Gord Johns
Courtenay—Alberni, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, we recall that the United Nations special rapporteur warned that Canada's temporary foreign worker program can create conditions resembling modern-day slavery. Last month, the San Group, a company operating in Port Alberni, was fined $429,000 and banned for two years for serious violations involving migrant workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted earlier, a Port Alberni company was fined $429,000 for its violation in its treatment of migrant workers, and it was given a two-year ban. Clearly, two years is not enough. The company operates other companies, and the rumour is that it actually has temporary foreign workers working for them as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government's removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides.”
“Temporary foreign workers are often hired without the labour market opinion having been done in the right way. Workers who are looking for work are not getting hired. We hear in my riding about abuses of workers by employers, but there is no follow-up. There is nothing. When workers are in trouble, they are not supported.”
“I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government's pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada's public agricultural research system?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for allowing that to happen. Today is Brain Injury Awareness Day. It is an honour to table this petition on behalf of the families impacted by 165,000 new cases annually of brain injury in our country.”
The complete record
Every one of 557 lines we hold for Gord Johns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“If we are serious about stopping abandoned and derelict vessels from becoming pollution hazards, Canada needs a responsible ship recycling system here at home. Too many Canadian vessels are sold off, exported to jurisdictions with weaker standards, or left to deteriorate in our waters until they become hazardous waste. That is environmental negligence and economic leakage. We lose the jobs and the materials, and communities inherit the pollution. Canadian vessels should be recycled here in Canada to high environmental and labour standards. That requires domestic ship recycling infrastructure, clear federal guidelines, and investment in facilities and training so vessels can be dismantled safely and responsibly.”
“It was one of the most important conservation initiatives in Canadian history, tackling up to 800,000 tonnes annually of abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear that is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution. I think of the Ocean Legacy foundation, the Coastal Restoration Society in my riding, the Surfrider Foundation Pacific Rim, and many other groups that did that work. The bill before us might strengthen legal liability standards against marine pollution, but a multi-year, permanent ghost gear fund focused on prevention and rapid response remains essential to keeping our coast clean. This brings me to another piece of the prevention puzzle that Bill C-244 points towards but would not fully solve: What happens to vessels at the end of their life?”
“Pollution does not end when a legal timeline expires. Communities and ecosystems live with the consequences long after corporate liability has ended; this is why relying on after-the-fact liability alone is not enough. We need preparedness, prevention and a standing response system that is ready before the next spill happens, not improvised afterward. Coastal and indigenous communities keep telling Ottawa the same thing: They are tired of holding the bag when debris hits their shores. A coordinated response system backed by industry through mechanisms like an ecosystem service fee on cargo units and on ships would ensure that the costs of protecting our coasts are not downloaded onto communities and volunteers alone. Any coordinated marine pollution response would be incomplete without reinstating the ghost gear fund.”
“Each time, first nations and coastal communities were left to respond. Volunteers cleaned debris from beaches, and local governments and indigenous guardians dealt with the long-term impacts to ecosystems, fisheries and local economies. The lack of a coordinated response leaves our coast exposed incident after incident. The Zim Kingston spill also exposed a deeper accountability gap that is similar to concerns outlined in the bill. Under current rules, the owner of the Zim Kingston can be held liable for damages and cleanup costs for only up to six years from the date of the incident, but the debris from that spill continues to wash up on our shores and will for decades. Microplastics and polystyrene fragments will persist in the marine environment long after that liability clock runs out.”
“It improves accountability and strengthens prevention, which are things for which we have been calling for a long time, and it moves us in the right direction. The bill also highlights how much further the federal government still needs to go. Even with the stronger liability rules, as the Transportation Safety Board has rightly pointed out in the past, Canada still has no coordinated response system for dealing with shipping container spills and marine debris incidents. We have seen the consequences of that over and again, and I would like to see it addressed. (1315) Containers were lost from the Hanjin Seattle in 2016. More than 100 containers fell from the Zim Kingston just a few years ago. More recently, a large barge off Bella Bella nearly went down with a full load.”
