care delivery, that is not what the money is for and it will not allow that to happen. The government can do that. The government has the authority to do that. It can put teeth in its words and stand by them. Together, we can continue to build the Canada health care system and not allow for the erosion that so many Conservatives are attempting to sneak in with their pursuit of an agenda. If they were successful, what would that mean? It would mean that people who need the services the most would not be able to get it because they do not have the money or the wealth to access those services. It brings me back to the days when I was a kid on my mom's back. She carried me for miles to go see a doctor because we could not afford it. We just have to look to the United States to see what is going on. People make movies about these things. We see movies of desperate parents needing to access health care, and when they cannot access it, what do they do? They are forced to take unimaginable actions, such as commit crimes they do not want to do or engage in robberies. Movies are made about these things. This cannot be allowed to happen. We do not want people to make those kinds of movies about Canada. We want people to make movies about Canada that say how great our system is, what universal health care means and how it protects everybody. We need to come together to do this work. We need to invest in our health care system, and when people want to take it down the wrong track, we have to stop them dead in their tracks and say, “No way, no how”—

Madam Speaker, the member knows very well that what we are talking about is for-profit health care. He knows very well why I cited the example of the Cambie clinic. What Dr. Brian Day wanted to do was expand surgery, for example, and charge people tens of thousands of dollars to access surgery. In that process, he was going to raid health care workers in the public system to staff that approach. The member knows very well that doing that hurts our system overall. He knows very well that it erodes our public health care system. The member knows very well that it is a violation of the Canada Health Act.

Madam Speaker, let us look at the whole picture. The member should know what was happening during that period with the federal government. It was a Conservative government. With the Liberals and the Conservatives, it is the same old story; they are about the same. They starve provinces of federal health care transfer dollars, so people are forced to try to make ends meet. What we need to do, of course, is properly fund provinces and territories in the delivery of health care. We also need to close all the loopholes for premiers who want to go down the track of privatizing health care. By the way, it was the B.C. NDP government that stopped private clinics, and the people who wanted to go down the private health care track, in the courts.

Madam Speaker, I note the condescending comments that my colleague shared about my speech. It is not passion that I speak about. This is about our health care system and how it impacts Canadians. The member should know, and if he does not know, he should look it up, that the courts have made a clear decision that going toward private health care is a violation of the Canada Health Act. Going in that direction is an erosion of our public health care system. It hurts people in their access to health care, and it is not the path forward.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referenced in her speech the importance of getting more health care workers into our system. In immigration, in fact, there are a number of nurses who have come to Canada, many of them as caregivers. They have written all the exams and passed them to become health care workers, for example nurses, in the system. The only thing preventing them from doing that job is their immigration status. They are only afforded a limited, employer-specific work permit, so they cannot work for anyone else, even though there are health clinics and hospitals lined up wanting to hire them. First, does the member think that the Minister of Immigration should change the system to enable these caregivers to engage in their profession, which they have been trained for? Second, does she support the call for the government to regularize workers so they can get into the system and fill the job—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that, with regard to the housing project that the parliamentary secretary mentions, for example, on East Hastings in my riding, just so the member knows, that project was approved by the city back in 2018. It is now 2023 and likely, probably, maybe next year we will see the project finally deliver housing. It has taken that long to actually get that housing done. Meanwhile, what is happening in the streets of Vancouver? There is homelessness. We have unbelievable encampments littered throughout our streets, people in desperate need of housing. When the government wants to congratulate itself, pardon me, but it is not good enough. People are dying on the streets. The programs are not being delivered fast enough. Meanwhile, non-profits are not able to make the projects work, as the inflationary costs increase and the government is changing the requirements and the eligibility criteria to reduce the amount of what they can get to get the project off the ground. They are failing the community. They are failing Canadians who desperately need a government to show leadership to address the housing crisis.

Madam Speaker, of course we are under siege with the climate crisis. In British Columbia we experience extreme weather from fires to floods. Lives were lost and there have been damages of untold millions of dollars. What is needed is not the solution the Conservatives are proposing, to not address the climate crisis through carbon pricing. What we need is for the government to take on big oil. The minister supposedly came from the environmental sector. Why is he not taking this on and imposing a windfall tax on big oil? It made a record profit last year of $147 billion. Why are we not taxing big oil to address the climate crisis?

