Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, for over 150 years, Canada Post has been a cornerstone of our national identity, connecting Canadians in every region. It is more than a mail carrier; it is a vital public service. It is as Canadian as maple syrup, yet today that service is under threat. Canada Post is considering cuts to door-to-door delivery, closing post offices, outsourcing jobs and even privatizing. These moves would weaken communities and jeopardize thousands of good union jobs. Postal workers have taken a stand not only for fairer working conditions but to defend this public institution. The Liberals shut down the strike prematurely, and to this day, no agreement has been reached. Now Canada Post is pushing for a forced vote on its final offer. This will not bring lasting peace. There is a better way. CUPW has proposed final and binding arbitration and a fair, neutral path that suspends strikes and lockouts and that ensures a just resolution. I urge the minister and this House to stand with postal workers, defend this vital public service and restore fairness to the bargaining process.

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the member on his election. The throne speech unilaterally announced that the government would cut development cost levies by 50%, which would impact local governments. Local governments often rely on that money to build the community infrastructure to support new development, yet the throne speech did not offer any infrastructure dollars to local governments. There was zero mention of it. How will local governments ensure that the necessary infrastructure is built to support the community when the government cuts that access to development cost levies?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, out of the left side of his mouth, said his first focus is on deeply affordable housing. Then, out of the right side, he said they will fundamentally rely on the private sector to build it. As a banker and former chair of Brookfield Asset Management, he should instinctively know that big developers' first priority is to maximize profit. Deeply affordable homes will not just magically materialize. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing back a national co-op and social housing program with deep core subsidies now?

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's comments, she talked about resource extraction, fast-tracking and the implications, of course, for indigenous communities on free, prior and informed consent. In addition to that, in the face of the climate crisis and what is going on, I wonder if she can expand on that comment about what her concerns are with the climate crisis, with the fast-tracking of resource extraction.

Mr. Speaker, we have faced an increase in extreme climate events in Vancouver, British Columbia, where we experienced a heat dome and where over 500 people died. We had Lytton, where a whole city burned down, and Jasper. We now have, of course, extreme weather occurrences in Winnipeg, Saskatchewan and even Quebec. This is a reality that Canadians face. In the face of that, my question for the member is this: Does the member think it makes sense that the government continues to want to advance oil and gas industries with its latest development of a one-office, fast-track approach?

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we know is that these kinds of wildfires and climate emergencies are happening more and more. One of the things we do rely on is the military to come and assist. They have done a tremendous job in the past, and they continue to do so. However, what happens is that they often lack the resources necessary, the equipment, to face up to and assist in these types of natural disasters and climate emergencies. Would the member actually support allocating dollars to the military, so they can beef up their ability to respond to natural disasters, especially in light of the fact that the Prime Minister has made a commitment to expand military spending to 2%?