“This is not about blaming people who are struggling to find housing; it is about ensuring that those who profit from vessels and control their disposal cannot avoid and evade responsibility by passing the problem down the line to someone who really has no realistic ability to manage those risks. Marine pollution is also an economic issue. It undermines fisheries, tourism and working waterfronts. Clean waters are the foundation of coastal communities. Every abandoned vessel that sinks in a harbour imposes costs on local governments, first nations and taxpayers. Strong rules are not anti-economic but pro-community and pro-future. We know how sacred wild Pacific salmon is. The bill would protect it as well. For these reasons, the NDP supports this bill at second reading.”
“A lot of people take these vessels just for housing. I have seen this first-hand in Tofino, where I lived for almost 25 years. With limited affordable housing, people ended up, and still live, on aging vessels tied to makeshift moorages. Those vessels are often not seaworthy, and the people living on them often do not have the resources to maintain or even safely dispose of them. The result is predictable. The vessel deteriorates, pollution increases, and when it finally sinks, the costs fall onto the community. The bill helps close the loophole that allows responsibility to be pushed onto the most vulnerable.”
“The bill also addresses a pattern that coastal communities see repeatedly, which is responsibility being passed along until no one is left holding it. Vessels nearing the end of their useful life are transferred, deteriorate and eventually sink. The community that then inherits that problem has to deal with the navigational hazard and the cleanup bill. That is not just an individual failure but a huge policy failure that the bill will address. It is also important to be honest about why some of these transfers happen. Many vessel owners want to avoid the costs of the proper deconstruction of the vessel or the recycling of a boat at the end of its life rather than pay for responsible disposal. Some of them off-load these vessels cheaply or literally for free onto vulnerable or desperate people.”
“That approach costs more, harms ecosystems and downloads the responsibility onto communities that did not cause the problem. Bill C-244 moves us toward a prevention-first approach. It strengthens accountability when pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when intent can be proven. Anyone who works around these harbours knows that some of the most damaging pollution comes from aging vessels or deferred maintenance and weak oversight. The ecological harm is the same whether a spill is deliberate or caused by neglect, so if we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives. Clear liability rules encourage better maintenance, safety planning and proper end-of-life management. When the costs of failure are real, prevention becomes cheaper than cleanup.”
“Second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to stop vessel owners from off-loading end-of-life boats onto people they know do not have the means to maintain or safely dispose of them. It closes a loophole that allows responsibility to be transferred on paper while the pollution risk remains in the water. These two changes are practical. They respond directly to what coastal communities live with every day. From the perspective of a coastal riding, where I live, the problem this bill addresses is not occasional; it is structural. Our system too often intervenes only after damage has already been done. We mobilize the Coast Guard once fuel is already in the water. We rely on volunteers, especially indigenous guardian programs, once debris is already on our coast. We scramble for funding once a vessel has already sunk.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-244 . It is a bill that delivers real accountability and takes a proactive approach to preventing marine pollution and abandoned vessels. I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country , for bringing this bill forward, which shows great leadership. The first thing the bill does is amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make it clear that when pollution ends up in our oceans, the owner or operator of the polluting vessel is responsible, even when that pollution results from negligence, poor maintenance or foreseeable failure, not only when the intent can be proven.”
“The petitioners also point out that shore power reduces emissions, lowers noise pollution, delivers long-term fuel savings and is already in place in ports around the world, including the port of Vancouver. These petitioners are calling on the federal government to prioritize community health and environmental protection by funding shore power infrastructure at the Port Alberni loading docks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a certified petition on behalf of residents from Port Alberni on Vancouver Island who are calling on the federal government to fund more shore power at the Port Alberni loading docks. The petitioners describe living with the relentless noise and air pollution caused by ships running diesel generators while they are berthed, sometimes continuously day and night for weeks at a time. They say this is not a minor inconvenience. It affects sleep, health and quality of life for families living near the port. They cite that shore power is a proven solution. It allows ships to plug into the local electrical grid, eliminating the need for diesel generation while berthed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he is committed to pharmacare, but today only three provinces and one territory are covered. That is about 17% of all Canadians. A commitment to pharmacare should mean access for Canadians no matter where they live. Right now, access to medicine depends on one's postal code. It is not nation building when we give only certain provinces and territories access to medicine. Will the Prime Minister commit today to expanding pharmacare to every province and territory that wants in so Canadians are not treated differently based on where they live?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a mental health crisis and young people are being hit hardest, yet counselling, therapy and treatment still depend on workplace benefits or the ability to pay in a two-tier system. The PBO confirmed that bringing mental health care under the Canada Health Act and achieving parity with physical health care through Bill C-201 would cost just 1.5% of total public health spending. Will the minister act now and bring mental health care under the Canada Health Act, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, we have seen the impact that Donald Trump's tariffs have had on auto and forestry. We are seeing layoffs at CAMI. We have seen jobs lost in communities on Vancouver Island, whether it be in Crofton or Chemainus, temporary or permanent. The government has been slow in getting income supports and relief out to workers. When will the government scale up income supports for those workers who have either been displaced or lost their jobs permanently, fix the EI delays and deliver benefits to these workers? For forestry, for example, there was a $1.2-billion package. Only $50 million of that is earmarked for workers. Hopefully we can get an answer from the Liberal government.”