Madam Speaker, I happy to enter this debate today. There is no question that people are struggling to pay for the rising cost of living on groceries, housing and energy. Just name it and they are struggling, while billionaires and big corporations are getting richer than ever. Big oil companies and CEOs are getting wealthier off the backs of Canadians, who are struggling with the rising cost of living and dealing with the devastating consequences of extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. B.C., my home province, is still trying to recover from its devastating wildfire and floods. In 2021, there were 1,600 fires in British Columbia, and together they burned down 8,700 square kilometres of land. The summer of 2021 saw the village of Lytton burn to the ground, with the cost estimated at $78 million. That is not to mention the emotional trauma and damage this has done to the community and individuals who suffered this loss. Then came the floods in November 2021, when the communities of Merritt, Princeton and Abbotsford in southern British Columbia were flooded, with an estimated cost of $450 million in damages. Again, that is not to mention the emotional trauma that people are still struggling with. Of course, B.C. is not alone in this experience of extreme weather. This is happening across the globe. It is happening right here in Canada from coast to coast to coast. I will not go on to list all the examples, as we all know them and have spoken about them in this House. However, what is clear is that urgent action is needed to address the climate crisis. The Conservatives are choosing to close their eyes and turn a blind eye to this reality. To be clear, carbon pricing is revenue-neutral, so all revenues are returned to the province or territory in which they are generated. Households receive 90% of revenues raised from the fuel charge through a direct rebate, and these rebates are paid back quarterly in my home province of British Columbia. There is also an additional supplement available to people who live in small and rural communities. The PBO has estimated that eight out of 10 households will receive more back in rebates than they pay in fuel charges. The Conservatives' claim that 60% of households incur a net loss is based on the PBO's estimates of the economic impact of federal carbon pricing in 2030. That is seven years from now, just to be clear and to put that on the record. Those estimates incorporate a projected loss in economic efficiency from carbon pricing and do not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of the climate crisis. I just put on the record the cost to British Columbia when it experienced the floods and wildfires. That has not been accounted for. Looking at the direct fiscal impact only, the same PBO report found, “For the vast majority of households in the backstop provinces, their rebates exceed their carbon costs.” The net benefits of the federal carbon pricing system are broadly progressive by income group. Households with the lowest incomes receive the largest net transfers, and only the wealthiest households pay more than they get back in rebates. Why let the facts get in the way of the rhetoric? Why let the facts get in the way of the Conservatives' attempt to fundraise for their own political gain at the expense of the climate crisis? Instead of focusing on real solutions, they choose to engage in cheap politics. That much is clear. The Conservatives said no to the NDP's proposal to exempt the GST on home heating. That would have made a real difference in support of everyday Canadians who are struggling to pay their energy costs. However, the Conservatives said no to that and rejected it. That is the truth. They also refuse to go after the biggest polluters and refuse to go after the ultrarich. When the New Democrats called for a tax on the excess profits of huge corporations to make life more affordable, the Conservatives and the Liberals voted no to making big oil companies pay what they owe to help families cope with the high costs of living. They refused to go after big oil, which is making record profits to the tune of $147 billion in profit last year. The Conservatives have selected to give them a free pass instead. Under Canada's carbon pricing system, the biggest polluters pay the lowest carbon tax rate. Loopholes allow for oil and gas companies to only pay a tiny portion of the costs for their pollution. In fact, 80% to 90% of emissions are exempt. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price. These loopholes need to be closed so that big oil pays what it owes for its pollution. More than that, the UN Secretary-General said, “Polluters must pay”, and called on countries to implement a windfall profit tax on fossil fuel companies. The Conservative government in the U.K. has already put a 25% windfall tax on oil and gas profits. The EU has announced plans for a tax on windfall profits. Spain, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have all implemented a similar levy, yet both the Liberals and the Conservatives oppose making big oil companies and the ultrarich pay their fair share. The NDP has a very different perspective. This corporate greed has to stop. Families are struggling, and one way to help them tackle the high cost of living is to put in a windfall tax on excess profits for the ultrawealthy. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives need to step up and support the people across this country. They have voted against the NDP's motion on an excess profit tax for the ultrarich to help struggling families. It makes no sense. The federal carbon pricing system, by the way, only applies to provinces and territories that do not put a price on pollution or do not meet the federal standards. Across the country, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and New Brunswick all have their own carbon pricing solutions that they have already put in place. That means that what the Conservatives are talking about with their rhetoric would not actually help those provinces and territories. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is there for the working people, the working class, and we heard it today in his speech. What do they want? They want the government and the Conservatives to support the fight against greedflation. They want that action. They want to see a windfall tax or an excessive profiteering tax for the ultrawealthy CEOs. They want real solutions, not just slogans. Divisive rhetoric and fearmongering will not help with the struggles people face every day. I would be remiss if I did not point out the offensive comment that came from the leader of the Conservatives. He called my riding “hell on earth”. It is despicable that he would use that language to describe any riding in this country. Of course, our community is struggling; we are struggling. However, we have people in our community who are working every single day and putting their lives on the line to support people in the community. For the leader of the Conservatives to call my riding hell on earth is despicable, and he needs to apologize.