Mr. Speaker, judging from that speech, I guess it explains the member's position and why Pierre Poilievre actually called community housing and co-op housing “Soviet-style” housing. I get that, because, according to the member's speech, he seems to be alleging that anything to do with supporting the community on the whole is communism. The member says he supports tax cuts, so let me ask him a question. The craft brewery community and distilleries are hit with an unfair excise tax. In fact, it is one that should be changed. My question for the member is this: Would he support changing the excise tax, the tax rate, so that Canadian domestic craft brewers and distillers would not have to pay the same rate as the two largest foreign-owned businesses here in Canada operating in the industry?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of Vancouver East constituents who took part in the peace train journey to Ottawa to promote a culture of peace and resist the culture of war. The petitioners note that Canada is a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Canada's adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples further reflects our commitment to the principles of justice, equality and freedom. They note that these principles are essential to peace, to preventing conflict and war, and for Canada's own security and stability. They also note that a lack of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms is a chief underlying cause of violent conflict. In the face of ever-increasing violent wars, nuclear threat, climate disruption and humanitarian crises, the signatories call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to establish and fund a centre of excellence for peace and justice focused on research, education and training in conflict resolution, diplomacy and peace operations for Canadian civilians, police, military personnel and the international community.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on the throne speech. I was not anticipating that I would get to speak until tomorrow, but nonetheless, the opportunity arose, and I am at the ready. Looking at the throne speech, the real question is, what is not in the throne speech. More to the point, when I was out campaigning, when I was talking to people in Vancouver East, there were many issues that people raised. Yes, of course, people were talking about their concern with respect to the United States and what was going on with the United States. With that being said, though, while people said we should absolutely take action together in dealing with the United States, they also said that there is another element of the threat that Canada faces, and that is foreign interference. It is a mystery to me how it is that, since the election, we have not heard the Prime Minister raise the issue of foreign interference, the threat to our democratic institutions and our democracy. That is one thing that we must also stand together to protect as well, which we have not seen. The foreign interference registry was something that all members of the previous Parliament, across party lines, worked together to expedite. To date, that act has not yet been enacted. We still do not have the registry up and running, so I do have a question for the government with respect to it: Why has it not been enacted, and where is it? I want to turn to other areas absent in the throne speech, and concerns have already been raised. Seniors and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. Women, for example, were not mentioned in the throne speech. Issues surrounding the impact of gender equality were not addressed in the throne speech. People with different abilities were not mentioned in the throne speech. I was absolutely dismayed with respect to housing. There were two aspects that the government highlighted around housing, such as the GST tax break for first-time homebuyers. That was something that the NDP had pushed for and called for. It is good it is in there, but I should note that there is a major difference in the housing costs in the Lower Mainland. The cap put in place is not going to help a lot of people there. The government also put in a piece about development cost levies and reducing them by half. Reducing development cost levies by half would mean that local governments that need the resources to build the infrastructure would not have that resource. That is still top of mind. In fact, the FCM was here last week and over the weekend. Today I ran into some of the councillors who were still in Ottawa, and they want answers. They want to know how the government is going to address the gap that will be created with the reduction of the development cost levies for the development of housing. That is a major concern for people in the community and local councillors. They do not know how they are going to make that up. Of course, there are other infrastructure needs that are not being met as well, especially with the growing populations of communities. They were not mentioned in the throne speech. I should note that, on housing, renters were not mentioned. It is such a bizarre thing to me. Renters are a large part of our communities and our population. Renters and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. The issues that brought us to the housing crisis were the cancellation of the co-op housing program by the Progressive Conservatives in 1992 and the cancellation of the national affordable housing program by the federal Liberal government in 1993, yet a national affordable housing program and a national co-op housing program are not mentioned in the throne speech. There is no mention of needing to invest in building social housing and co-op housing in Canada. There is no mention of the subsidies that are required to make sure that the non-profit sector has the resources it needs to manage these buildings and keep rents affordable. I do not get it. We have a new Minister of Housing. In his first interview with the media, he said that affordability in the housing crisis is not an issue. How is affordability not an issue in the housing crisis we are faced with when affordability is the number one issue? Last year, the FCM posted that, yes, we need to have more stock, but having more stock alone would not resolve the issue. What we need is affordability, and what that means is that we need the federal government at the table providing resources, both on the capital side in the development of social housing and on the management and operating side. Canada's affordable housing stock is sitting at below 4%, compared to at least 7% in