“Madam Speaker, we hear Conservatives talk about how Canada is too big and the transition is too bold, but we can look to Norway, where it is cold, where they travel long distances, and they have had huge success, so geography should not be an excuse. What we need is the Conservatives to support a Canadian auto strategy that protects workers, supports tackling climate change and builds vehicles here at home. Why are they not getting on board? We know workers support actually building, and these investments are critical to the auto industry.”
“The petitioners are calling for the reinstatement and expansion of the permanent and multi-year ghost gear fund, which was cut by the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today from Canadians and Vancouver Islanders who are deeply concerned about ghost gear, which is abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear. It is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution. These petitioners note that ghost gear kills fish; impacts wild Pacific salmon, marine mammals, seabirds and turtles; damages habitats; creates microplastics; and even hazards navigation and active harvesters, hurting coastal economies. They point out the dedicated funding for retrieval, prevention, repair and recycling works creates skilled jobs in partnership with indigenous communities, small businesses, fishers, harbour authorities and recyclers, especially in rural and remote regions.”
“People deserve honest communication about what that review is and what it is not. No one is losing their right to fish. Recreation fishing is not being eliminated, but conservation and rebuilding must come first. Without healthy salmon, there is no fishery for anyone. Coastal communities are waiting. The Liberal government needs to move quickly, provide transparency and commit now to renewing wild salmon restoration funding.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague talking about the record amount of funding invested in wild salmon and its success. I have a lot of respect for him, but now is not the time to take our foot off the gas. The answer tonight does not give coastal communities what they need, which is certainty. The Pacific salmon strategy initiative is set to expire in just over a month, and we still do not have a clear commitment on its renewal. That puts restoration work, good jobs and real progress on wild salmon recovery at risk. First nations, hatcheries and community restoration groups cannot plan without stable long-term funding. Habitat restoration is not something we turn on and off. Time is of the essence. There is also a separate review under way of the salmon allocation policy.”
“The government must now move quickly on these decisions related to both the Pacific salmon strategy initiative and the salmon allocation policy review. Organizations, communities and businesses need transparency and certainty. Delays create real costs on the ground. Coastal communities are running out of time, and the government must act now. Time is of the essence.”
“They have not once raised the sunsetting of the Pacific salmon strategy initiative, the most critical salmon funding we have, nor the concerns they claim to have heard about the salmon allocation policy, either at committee or here in the House of Commons. As New Democrats, we are clear about where we stand. Our positions are evidence-based and expert-led. We stand for conservation first because without wild salmon, there is no fishery. We stand for rebuilding salmon so there is a future for all fishers, good jobs in coastal communities and strong local economies. We stand for respecting the law on indigenous rights, and we stand for stable, long-term funding so restoration does not collapse every few years.”
“What is actually happening is long overdue. Courts have ruled that indigenous fishing rights must be meaningfully accommodated. Outdated policy from 1999 has failed to reflect that reality, and at the same time, many wild salmon stocks are still in decline. Conservation and rebuilding must come first, because without healthy wild salmon, there is no fishery for anyone. What is most troubling is the double standard we are hearing from some Conservatives. They show up at rallies and town halls and tell fishers one story, and then they come back to Ottawa, sit at the fisheries and oceans committee with the minister and her officials for two hours and do not raise these concerns at all.”