Mr. Speaker, first off, the member is wrong. There is no coalition government. The NDP is not part of the Liberals. We have a supply and confidence agreement, but we do not sit in cabinet. We are not there at that table. If it were an NDP government, we would have different policies; that is for sure. On the issue around the climate crisis, I think the member did not hear what I said. I invite him to come to British Columbia to see the aftermath of the fires and floods and what is going on. Conservatives can continue to be climate deniers or they can step up and actually make the wealthy pay and get the big oil and gas companies to pay their fair share so we can really fight the climate crisis and support Canadians in their everyday struggles.

Mr. Speaker, to correct the member, if he actually paid attention to my speech, he would have heard me say that I was actually quoting the UN Secretary-General. That said, we do believe we need to tackle the climate crisis. There is no question about it. We have been calling on the government to take exactly those actions and make the biggest polluters pay their fair share, yet the Liberals continue to exempt the oil and gas companies. In fact, they would go as far as to provide them with a subsidy so they do not have to pay their fair share. Through a supply and confidence agreement, we are pushing the Liberals every step of the way to make them step up. That is why we are seeing a tiny bit of action on the subsidy aspect. To the member's final comment regarding the bill, when there are no alternatives, we need to provide alternatives to address the climate crisis. That is why we did what we did on that bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises exactly the right point about the real impact for people. In my riding, and particularly in the Downtown Eastside, people can actually suffocate and die when there is a heat dome like that. In the SROs they are living in, there is basically no air circulating. That is why people took to the streets. If people want a solution, we need an investment in housing as a basic human right to address the housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker, indigenous peoples are overrepresented in the homeless population. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it would require $27.5 billion to close this housing gap. The Liberals' allocation of $300 million over five years is a drop in the bucket. While the NDP forced the Liberals to roll this out over two years for urgent need, more needs to be done. The National Urban, Rural, and Northern Indigenous Housing Coalition is calling on the government to commit $6 billion in budget 2023. The NDP fully supports this. Will the Liberals make this commitment to help end the housing crisis for indigenous peoples?

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government's watch, thousands of innocent refugees and migrants are being locked up in prisons, treated like criminals, simply for seeking safety and a better life in Canada. On November 14, 2022, I asked the government whether it would stop incarcerating migrants and asylum seekers in provincial jails, as has been called for by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary said that, “immigration detention is a measure of last resort.” That is the same message the Minister of Public Safety's office told CBC, indicating that, “the government continues to seek alternatives”. The government's record tells the true story. Every year between 2016 and 2020, under the Liberals, the number of immigration detainees increased, and 8,825 people were detained between April 2019 and March 2020 alone. The minister's stock answers are no comfort to the thousands of people who come to Canada seeking safety, yet end up being locked away, including 136 children who were housed in detention during the same period. Canada is also among the only countries in the global north without a legal limit on the length of time people can be in immigration detention. In other words, Canada locks them up and throws away the key. This is wrong. Since 2016, 300 people were detained for more than a year. One man was detained for 11 years, and 17 people have died in immigration detention since 2000, most of them in provincial jails. Alberta recently became the last province to announce that it is severing its agreement with the CBSA to end the practice of detaining immigrants in provincial jails. The province joined Manitoba and Nova Scotia, led by British Columbia, which are all cancelling their contracts, but the federal government seems to be missing in action and needs to take leadership by ending immigration detention, full stop. A 2021 report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documents serious human rights violations experienced by immigration detainees in Canada, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities. Immigration detainees are often subjected to solitary confinement, shackled and held with violent offenders, fearing for their safety. Researchers also found that Black detainees appear to be incarcerated longer and are more likely to be detained in provincial jails, while people with mental health conditions disproportionately receive coercive treatment. In fact, CBSA officials told researchers that people with mental health conditions may be detained in provincial jails to manage them in light of their behaviour. The negative effects of incarceration can be severe and may impact former immigration detainees for years after they are released. Recent media reports have revealed the horrific conditions experienced in immigration detention. Abdirahman Warssama came to Canada from Somalia and was locked up in a maximum security prison for five years and seven months, even though he was not considered dangerous. During his time in prison, he was beaten and experienced 199 lockdowns during a single year. During these lockdowns, detainees are locked in their cells, sometimes for several days, without access to showers, a phone or the ability to go outside. Another man who escaped war in his home country was locked up in an immigration holding centre in Laval for months, despite having no criminal history. This is wrong. This needs to stop.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to have immigration detention for people who pose no security risk to Canadians or have no serious criminality issues. There is no reason for that. In the case I mentioned earlier, CBSA's own document, which was obtained by the CBC, said that he posed no risk. He posed zero risk to Canadians. As a result of the detention, he lost his job, he lost his apartment and he lost his belongings. In other countries like the European Union, detention has had a maximum length of six months since 2008. Argentina does not use immigration detention at all. Other countries have recognized that people have not committed a crime and should not be locked up indefinitely, yet Canada continues to do this. CBSA continues to incarcerate migrants and destroy people's lives. It remains the only major law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight. This is so wrong. Enough of this gross human rights violation, enough of saying that we are doing something and then not doing enough. Let us end immigration detentions for those who do not have serious criminality issues or are not a threat to public safety.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government, the cost of rent for Canadians has gone up 60%. Liberals are letting corporate landlords rip off Canadian families by jacking up rent when they bring in a new tenant. To let corporations and speculators turn our housing market into a casino for the ultrawealthy is wrong. The Liberals have turned their backs on renters. When are the Liberals going to crack down on the profiteering of corporate landlords, which is keeping families from finding a home they can afford?