other G7 countries. The countries that are doing well, where they do not have an affordability housing crisis, are at 20%. I know Pierre Poilievre thinks that community housing is somehow Soviet-style housing. I hope the Liberals do not think that. I hope they will counter that narrative and say that Canada will invest in social and co-op housing and that Canada will bring back subsidies to reduce the cost of housing. There is a whole spectrum of need with respect to housing. There are those who are unhoused, those who are low-income renters who need subsidized housing, those who need low-income market rental, those who need some support with a moderate income in the market and those who want to get into the market for the first time to own their own home. For people who want to get into the market to own their own home for the first time, they need the government to address housing profiteering. Those are the actors who come in to evict people so they can jack up the rent because their number one goal is to maximize profit. They are not thinking about how to keep rent low or housing costs low. They are thinking about how to stuff their pockets and how to get the most return for their investment. Therefore, we need to address the financialization of housing, and there is nothing in the throne speech that speaks to that. I would like to move an amendment to the amendment because I think the other part that needs to be dealt with is the issue of indigenous rights. To that end, I move: That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, as well as Indigenous peoples”.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to housing, the reality is this: There is a continuum of need, and trying to focus on the model of just relying on the private sector to deliver the housing that Canadians need has failed. For the last 30 years, that is what successive Liberal and Conservative governments have relied on. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We have a major housing crisis in Vancouver East and all across the country. We have to get back to having the federal government at the table as a true partner: a partner with local governments, indigenous governments and provincial governments; a partner with the non-profit sector; and yes, a partner even with the private sector. However, we have to build social housing to the degree it is needed and build co-op housing to the degree we had previously, without which we have this housing crisis. Reliance on just the private sector would only yield housing profiteering. This is what we are faced with.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am very worried about in the throne speech. The Prime Minister actually talked about reducing spending and capping it at 2% increases. That is a 7% cut, which would mean cuts to public services. There is no question about it. No amount of efficiencies will make up that gap. That is on top of the Prime Minister making the comment and the commitment that Canada would boost military spending to the 2% of GDP that NATO has requested. That is at least $20 billion to $25 billion of additional spending. My question is this: Where is the money going to come from? Yes, we need to see the budget. My point on housing is this: The Conservatives need to stop with the rhetoric that social housing and co-op housing are Soviet-style housing. Social housing and co-op housing are types of housing that Canada needs for our community, and it is time for them to get on board.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. We have to face the climate crisis head-on, not pretend it is not here and not having an impact on our community. Sticking our head in the sand is not going to solve the crisis. We have a forest fire going on in our communities right now, and people are losing their homes. In my own community of Vancouver East, during the heat dome, people died. People went to live in the parks and set up encampments because they could not survive in the face of the heat dome, so we had better get on board with it. Talking about expediting the oil and gas sector, development and so on without thinking about the climate crisis would be putting all of Canada in jeopardy, including Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on taking the seat in the Speaker's chair as Deputy Speaker. We saw in the throne speech that there was a lot of discussion about the threat towards Canada from the Trump administration, and rightfully so. Canadians and, I believe, every member of the House will be very focused on taking that issue to heart and on protecting Canada and our sovereignty. At the same time, we also have another threat, and that is the issue of foreign interference. We knew that, heading into the election, our democratic institutions were under threat from foreign interference actors, yet the Liberal government, in the previous administration, did not put in place Bill C-70. We did not have that during the election, and there has yet to be any mention of that anywhere from the government bench, including from the Prime Minister. Why was that not mentioned in the throne speech?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her re-election. I know that these issues are near and dear to her heart as the former minister of democratic institutions. What I heard in the campaign during the election period from Vancouver East constituents was the need for electoral reform. Many people wanted to make sure their vote is respected and counted so they do not have to be pressured to vote strategically, so to speak, but can actually vote with their heart. My question to the member is this: Will she champion electoral reform, one member, one vote, for our Canadian democracy and bring in proportional representation?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. New Democrats will be here to hold the government to account, of course, and collaborate where possible, notwithstanding that we do not have official party status. On the issue around housing, and we all heard it on the ground during the election campaign, there is nothing in the throne speech that talks about renters. There is nothing in the throne speech that talks about building social housing and co-op housing, recognizing it was the Liberals who cancelled the national affordable housing program, and there are no measures in the throne speech to address housing profiteering. Is it because the Minister of Housing is saying that affordability is not an issue faced by Canadians? My question for the member is this: What is he going to do to ensure social housing and co-op housing—