“There is also a separate policy discussion under way about the salmon allocation policy. That review is long overdue and tied to court decisions and conservation realities. There has also been a lot of fear stirred up around the salmon allocation policy review. People are being told they will lose their right to fish, that salmon will stop being a public resource or that the Constitution is being rewritten. None of that is true. No one is being shut out of the water. Recreational fishing is not being eliminated. Families will still be able to fish. Some Conservatives have chosen to stir fear instead of engaging honestly with the law, the science and the reality facing wild salmon. At the same time, the Liberal government has failed to clearly explain what this review is and what it is not, which is allowing misinformation to spread.”
“On the west coast, wild salmon are not an abstract policy issue. They are food security, culture, ecosystem health, local livelihoods and local economies. Organizations like the Redd Fish Restoration Society, working with Nuu-chah-nulth nations, have spent decades restoring watersheds, rebuilding salmon habitat and training local workers. This is reconciliation in action. We also know, from programs like the watershed security fund, that restoration works. Dozens of projects have been supported, hundreds of jobs created and millions leveraged in community investment. Demand far exceeds available funding. Communities are lining up to do the work. If something works, we scale it up. We do not pull the rug out from underneath the people rebuilding wild salmon and protecting watersheds.”
“Madam Speaker, tonight I am here on behalf of Pacific salmon. The Pacific salmon strategy initiative, the main federal program supporting wild salmon restoration, habitat protection, science and rebuilding on the west coast, sunsets at the end of March. It was not renewed in the budget, and there is still no confirmation of renewal. This puts the single-largest federal investment in wild salmon recovery at risk. First nations, hatcheries and community restoration groups cannot plan projects or keep workers on the ground without certainty. Habitat restoration is not something we can turn on and off; salmon recovery takes years of steady work. Time is of the essence. If the government is serious about protecting wild salmon and supporting coastal economies, it must renew the Pacific salmon strategy initiative now.”
“When we look at solutions, what we hear about is targeted enforcement against organized crime, which is effective public safety, as well as timely courts and prevention, not rhetoric that undermines charter rights and stigmatizes newcomers. I hope my colleague can talk about solutions, because clearly they must step forward and do more. I am sure my colleague agrees that the government needs to do more.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a highly partisan motion, and the response was highly partisan as well. As New Democrats, we recognize, and I think everybody in the House recognizes, that there is a rise in extortion, that there is a rise in organized crime, that everybody has a right to feel safe in this country and that we need to do more. The Conservatives continue to make assertions that mandatory minimums and longer sentencing would actually curb this, but if we look to the States, there is a sevenfold incarceration rate from taking that very approach. What we want is evidence-based policy. I would like to hear from my colleague about solutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, Alberta's Bill 11 is American-style two-tier medicine. It allows doctors to bill privately while also billing the public system, and it allows private insurance for medically necessary care. This breaks the promise of Canadian medicare, creating one system for the wealthy and one where the rest of us are left waiting even longer. The minister said she would look into it, but it has been two months and we have heard nothing. Will she stop stalling, enforce the Canada Health Act and protect Canada's universal health care system?”
“Mr. Speaker, we heard again this morning about the uneven, inconsistent and sometimes ignored implementation of the treaty process. We have heard from the nations wanting this treaty commissioner to absolutely ensure that treaty implementation happens. Now, we hear Conservatives say, “Well, that is a waste of money.” However, what is costly is not implementing a treaty because, when treaties are implemented, it creates jobs. Those nations want to participate in the economy. They want to move forward. We hear also from the Conservatives all the time that the government should have done more. Absolutely, the government should do more, but so should the official opposition. Will the Conservatives admit that they need to ask more questions when it comes to indigenous issues in this place, as the official opposition?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree about the importance of the implementation of this commissioner to hold government to account. Often, treaties have been signed and those agreements have not been implemented. It has been uneven, inconsistent and ignored. We heard that this morning from Chief John Jack from Huu-ay-aht First Nations and Chief Wilfred Cootes from Uchucklesaht. They are calling for the commissioner to hold the government to account to ensure that when treaties are signed, they are actually implemented. Why are the Conservatives going against the calls to action by indigenous peoples in this country who want to work nation to nation to support their people and build a better, healthier Canada?”