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that the minister wants to engage in addressing the causes of crime. In my riding of Vancouver East, and particularly in the Downtown Eastside, we have a major homelessness crisis. We have people with mental health issues who cannot get mental health supports. We have people with an addiction issue who cannot get support or treatment on demand. People are dying in the community. The fallout of that is that it impacts the entire community in all its ways. Will the minister support and will he have the government initiate what had been done before, which was the Vancouver agreement, bringing all levels of government together, working together, to address the crisis in the Downtown Eastside? That is a possible approach to bringing forward solutions to the problem.

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 62, a motion that focuses on the human rights abuses and genocide being carried out against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims by the government of the People's Republic of China. I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, for his important motion. All parliamentarians must stand firm in defence of fundamental human rights and condemn such gross violations, wherever they occur around the globe. Canada has an obligation to uphold and defend human rights in the international community and support Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, who are facing horrific persecution. I want to send a clear message that New Democrats support the motion, and we stand in solidarity with them in their fight for human rights. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has studied the human rights situation of the Uighurs. The subcommittee heard witness testimony documenting the mounting evidence of human rights abuses, including mass arbitrary detention, separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization, forced labour, torture and other atrocities. It was the subcommittee's conclusion that this organized and systematic persecution, which includes the largest mass detention of a minority since the Holocaust, constitutes a genocide, as per the genocide convention. Back in 2018, the subcommittee on international human rights stated: if the international community does not condemn the human rights abuses in Xinjiang province by the Government of China, a precedent will be set and these methods will be adopted by other regimes. Complacency is entrenched by a lack of access to Xinjiang; by the lack of free press; and through the silencing and harassment of Uyghurs living abroad. Sadly, since then, human rights abuses have only intensified, and the situation has become even more urgent, demanding greater action. New Democrats have pushed the Canadian Parliament to recognize the treatment of Uighurs as genocide and have called on the government to use every tool at its disposal to help end these abuses. On February 22, 2021, the House unanimously recognized the actions of the Chinese government against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims as genocide, despite the Prime Minister and members of cabinet abstaining from the vote. Recognizing and fully condemning this genocide was a critical first step, but Canada can and must do more to take a stand against the horrific human rights abuses. Motion No. 62 recognizes that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who have fled to third countries face intimidation to return to China, where they face serious risks of detention and other atrocities. The motion also recognizes that many third countries face continued diplomatic and economic pressure from China to detain and deport Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, meaning that even in other countries, they are not safe. Importantly, in light of this grave situation, the motion calls on the Canadian government to urgently leverage IRCC’s refugee and humanitarian resettlement program to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in need of protection. Urgent action is needed. The NDP fully supports Motion No. 62. However, I will be introducing an amendment to ensure that Uighurs are admitted to Canada via a special immigration measure. New Democrats believe Canada should increase the total numbers of vulnerable people we welcome to our country, including those from East Turkestan, Ukraine, Afghanistan and other places where people are subject to the worst violations of their human rights. This is consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations, which call for the creation of “an exceptional refugee stream” to expedite entry for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. The creation of an emergency refugee program was also among the key recommendations advocated by the World Uyghur Congress. We should not be pitting communities against each other by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Further, while the NDP supports this important motion, there is much more work that needs to be done to put an end to the persecution of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. Human rights advocacy organizations have been tireless in their work calling for greater action and highlighting the need for the Government of Canada to take a stronger stance for human rights. Some of them are here today. Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project have called on the government to implement the recommendations of the subcommittee report. One of these recommendations is that the Department of Justice develop a comprehensive human rights due diligence law that would compel businesses to respect the most current international human rights standards across their global operations and supply chains, and be held accountable for harms caused in relation to their operations. Alarmingly, global supply chains are tainted with forced labour. Consequently, advocates have called on the government to strengthen trade restrictions to prohibit the importation of goods manufactured in the Uighur region. Products sold in Canadian supermarkets and stores are being made by Uighur forced labour. This includes products such as bath towels, quilts and clothes, which are made with cotton from the Uighur region. Corporations such as Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever have also purchased tomatoes from Chinese companies in the Uighur region. China is one of only eight states that has not yet ratified the International Labour Organization's convention on ending forced labour. Between 2017 and 2019, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Uighurs were forcibly transferred out of the Uighur region to work in factories across China. In 2020 alone, reports revealed that 83 global companies were indirectly or directly involved in employing Uighur workers under forced labour. A recently released report on the automotive sector has revealed the use of Uighur forced labour throughout the supply chains of major auto manufacturers. The report found that more than 100 international automotive parts or car manufacturers have some exposure to goods made with forced Uighur labour. It is completely unacceptable that companies are allowed to profit off of persecution, that supply chains involve forced labour, and that the products we purchase are manufactured using forced labour. Advocates are also calling on Canada to push for an end to the arbitrary detention of Uighur human rights defenders in China. Canada should be working with civil society organizations to advocate for the release of those human rights defenders who have been imprisoned. New Democrats have also called for sanctions to be imposed on government of China officials responsible for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses. This is also consistent with the recommendations of the subcommittee on international human rights. The creation of a special immigration measure to expeditiously bring Uighurs and Turkic Muslims to safety is an essential part of Canada's role in defending human rights and taking a firm stand to denounce this ongoing genocide. I move: That the motion be amended: a) in paragraph (c), by adding after the words “into Canada” the following: “and ensure corresponding additional immigration levels in the refugee streams so that other persecuted members in the global community seeking safety in Canada are not impacted”; and b) in paragraph (d), by replacing the word “120” with the word “100”. I think that this is essential, if we are going to move forward, as a first step toward supporting Uighurs. It is essential for Canada to take this action to show leadership in the international community.