Mr. Speaker, the caregivers pilot programs expired in June. The minister promised caregivers permanent residence on arrival. Six months later, no information, no application process, has been released about the new pilot. Given the Liberals' about-face on regularization and their scapegoating of migrants for their failures, caregivers are really concerned that their hard-fought promise of landed status on arrival will be forgotten. Will the minister deliver on the promise and open the pathway for applications by January 1, 2025, or will this be another Liberal broken promise?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's settlement sector is the foundation for social cohesion, nation building and newcomer integration. Over 800 agencies are funded by IRCC to deliver a range of services, such as language classes with child care support, employment and career training, trauma-informed programs, family centres, and so much more. Last year, over 700,000 unique newcomers, primarily made racialized women across Canada outside of Quebec, were served by the sector. Despite the sector's success, the Liberals are charting a course to massively cut these services. Many organizations have been told that their five-year contracts are not being renewed. Others face a cut of up to 70%. On top of that, a further deficit reduction plan is being levelled at the sector, and terms such as “refocus” are being used to cover up pending cuts to IRCC staffing. This would decimate service delivery and negatively impact the economy. The fallout would be felt for years to come. The NDP is calling on the Liberals to stop blaming newcomers for their failures and to immediately reverse these cuts.

Mr. Speaker, settlement services agencies have received notice of massive funding cuts of up to 70% to their budget. This will decimate the delivery of critical services to help integrate newcomers. Two NDP provinces, B.C. and Manitoba, seem to be targeted with the deepest cuts. As a case in point, after three decades of providing essential language training to newcomers, Vancouver Community College will lose all of its funding even though 92% of the students get employment afterward. Why are the Liberals punishing newcomers, settlement services agencies and VCC's wildly successful language training program?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the NDP House leader, raised a lot of really excellent points. Most of them actually highlight the fact that the Conservatives consistently say one thing and then do another. Persistently, they vote against critical services for the community, in support of the community. Even though they make the argument that they are there to support ensuring that border security is in place, to ensure that drugs do not cross the border, they made cuts to the CBSA. In Vancouver East, we have a port. A lot of the drugs are, in fact, brought in through the port right in the Downtown Eastside, to my community. However, it was the Conservatives who made those cuts to the CBSA services at the port. Could the member share with us what one would call a party leader who consistently says one thing and does another?

Madam Speaker, the member who just walked out of the House, the member you asked to respect the rules of the House, just made a gesture towards me in a threatening way. I want to note that so it is on the record. I will just close with what happened on that night. When I was in the lobby, I thought the lobby smelled like a brewery. That is a fact. I hope the truth will prevail because I know there is a lot of spinning and twisting of the facts going on. As is always the case, the bullies always use an aggressive offence as a defence, and that is what we are seeing from the Conservative side.

Madam Speaker, the House needs to hear this again, that some 600 people died during the heat dome in British Columbia, some of them in Vancouver East. Some of my constituents lived in a SRO, where the air is absolutely stifling, and they were forced to become unhoused. There are now encampments as a result of that. Now we have the Liberal government and the Prime Minister who, during a climate crisis, bought a pipeline. Over and over again, the NDP has been calling for the Liberals to end the subsidy for big oil, yet they will not do it. They say they support Canadians with a half measure on the GST. The NDP is saying that they should in fact ensure that the elimination of the GST applies for home heating and for essentials, and make that a permanent program. Will the Liberals do it and end the subsidies for big oil to pay for it?

Madam Speaker, I am compelled to rise to share this additional information with you. With respect to the day of the vote, what happened was that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, walked up to the Speaker to register her concern for not being recognized and not being able to do her job because of the jeering and the loud noises that were coming from the Conservatives side. This was orchestrated and premeditated to violate the rules of the House so that NDP members, when they got up to vote, could not hear their names being called. I could not hear my name being called or whether my vote has been registered. I know that was also the case for my NDP colleagues who were in the House that same day. As a result, my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, was not able to do her job. Afterwards, in reference to the filming that occurred, it is true that there were, in total, five members in the House on the NDP side, and some of us did walk up to support my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe. We walked up there to support her because there were over a hundred Conservative members on that side jeering at her, calling her pathetic and shaming her. As we were sitting here watching this, we thought we should go and stand with her. Yes, I did make a comment about the Conservatives deliberately violating the rules of the House concerning the standing order because they were instructed by their whip staff to interrupt the proceedings of the House during the voting process when the NDP members got up to vote. This is the sum of what had occurred—