“Petitioners call on the House of Commons to reconsider the sweeping cuts to Canadian jobs and services and, lastly, to propose a bill to fund good-paying jobs, public services and the transition to a sustainable economy by making corporations and the wealthiest Canadians pay their fair share.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table a petition on behalf of Vancouver Islanders and British Columbians. They highlight that wealth inequality in Canada is rising, with more Canadians struggling to afford the basics of life while corporate profits continue to break records. They highlight that austerity measures very often exasperate inequality. The federal government is planning austerity measures including a massive cut of $25 billion to the publicly funded jobs and programs that Canadians rely upon, and the federal government has and plans on further cutting taxes on the wealthy. They also highlight that climate change is worsening, causing Canadians to project $25 billion in losses each year, and a wealth tax could, as per the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, generate more than $32 billion in the first year alone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not to discredit my esteemed colleague on her petition, but she did mention a member of the House. Maybe it is best if she highlights the member's riding instead.”
“Madam Speaker, when we are talking about food costs, we have to look at the corporate profits. I know big grocery stores are making big profits. Where I live, in coastal British Columbia, when it comes to fish and independent fish harvesters, a lot of the quota licences are held by a handful of fishers. We call them slipper skippers or armchair fishers because they hold the licences and then lease them out to fishers, who do not actually make very much money. As well, the consumer ends up paying more money. Does my colleague agree that this model needs to be changed, that anybody out fishing should be making the profit and that this would lower prices for consumers at the end of the day?”
“The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to develop a national brain injury strategy to improve awareness and prevention and to ensure better access to treatment, rehabilitation and recovery supports for Canadians living with the impacts of brain injury.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition from Canadians who are calling for urgent federal leadership on brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment. The petitioners note that brain injuries can occur in many ways, from accidents to illness and strokes, and often result in serious physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural effects. They further point out that brain injuries are frequently linked with other challenges, including substance use and homelessness, creating additional barriers for those affected. It is estimated that 1.6 million Canadians are living with a brain injury today, yet there is still no federal coordinated national response.”
“Many have paid into employment insurance for decades. EI at 60% is not enough. Waiting periods delay income at the very moment families are losing paycheques, and severance clawbacks punish workers for benefits they have earned. Will the government act now? Will it help the workers and families of Crofton, B.C., right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, feelings are not enough. The layoffs are happening today. I am urging the government not to abandon the families and workers at Crofton. Forestry workers do not need more reassurance; they need action. If the government is serious about preventing further job losses and supporting workers who have already lost their jobs, it must deliver real, sector-specific relief now, including softwood lumber relief funds that are proportional to British Columbia's role in this industry and comparable to what auto and steel received. This means stabilizing existing mills, securing fibre supply, resolving the softwood lumber dispute with the United States and diversifying markets through a team Canada approach with provinces, labour and industry. Workers are losing their jobs today, and support must be timely and fair.”
“They are asking for mobility assistance where local jobs do not exist. Crofton is the test. Layoffs are happening today, and the excuses will not pay the rent. Delay is not neutral; it is harm. The government must act, and it must act now.”
“What is missing is a new, dedicated round of forestry relief, including softwood lumber supports, that reflects the scale of this crisis and treats British Columbia fairly. Many affected workers are between 55 and 64 years old, too old for retraining and too young for retirement. Employment insurance replaces just 60% of income, and severance clawbacks block access to support entirely. Workers are not asking for charity; they are simply asking for action. They are asking for employment insurance replacement to be raised to at least 80% and for EI duration to be extended to 104 weeks. They are asking for no waiting periods and no severance clawbacks. They are asking for bridge-to-retirement supports for workers aged 55 to 64. They are asking for guaranteed apprenticeship completion and long-term mental health supports.”
“These are mill workers, fallers, truck drivers, equipment operators, indigenous workers and workers in single-industry towns. Forestry has sustained generations of families in my home province. British Columbia produces roughly 45% of Canada's softwood lumber exports, yet under the $450-million labour market adjustment envelope, British Columbia receives only about $70 million, while Ontario receives roughly $230 million. That is indefensible. It is not proportional and it abandons forestry communities in British Columbia. When the auto sector faces crisis, Ottawa intervenes. When steel faces unfair trade action, Ottawa steps in, and rightly so. Forestry workers are asking, though, why they are treated as expendable.”