With regard to Indigenous housing: (a) what is the total amount of the $4.3 billion for the Indigenous Community Infrastructure Fund announced in budget 2022 that has been committed to support housing (i) in First Nations on reserves, (ii) in Self-Governing and Modern Treaty Holder First Nations communities, (iii) in Inuit communities, (iv) in Métis communities, (v) as part of an urban, rural and northern Indigenous housing strategy; (b) what is the total amount of funding in (a) that has been disbursed; and (c) broken down by program and year since 2017, how much funding for housing has been (i) committed, (ii) disbursed, towards supporting the 87 percent of Indigenous households in Canada who live in urban, rural and northern regions outside of their traditional territories, as identified by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

With regard to the National Housing Co-Investment fund (NHCF), for projects with conditional commitments and finalized agreements, broken down by province, stream (new construction, revitalization) and stage (conditional commitment, finalized agreement and finalized agreement with construction completed): (a) what is the number of units that (i) do not charge rent, (ii) charge rent up to 80 percent of the average market rent affordability threshold, (iii) charge rent above the 80 percent average market rent affordability threshold; (b) what is the average rent of the units, excluding units that do not charge rent; (c) what is the number of units whose rent is above 30 percent of the maximum annual before-tax income for low-income households that rent of that province; and (d) how many households living in NHCF units are spending over 30 percent of their household income on rent?

With regard to the special immigration measures for Afghan nationals: (a) broken down by current country of residence and stream (people who assisted the government of Canada, humanitarian, extended family of former interpreters, and the special program to sponsor Afghan refugees without UNHCR status) and the year of the application, (i) how many applicants have been assigned a unique client identifier number, (ii) how many applicants have been assigned an application number starting with the letter G and are awaiting to come to Canada, (iii) how many applications are awaiting to have their biometrics completed, (iv) how many applications have biometrics completed for all applicants and are awaiting a flight to Canada, (v) how many applicants have satisfied all the requirements such as medical, biometrics, security checks, etc.; (b) what are the average processing times for a successful application; (c) what is the average waiting time for successful applicants to be assigned a flight destined for Canada; (d) how many applicants are still awaiting departure to come to Canada; (e) how many applications have been rejected under the special measures because they do not have a valid visa or expired visa in the third country; (f) how much funding has the government allocated to the International Organization for Migration (IOM); (g) how many IOM housing units are funded by the government of Canada; (h) how many Afghan nationals under the special measures have (i) been assigned to an IOM housing unit, (ii) are waiting for a unit, (iii) are being asked to pay back housing costs; and (i) for Afghan nationals under the special measures being asked to pay back housing costs, (i) how much are they being asked to pay on average, (ii) what is the timeline for repayment?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work at both the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship. There are multiple levels or areas where this issue can be brought up. With respect to this motion, the content related to it and the human rights issue for Tibetans, could this be brought up at the foreign affairs committee or in the Canada-China relations committee?