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add my perspective on the question of privilege raised on Friday by my colleague the member for London—Fanshawe. The opposition deputy House leader explicitly named me and put completely false information on the record regarding my conduct in the lobby as an attempt to deflect from the deliberate, premeditated plan to disrupt the voting proceedings in the House. I am rising to correct the record and put on the record what actually happened. Prior to the vote, on my way to the washroom, I overheard the Conservative lobby staff instruct Conservative MPs to disrupt proceedings in the chamber once the NDP rose to vote. He then egged them on and said, “The NDP deserves it.” I shook my head, made a comment under my breath and left the lobby. Not only was there no intimidation, but there was no heated exchange of words between me and that staffer. In other words, the Conservative staff was suggesting the NDP deserves to have its House privilege violated, in clear contravention of section 16 of the Standing Orders. When the vote took place, sure enough, the Conservatives carried out their premeditated plan to deliberately violate the privilege of NDP members. During the vote, I was not able to hear if my vote was registered and I did not know if in fact it had been or not. I stood for some time watching and waiting. After the vote, a number of MPs and staff had gathered, and I repeated that the staffer in question had instructed Conservative MPs to disrupt the House, which he affirmed. I also raised this with the Conservative whip and asked if it amounted to bullying, to which he responded that he knew nothing about it. The question is, if he knew nothing about it, then who instructed the Conservative lobby whip staff to disrupt the House? Was it the leader of the official opposition? If not, did the staff act on their own? I understand what happens in the lobby is not subject to debate in the House, but the member for Mégantic—L'Érable brought it up, and I need to defend myself and put the truth on the record. The member's fabrication does not end there. In his comment, he said an NDP staffer had to “physically take hold of” me. This is absolutely untrue. When I returned from the washroom and walked through the lobby, I was not manhandled by anyone. On the contrary, I proactively reported what I had overheard to the NDP lobby staff, who were already aware at the time that the Conservatives intended to violate Standing Order 16 by disrupting the House when the NDP got up to vote. This was reported to the clerk so the Speaker would be informed and aware. It is deeply disturbing for the Conservatives to resort to fabricating such a story to malign me and the hard-working staff of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, not only are the member's comments completely untrue, but I think as you deliberate, you should be aware of the premeditation and intentional nature of the disruption of Standing Order 16 by the Conservative MPs on Thursday. The truth needs to be told and I hope this information will assist you in that deliberation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition adding 827 names to the thousands of signatures that have already been added to a petition I tabled previously. The petition is about the situation in Hong Kong, and more particularly with respect to the fact that Hong Kong's basic law has completely been eroded and that the national security law imposed by China and adopted in Hong Kong has gotten rid of even the most basic of rights, including freedom of the press. On August 12, Hong Kong's top court upheld the conviction of seven of Hong Kong's most prominent pro-democracy activists, including 82-year-old Martin Lee and 76-year-old Jimmy Lai, who was the owner of Apple Daily. That publication has now been shut down and Lai is in jail. In fact, he is actually in court trying to defend himself. The offences of these individuals are that they participated in a peaceful demonstration on August 18, 2019. The group of 47, which includes legislators, were found guilty on May 30, in the exercise of their democratic rights for participating in election primaries. These pro-democracy activists have since been sentenced. Some of them face as much as 10 years in prison for their pro-democracy activities. Given the extraterritorial reach of the national security law in article 23, there is ongoing fear of surveillance among the Hong Kong diaspora. In light of the recent spying charges laid against staff at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in the U.K., Hong Kongers want to be assured this is not happening in Canada. Therefore petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to call on Hong Kong and the PRC to release Jimmy Lai and the group of 47 and others, whose only crime was to exercise their rights and freedoms as prescribed by the UN human rights declaration; stop according any special rights or diplomatic status to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office; and proactively apply sanctions, under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Officials Act, against Chinese and Hong Kong officials.