“When governments fail to intervene during a sectoral crisis, the outcome is predictable: economic shock, mental health crisis, population loss and entire communities shaken to the core. This moment is a real-time stress test for employment insurance, labour market development funding, softwood lumber relief and federal-provincial coordination. Right now, the system is failing that test. Let me explain. The government announced $1.2 billion for the forest sector. Workers quickly discovered that only $50 million of that is actually for them. That is less than 5%, not for income replacement, not for retraining and not for communities trying to survive closures. The $50 million for tens of thousands of workers is not support; it is neglect. In British Columbia alone, nearly 50,000 direct forestry jobs are at risk.”
“Crofton is not in my riding, but when hundreds of Vancouver Island workers are thrown out of work overnight, riding boundaries mean nothing. It demands a national response. I reached out immediately to three federal departments about removing barriers to workers' support, barriers that simply should never have existed in the first place. I acknowledge those ministers and officials who responded, but let me be clear: Workers should not need an MP running interference just to get help when mills close. I also want to recognize British Columbia's Minister of Forests, Ravi Parmar, who is working around the clock, North Cowichan Mayor Rob Douglas and Duncan Mayor Michelle Staples, who are doing everything they can on the ground, despite the absence of a serious, coordinated federal response.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to the closure of the Crofton mill on Vancouver Island and what it exposes about the state of Canada's forest sector and the Liberal government's failure to act when forestry workers need help most. Today, February 3, the first round of layoffs at Crofton takes effect. Workers are emptying lockers and families are losing paycheques. Mortgages, rent and grocery bills do not pause while the government deliberates. Communities are being told to wait. I am raising this tonight because Geoff Dawe, the president of Public and Private Workers of Canada, contacted me directly. His concern was simple and alarming. Workers losing their good-paying union jobs cannot access the federal supports that they were promised and deserve.”
“All parliamentarians would expect more. I hope that the mover of this motion actually goes to the Prime Minister and the cabinet and says that the least we could do for Canada's veterans is make sure that none of them are homeless. This could be done expediently, and it has to be done expediently, because we cannot lose veterans. When a veteran is homeless and they are not getting the adequate supports they need, we know what can happen. This is disrespectful to Canada's veterans, the people who put their lives on the line for our safety and our security and have served our country. To the mover, I hope that this is in the fall economic statement, or even better, that the government fast-tracks this process and gets moving on making sure that no veteran is left homeless in this country.”
“All levels of government should be working collectively to address this problem. We need housing-first supports. It is critical that we get to a place of prevention. When a military or RCMP veteran is homeless, we cannot wait for them to be in crisis. This should be a priority of government. If someone who is serving, right through to their release, is in trouble, if they do not have housing lined up or if they do not have safe, secure supports when they are released, we need to ensure that at least they have, as a bare minimum, a place to live. (1815) The government has had a decade to address this problem, and the Liberals bring forward a motion to talk about it and do a study in six months, which it does not require. This can be enacted now. We would expect a lot more from the leadership of the government.”
“We have cities, provinces and territories that want to support Canada's military and RCMP veterans and indigenous peoples on federal lands, but they require the federal government to come to the table and actually be the leader when it comes to pulling it together. Again, we recognize this is a real problem, and we need a pan-Canadian approach to this. However, we do not need to wait for a study when we know there are government lands and buildings that could be used immediately. We have non-profits with shovel-ready projects. We need data, as my colleague talked about earlier. There is no credible data to identify how many of Canada's military and RCMP veterans are homeless. We need to ensure that there are strong transition supports for those who are in an absolute crisis. We need this to be coordinated across the government.”
“In fact, the Prime Minister could announce a policy this week that could absolutely cement that all government lands and buildings to be used for housing are to prioritize Canada's men and women who have served in the military or the RCMP and indigenous peoples, on whose lands they are. However, the Liberals will not do this. Instead, we have a motion that is going to drag this out. Honestly, it is a motion that, as much as we are frustrated with, we will support at second reading to get the conversation going. However, it is absolutely unnecessary. In fact, this should be an urgent priority of the government. It should be looking at ways to support those groups and organizations and fast-tracking shovel-ready projects, those that are ready right now to be implemented.”