Mr. Speaker, the minister says assigning immigration applications to agents who are no longer working at IRCC is ordinary process and part of inventory management. That means the Liberals are deliberately assigning applications to officers knowing that they do not work there anymore. Close to 60,000 applicants have been in a state of limbo, some for as long as 15 years, unable to move forward with their lives. What does the minister have to say to the families whose lives are being destroyed when their files are deliberately sent to oblivion for processing?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bank of Canada's interest rate was hiked yet again. Interest rates have already fuelled the high cost of rent, and this will just make it worse. Canadians are now facing a nearly 12% rent hike. In Vancouver, a one-bedroom apartment costs over $2,576, more than a 17% increase from last year. The NDP has always said that the $500 housing benefit is not enough. Will the government help renters by expanding and extending the housing benefit?

Mr. Speaker, the member was absolutely correct to say that anti-Asian racism is on the rise. It began with COVID, but it has not abated since COVID. In my own personal experience, four generations of my family have experienced overt racism as well as covert racism. Things got so bad that it is extremely hurtful. With respect to this motion, the issue is this: Why did the member not include a report back mechanism so that the House would actually know what work is being done and how the government is, in fact, taking real action to tackle anti-Asian racism?

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 63, a motion that focuses on anti-Asian racism and discrimination. I would like to first acknowledge and thank some of the organizations that are doing incredible work to support the Asian communities in fighting against anti-Asian racism. They are groups like Yarrow Intergenerational Society for Justice, Hua Foundation, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Stand with Asians, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, #Elimin8Hate, project 1907, and so many others. Their work is so important and they have been leading the way. As part of the process to prepare for this debate, my office contacted a number of the organizations for input regarding this motion. They were clear in saying that instead of symbolic gestures, they want the government to take meaningful action to address the rise in anti-Asian racism. The fight against racism and discrimination is re-emerging as one of the defining struggles of our generation. We are witnessing a surge in racism, white supremacy and fascism. There is no question that COVID-19 is fielding anti-Asian racism and xenophobia worldwide. In May 2020, the UN secretary-general said, “the pandemic continues to unleash a tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scare-mongering.” He called on governments to “act now to strengthen the immunity of our societies against the virus of hate.” Vancouver saw a 717% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and was dubbed “the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America”. In fact, data from Statistics Canada confirm the rise in racist hate crimes is a national trend. Between 2018 and 2021, police reported hate crimes based on race and ethnicity more than doubled, to over 1,700. An Angus Reid survey from June of last year reported that more than half of Asian Canadians experienced a situation related to anti-Asian discrimination in the last year and more than one in four reported this occurred all the time or frequently. These numbers are startling, even though we know that the true number of all incidents is much higher than those reported. Advocacy groups warn that many of those experiencing hate crimes never report it to the police. Many who have tried to access police services experienced disappointment, felt invalidated or felt that no adequate support was provided. The government must work in partnership with NGOs to help bridge this gap. There has to be stable core funding for NGOs who are doing the heavy lifting in the community and supports must be in place that are culturally specific and language accessible. Too many victims are suffering silently and in isolation. They should know that they are not alone, that they would be supported as they recover from this traumatic experience and that if the victims come forward, every effort will be made to ensure that there will be consequences for the perpetrators. Another measure to encourage victims to come forward is that the government must do its part by ensuring that there will be consequences for the offenders. Even among the small proportion that is reported to police, few cases result in charges being laid. Between 2013 and 2018, 82% of hate crimes did not result in a charge after being reported to police. This must change. To send a clear message that Canada will not tolerate hate-motivated crimes means we have to put the full force of the law against the offenders. That would require a dedicated hate crime prosecution unit with adequate resources and teeth. To further this work, the government should facilitate a national community engagement process so that people of Asian descent with lived realities of anti-Asian racism and systemic barriers to inclusion can come together to share the experiences and discuss action that must be taken to address it. If the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is to conduct a review of anti-Asian hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents across the country as suggested by the motion, it should be tasked with providing actionable recommendations and guidance to government bodies and law enforcement on reporting, addressing and preventing hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents. It is time that we move beyond symbolic gestures. The House unanimously passed two NDP motions to tackle anti-Asian racism in March of 2021. These motions got passed, but there was never any follow-up action from the government. For example, it has not hosted a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to discuss the rise in hate crimes in Canada and to coordinate our collective efforts and identified best practices to countering this trend. There has been no action on the creation of properly funded dedicated hate crime units in every community in Canada. There are also no national standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system. The government has not worked in collaboration with non-profits to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes in Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22, and the government's anti-racism policies and programs do not specifically target anti-Asian racism. What is the point of passing these motions when follow-up action is not taken? There is simply no accountability. I reached out to the member for Scarborough North with amendments to his motions that would ensure meaningful action and accountability measures. Sadly, he rejected all of them. Words without action are meaningless. The government must do better, for every single attack is aimed at stripping us of our sense of safety and dignity. It is a clear message to say that we are not wanted, that we do not belong. For me, this is not just theoretical. It is personal. Four generations of my family have suffered racist attacks. My grandfather suffered silently so many years ago by himself. He was told that he had to move to the back of the bus. He was told that he had to get off the bus. He was told repeatedly that he did not belong. My parents and I experienced racial slurs. We were called names. We were made fun of. We were just not wanted. Growing up in this country, that is what it felt like for me. I have to say, to my dismay, my daughter just this year on her way to school was spat on, and somebody yelled racial slurs at her. When she told me this, my heart sank. History repeats itself over and over again, so to that end, this must stop. Therefore, I move that the motion be amended with the following: a) by replacing the word “hate” with “racism” in paragraph (a)(i) and adding after the words “racial discrimination” the following, “and take meaningful action to combat the ongoing increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents, including the creation of and funding for a dedicated hate crime prosecution unit”; b) in paragraph (a)(ii) by adding “through concrete actions and a substantive commitment of resources including but not limited to support for victims of hate that are culturally specific and language-accessible”; c) in paragraph (a)(iii) by adding the word “unique” after the words “highlight the”, adding the word “anti-Asian” before “racism”, adding the word “systemic” before “barriers” and adding the words “through a national community engagement process” after the words “people of Asian descent”; d) in paragraph (b) by adding the words “and provide actionable recommendations and guidance to government bodies and law enforcement on reporting, addressing and preventing hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents” following the words “across the country”; e) by adding paragraph (c) “provide a progress update to the House on actions taken by the government on the following specific calls for action outlined in the two unanimous consent motions to tackle anti-Asian hate passed in the House on March 22 and 24, 2021 (i) host a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to discuss the rise in hate crimes in Canada and to coordinate our collective efforts and identified best practices to countering this trend, (ii) create and properly fund dedicated hate crime units in every community in Canada, (iii) establish national standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system, (iv) work in collaboration with non-profits to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes, and (v) include “anti-Asian racism” in Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22 and all anti-racism policies and programs; and (f) by adding paragraph (d) “renew Canada's anti-racism strategy through engagement with stakeholders and those with lived experiences, and table the action plan that specifically addresses anti-Asian racism within 12 months.” It is critical that everyone stand firm against the forces that represent racism, white supremacy and fascism, whether they are being propagated by an individual or an organization. This has no place in public dialogue and no place on our streets.