Madam Speaker, I rise to table e-petition 5137. The petition gathered 3,497 signatures. In addition, on a previous occasion, I tabled a similar petition that had 152 signatures on it. There are another 717 signatures to be certified from Toronto and another 247 signatures to be certified from Vancouver, for a total of 4,613. The petitioners note that on August 12, Hong Kong's top court upheld the convictions of seven of Hong Kong's most prominent pro-democracy activists, including 82-year-old Martin Lee and 76-year-old Jimmy Lai, for participating in a peaceful demonstration on August 18, 2019. The group of 47, which includes legislators, were found guilty on May 30 in the exercise of their democratic rights for participating in the election primaries. Chow Hang-tung and former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance have been arrested for holding annual candlelight vigils in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. Given the extraterritorial reach of the national security law in article 23, there is ongoing fear of surveillance among the Hong Kong diaspora. In light of the recent spying charges laid against staff at the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office in the United Kingdom, Hong Kongers want to be reassured that this is not happening in Canada. The petitioners are therefore calling on the Government of Canada to call on Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China to release Jimmy Lai, Chow Hang-tung, the group of 47 and others, whose only crime was to exercise their rights and freedoms as prescribed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to stop according any special rights of diplomatic status to the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office; and, finally, to proactively apply sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act against Chinese and Hong Kong officials.

Mr. Speaker, a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery” is what the United Nations called the Conservative-Liberal temporary foreign worker program. It is an immigration program that uses closed work permits that trap people to one employer. It abuses, exploits and underpays migrant workers to help big businesses. It drives down wages and hurts everyone. It is just another initiative of the Conservatives and Liberals helping wealthy CEOs. Will the Liberals stop this exploitation of migrant workers by ending the closed work permit system, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot find a family doctor, and labour shortages in construction are driving up the cost of housing. The Liberals betrayed migrant workers with their empty promises that they would give them full status, including those in construction and health care. To add insult to injury, the Liberals are allocating a pathetic 50 spots for regularization in their 2025 levels plan. It is literally not worth the paper it is written on. Just what sort of sick joke is this?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from a group of concerned citizens who are raising an issue related to foreign interference and the plight of Hong Kongers in Canada. The petitioners note that the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Canada enjoys diplomatic and immunity privileges. This is largely a result of the “one country, two systems” rule. Under the national security law in Hong Kong, basic rights and basic laws in Hong Kong no longer exists. The petitioners note that a senior employee of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in the U.K. was charged with assisting a foreign intelligence service in foreign interference matters contrary to various sections of the National Security Act. The petitioners further note that evidence was presented that the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in the U.K. was directly involved in paying defendants to conduct hostile activities targeted at the Hong Kong diaspora in the U.K., which included hostile surveillance, acts of deception and forcing entry into a residential address. Canada has been a safe haven for Hong Kongers fleeing political oppression since 2019, including Canadian-born pro-democracy lawmaker Dennis Kwok, who had been issued bounties by Hong Kong police for violating widely condemned Hong Kong national security laws. To that end, the petitioners are calling for the Canadian government to end the diplomatic privileges and immunity of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, after three decades of Conservative and Liberal government failures, Canada's community housing stock is the lowest among the G7 countries. There are about 5,000 people in the Lower Mainland who do not have a place to call home. They have little choice but to try to survive on the street or in encampments. However, what is abundantly clear is that forced evictions do not fix anything; they just make the unhoused more homeless. People need dignity, not decampment. CRAB Park's tent city residents have travelled from Vancouver East to Ottawa this week for the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness conference. They want to see a tiny home village develop on the vacant port of Vancouver parking lot. The federal government can take immediate action and invest in this solution to help end homelessness. Moreover, this can be replicated from coast to coast to coast, in communities large and small. Talk is cheap. It is time to realize housing as a basic human right.

With regard to the inventory of immigration applications in the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) and other categories: (a) in which month and year were applications received, broken down by country of origin; (b) what is the average processing time from application submission to final decision, broken down by country of origin; (c) what are the total resources or staffing levels dedicated to processing applications in the H&C and other categories over the past three years to date; (d) considering that the 2024-26 Immigration Levels Plan target presently provides for a target of 29,750 allocations for the H&C and other categories in total from 2024 to 2026, with a low range of 22,000 and a high range of 41,500, and the current inventory already exceeds 70,000 applications, how many years does the department estimate it will take to clear the present application inventory without projecting for forthcoming applications; (e) what are the details of all special measures and policies included in the H&C and other categories over the last five years, including the (i) eligibility requirements for those immigration streams, (ii) descriptions of all processing prioritization directives given for each stream, (iii) dates on which updates or changes were made to those directives, broken down by country and the year the measure or policy came into effect; and (f) what plans or strategies are being developed to address the backlog of applications in these categories and to improve processing times?