Madam Chair, I have to say that there is no question in my mind that it is colonialism that is the root cause of this. There is no question that governments and the successive governments allow for the genocide to continue, which is also the ongoing problem of the situation. When everybody in the House got up to say that they hear the families, they see them and hear them, well then, I ask them to take action. Words are cheap, but lives are not cheap, and the lives of these indigenous women and girls and two-spirited people matter. They matter very much, and we need to honour them. We need to honour them from this perspective as well: They are the very first people who were the owners of this land, and we are their guests on their land. We need to honour them and respect them and take action. We do not need more words.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her passion, her belief, her strength and her heart in speaking out for the families and for justice for indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast. I come from Vancouver East, and in my riding, we too have devastating situations of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We also experienced a situation where there was a serial killer. Of the 33 women who went missing, he was only prosecuted for six of those cases. Many families do not have closure. To this date, despite the inquiries and calls for justice, the government has not taken action and the police have not actually made the necessary changes to address the systemic racism and discrimination within the system. To that end, I would ask the member what we need to have the police do to ensure justice is served.

Madam Chair, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry cites housing, the need for safe, secure and affordable housing, over 200 times, yet, despite promises, we have not seen a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural, northern housing strategy. The community has been calling for this. There is desperation for this. People die when they do not have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. Women die. As we heard from the member for Winnipeg Centre, the issue is also around poverty. Would the member support, and would the Conservatives support, the call for the government to ensure that in budget 2023, there is at least $6 billion over two years dedicated to a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural, northern housing strategy, as recommended by the government's own national housing council? Would she also support the government taking immediate action to realize and implement the 231 calls for justice?