Mr. Speaker, abortion care is under threat in Canada. Women do not want more Liberal talking points. They want protection. Women and gender-diverse people are seeing hateful anti-choice rhetoric creep into Parliament, spread by the Conservatives under their leader's watch. Clinic 554 closed in New Brunswick and abortion care across Canada has been chipped away at. While the Liberals' words are nice, their lack of action is dangerous. Will the Liberals stop their grandstanding, and start making sure every person in Canada has equal access to abortion care?

moved that Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the first time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce Bill S-235, an act that would amend the Citizenship Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, a determined champion for the rights of the child, for seconding this bill. As well, retired senator Mobina Jaffer and Senator Kim Pate for drafting and guiding it through the Senate at all its stages. On any day, there are an estimated 61,000 children in out-of-home care. Each of these children, like all children, deserve the best care and to have the rights of the child respected, yet we know there are times when the system fails them and they fall through the cracks. It is the responsibility of the government to apply for citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors, yet the government routinely fails to do so. As the children age out at 18, and if they come in conflict with the law, they could face deportation, even though they may not have any connection to the country they left. Bill S-235 would ensure children who come to Canada and are in the care system obtain their Canadian citizenship. Children aging out of care already face far too many extraordinary systemic barriers. I call on all parties in the House to support this bill to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable children in Canada. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives created the low-wage temporary foreign worker stream, and the Liberals fuelled it to help rich CEOs. They restricted workers to one employer with closed work permits; subjected migrant workers to abuse, wage theft and exploitation; and suppressed wages for Canadians. Chain CEOs are ramping up exploitation and abuse. Workers like Rowell Pailan have said that their boss, Canadian Tire, paid them less wages and threatened them if they told anyone. Will the Liberals stop caving to CEOs, and end the abuse, with open work permits?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all night to the debate. As members can imagine, I am deeply engaged with the foreign interference file as someone who has been targeted. One main disservice was done through testimony at the Hogue inquiry. It actually came from Erin O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservatives. The name that was tied to the testimony was actually that of a retired Conservative senator, Senator Oh. Mr. O'Toole indicated very clearly that he did not at the time want to raise the issue, because he was concerned that somehow and somewhere, somebody would attack him by saying he might be a racist if he brought the issue up. That is one name that we know of where there is a potential concern. Notwithstanding, the member talked a lot about naming names. I fully support naming names. I called for that to happen. I raised a question of privilege to the Speaker that was rejected. Will the member and her party support my call for the government to establish a formal process, whether through PROC, some other committee or even back at NSICOP, so we can actually go back to look at the issue, examine the names and give an opportunity for the people to come forward so there are no due process issues about their potential involvement and those who are semi-wittingly or wittingly assisting in foreign interference activities? Will the member and her party do that so we can get to the bottom of this and stop playing politics?

Mr. Speaker, we heard over and over again from the Conservatives in the debate tonight that there is a simple way for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the information. They suggest that all that has to be done is for the Prime Minister to walk across the aisle and whisper in the Conservative leader's ear to tell him who might be implicated in wittingly or semi-wittingly compromising Canada's democratic institutions and democratic processes on behalf of foreign actors. I have to ask if that even makes sense to the member. Would a leader not want to look at the documents to verify this information, as opposed to hearing it from an adversary, someone the Conservatives consistently say they cannot trust? The Conservative leader simply says he does not need to go through a security clearance or look at the CSIS documents; he wants the Prime Minister to whisper names in his ear, and he will believe him. Does that even make sense to the member? What sort of nonsense does the member think the Conservatives are trying to pull?

Mr. Speaker, as the catastrophic war rages on in Sudan, thousands of children are facing imminent death from malnutrition. Gender-based violence targeting women and girls, including sexual assault, is being used as a weapon of war. To date, not one single person has been brought to safety, and the minister is not expecting any arrivals this year. Lives are being lost as people wait for their applications to be processed. The NDP is once again calling for the government to expedite processing; allow trusted organizations, such as the IOM, to help with biometrics; remove the arbitrary application cap of 3,250; and expand the program to include vulnerable children and those who were outside Sudan prior to April 15, 2023, and cannot get back home because of the war. Over 286,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada under the CUAET program. Sudanese Canadians deserve equitable treatment in the world's largest displacement crisis.

Mr. Speaker, Sudan now has the world's worst displacement of children anywhere, and 17 months into this devastating humanitarian crisis, not one single Sudanese Canadian loved one has gotten to safety in Canada. A family member in Vancouver was desperate to bring his sister and her two daughters to safety. With months of inaction, the sister has now perished. The two children are alone. Will the minister expedite processing and expand eligibility of his restrictive program to include vulnerable children in Sudan?

Madam Speaker, it has been months since the UN Secretary-General first referred to Gaza as a “graveyard for children”. Civilians continue to face indiscriminate bombing and starvation. Now the people of Lebanon face unimaginable danger in the deadliest escalation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah since 2006. The threat of war between Israel and Iran looms over all in the region. The starvation and perpetual bombing of the displaced population in Gaza, which includes one million children, are intolerable. Attacks on civilians in Palestine, Lebanon and Israel must stop. Nobody in the region is safer today than they were 12 months ago. There can be no military solution to their suffering. There should be no support from Canada for warmongers anywhere. The NDP is renewing our call for a full two-way arms embargo, recognition of the state of Palestine, sanctions on extremist Israeli leaders, a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

Mr. Speaker, I am still grappling with your first ruling. So I can understand the ruling and its application, and the rules in the House and the decorum that is required for the House, when someone makes a comment about the Prime Minister that he should hold hands with another individual of the same gender and go into the bathtub together, it is within order in the House and that we should not take it in any other way? Do I understand this correctly?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled by the Liberals' failure to help family members in Gaza get to safety and reunite with their loved ones here in Canada. From the beginning, the government's initiative was mired in red tape and roadblocks. Precious time was wasted and loved ones continue to be killed. Israel's brutal siege and bombardment continue and there is further escalation in the region. What concrete action has the government taken to ramp up diplomatic efforts and collaborate with NGOs on the ground to help bring loved ones to safety?

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is very prevalent in the broader community, of course, is the issue of disinformation. It is happening more and more now, and it is more urgent than ever for us to tackle this issue. Taiwan has been very proactive in dealing with this. Of course, there is an intersection of this issue with foreign interference. What the government in Taiwan has done is create a portal whereby citizens can put forward information they are not sure is true or not. It is almost like a fact-checking portal, and then citizens would be able to know whether something is disinformation. I am wondering whether the member would support an effort like this. One of the things I will say, because he is going to attack the NDP no matter what, is that we are going to support this going to second reading, because it warrants discussion at second reading and to hear from experts, as well as to entertain potential amendments.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague's dad for making the choice to come to Canada and establish Canada as his family home. To the question around the lost Canadians bill, interestingly, yesterday, after the debate in the House, we went to committee. At the committee, there was a similar motion calling for the committee to support that Bill C-71 be deemed read through all procedures at second reading and be referred to the committee immediately. The Conservatives moved an amendment to that motion and the amendment was to have Bill C-71 referred to the committee after the next election. I think that clearly indicates how the Conservatives intend to filibuster the opportunity for Canadians to restore their constitutional rights. What does the member think of that? What does that indicate about the Conservatives' intention to thumb their noses at the Superior Court decision?

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I wonder if he actually realizes that, under Bill C-71, what we are talking about is restoring the rights of Canadians that were taken away unconstitutionally by the Conservatives 15 years ago. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about Canadians having lost that right. The courts have said that it is a violation of their charter rights and mobility rights. I wonder if the member understands that.