Mr. Speaker, I find it horrendous to hear the member say how much work the Liberals have done in this regard. The member must have missed the response from indigenous leaders on the failure of the action plan to implement the 231 calls for justice. The member must have missed the fact that again and again the government missed its timeline. Consequently, we see in our communities the lives that are lost. Members are coming into the House baring their souls yet again to demand action and families show up with so much hurt, and the member for Winnipeg North has the audacity to say how much work the government has done. If the member is so proud of the government's work, will he agree to an independent oversight body of the government's action on the implementation of the 231 calls for justice for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls?

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that would be very important in addressing the safety of indigenous women and girls is access to housing. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls actually mentioned housing over 200 times, yet Canada still does not have an urban, rural and northern, for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy despite the government promising it over and over again. The government's own national housing council is calling for an investment of $6 billion over two years dedicated to a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. Would the member support that for budget 2023?

Madam Chair, I want to take a moment to acknowledge my colleagues, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Nunavut, who spoke very powerfully and so starkly about the situation that indigenous women and girls face. I was reflecting about what I was going to say and I changed my mind about 100 times. I have landed on this. I reflected back to seven years ago when the government made the announcement that it was going to initiate a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I have to say my heart sang with joy thinking of the changing moment, the significant moment where the voices of indigenous peoples and families had been heard finally, and the government of the day was going to do something about our stolen sisters, indigenous women and girls. I was not part of the Liberal government. I am still not part of the Liberal government. I will never be a Liberal member. However, my heart sang with joy, because of the hope that it represented. Then as the work continued, I started to have a sinking feeling. Reflecting back, Marion Buller, the lead commissioner, and her team advised nine months into the inquiry that they were using their own personal cellphones and their own email. They did not have office space to undertake the work. Fast forward to after the report was put out, where a genocide had been recognized even by the government, and 231 calls for justice had been put on the public record. The government promised that it would put forward an implementation plan. Three years later, where is that implementation plan? It is nowhere to be found. It is not just New Democrats who are saying this. Marion Buller said on the public record that the federal government had “fallen flat on its face”. She said: We don’t have an implementation plan. There hasn’t been any sort of cohesive statement on the part of the federal government about what it plans to do. There is no looking forward. If there is an implementation plan, I don’t know about it and they’re keeping it quiet. But, they have quite literally fallen flat on their face in terms of their responses. She said, “I just find it appalling that the genocide is continuing, because it is and they’re not being held accountable.” That is the reality of where we are today. Consequently, we in the community and my colleagues see loved ones of family members grieving, in pain and in anger at the loss of their loved ones. Hence we are having this debate tonight. Tonight I had the pleasure, the honour and the privilege of meeting the family members just outside of the chamber. I shook their hands, looked them in the eye, and made the commitment that we will never stop fighting, even when they leave this place. We should not have to do this time and time again. We should not have to say the names over and over again, and each time with different names, with more hurt, more pain and so much loss, with hope dashed to say that something will happen. My riding of Vancouver East is very similar to that of my colleague's in Winnipeg Centre. I remember so many years ago when I was just an activist, walking the streets, doing rallies and protesting about a serial killer in Vancouver East. People denied it. When we raised it, people accused us of trying to obstruct justice by suggesting that there was a serial killer and demanding an inquiry. To the names of the people who have been brought up today who went missing and who have been murdered, Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran, Rebecca Contois and Buffalo Woman, I add these names: Tatyanna Harrison, Chelsea Poorman, Noelle O'Soup and Ramona Wilson. These are just the latest few, and there are so many more. They do not have to be dead. They did not have to die this way. It does not have to be this way. For tonight, once and for all, will the government take action and fully implement the 231 calls for justice?

Madam Chair, there is no question that housing matters, and it will save lives. The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry mentioned housing over 200 times. Can members imagine not being able to access housing, and as a result of that being subject to extreme violence every moment of the day to the point where their lives are lost? What the federal government can do is, in budget 2023, ensure that there is at least $6 billion over two years for a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy and let the indigenous community lead this work. There is already a coalition that has been set up to do this work. The government needs to fund it, be that true partner and get the job done.

Madam Chair, as we continue to talk about this, which the government is doing, people are dying and lives are being lost. The violence taking place is real. When we say we need to do this work, what we need the government to do is put actions to words. I want to see in the budget real, significant investments, and want the government to spend those investments, not just to put them on paper and not take action. I want to see the government's implementation of call for justice 1.7, because we need the government to take responsibility and ensure there is independent accountability for that work, not just platitudes.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people experience homelessness in Canada every year, and the Liberals' national housing strategy is failing them. The Auditor General says the Liberals will not meet their chronic homelessness target, and the CEO of CMHC confirmed that is the case. Meanwhile, people are dying on the streets. There is zero accountability from the Liberals and no clear plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. Canadians need action, not failed Liberal promises. What is the government's plan to eliminate chronic homelessness in Canada and ensure that everyone has a place to call home?