Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill: The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. The government House leader , in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills.”
“This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport 's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.” Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”.”
“Part 1 states, “It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.” The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada.”
“In the case of Bill C-5 , the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5 , part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.” I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5 , an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and Conservative coalition joined hands to fast-track Bill C-5 to bypass environmental reviews, ignore provincial jurisdiction and trample on the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples. Ontario chiefs are rejecting Bill C-5 . UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called it a “complete betrayal of Canada’s commitments under the UN Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]”. The assembly unanimously condemned the bill and is calling for its immediate withdrawal. Chiefs across the country are saying, “nothing's off the table” if the bill is passed. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-5 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I too worked well with my hon. colleague on the immigration committee in previous Parliaments. With this particular bill, Bill C-3 , which is substantively the same as Bill C-71 , Canada will finally be charter-compliant with the gender discrimination components of the Citizenship Act. Is that not something we should actually act on? On the question around substantial connections, there are provisions in the bill that speak to substantial connections. To his point that people actually—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the private member's bill from Senator Yonah Martin. Of course, that bill was amended, which Conservatives opposed and filibustered at committee. The government then tabled Bill C-71 , to which the Conservatives said it needed to be a government bill with all those changes. The government did, in fact, belatedly table Bill C-71 in the House. Conservatives then filibustered that. We now have Bill C-3 , and Conservatives are now saying they do not support it. My question for the member is this: Why are the Conservatives so persistent in trying to prevent Canada's Citizenship Act from being charter-compliant and having the gender discrimination component within it, as it applies to lost Canadians, rectified?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling this bill. A similar bill was before the last Parliament, and the Conservatives filibustered the House, preventing it from getting to third reading, prompting the courts to yet again extend another extension to get the law passed so that Canada's immigration Citizenship Act would be charter-compliant. What are the minister's thoughts about the Conservatives' tactics when they first took away lost Canadians' rights to have citizenship passed on to their children, then filibustered it in the last Parliament and are now speaking against it once again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill is purported to be a measure to address border security, fentanyl, car theft and so on, yet the Conservatives, of course, cancelled the port police, which caused part of the problem. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years, and they have not restored the port police. In my riding of Vancouver East, we see the drugs coming in and see the crime, which are impacting our country, so my question to the member is this: Would he support the call to bring back the port police for border security?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 would give unprecedented powers, without judicial review or a warrant, to the RCMP or CSIS to access information or demand information from any service provider in the country. It does not matter if it is someone's doctor, dentist, landlord, bank or psychiatrist. It does not matter who it is. They can demand information about when someone went to see them and for how long they have seen them. This has nothing to do with border security. How could the member possibly defend this violation of Canadians' privacy?”
“Mr. Speaker, in light of the humanitarian crisis and genocide taking place in Gaza, the petitioners are calling for the government to publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with the principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity; and, lastly, ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.”
“I hope the members in this House will support the bill and bring forward just policies for refugees. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“It amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by giving CBSA and the Department of Justice the power to retroactively bring cessation applications against permanent residents of Canada if refugees and protected persons have to re-avail themselves of protection after temporarily travelling back to their country of origin. That means people are unable to travel back for any reason. No matter how much time has passed, whether the conditions in their country have changed or whether they have resettled permanently in Canada, had children and established their families in the community, they cannot travel back, even to visit a dying loved one for a last time, without risking the loss of their permanent status. These cessation provisions are wrong and unjust.”
“Bill C-213. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (cessation of refugee protection) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to repeal the unjust and unfair Conservative laws targeting refugees and protected persons in Canada. Again, I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie , for seconding the bill. In 2012, the Conservatives brought in Bill C-31 , an unjust and punitive bill.”
“If passed, the bill would create a dedicated oversight body to ensure fairness and accountability within IRCC and an ombud office that could serve as an impartial entity to address individual complaints and concerns, which is a gap in the system that every member in this House will know about. This office would also have a mandate to review concerns about differential treatment and discriminatory practices within IRCC and be empowered to look at trends and patterns to identify systemic issues. Trust in Canada's immigration system depends upon its being just, effective and equitable for all. I hope all members of this House will agree and support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-212. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, An Act to establish the Office of the Ombud for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to establish an independent ombud office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with a mandate to examine the department's practices to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory. I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for seconding the bill and for defending the values of fairness, justice and equality. New Democrats know that immigration is an exercise in nation building, but shortcomings in addressing biases, unfairness and racism at IRCC undermine this goal.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Pierre Poilievre both want to roll out the red carpet for Prime Minister Modi to attend the G7 summit in Canada, knowing that Modi refused to co-operate with the RCMP in the investigation of the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and other homicides on Canadian soil. The Prime Minister will not say if he knew that Jagmeet Singh's life was in danger or that he was under surveillance by gang members suspected of working for the Indian government. Poilievre's excuse is that he refused to get the security clearance, but the Prime Minister has none. Will the Prime Minister rescind the invitation and demand India's full co-operation in the Nijjar murder and other cases?”
“Mr. Speaker, the so-called stronger borders act makes Harper's Bill C-51 look like child's play. Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, respect the charter, and withdraw this dangerous bill?”
“The bill would require the federal government to consult with other levels of government and to involve indigenous peoples and encampment residents so that they are able to access housing alternatives other than forced encampments. I hope all members of the House will support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“When people do not have adequate housing or cannot afford rent, they are forced to live in danger on the street, yet the current government's plan to fund developers for more private-market housing would not solve the housing crisis, not when 30 years of market-based solutions have already proven a failure. We need a human rights approach, and the government needs to build homes that people can actually afford. If we do not, encampments for unhoused people across the country will only keep growing. In Vancouver East, we have seen how forced encampment and eviction destabilize people, push them deeper into trauma and threaten the safety of encampment residents and the wider community alike. The bill would amend the National Housing Strategy Act based on the federal housing advocate's advice to prohibit forced encampments on federal land.”
“moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act . Bill C-205. Introduction and first reading She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. She is always a clear voice for making sure that human rights and the inherent rights of indigenous peoples are respected in action. Canadian law states that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right, yet we know that is not happening. In Vancouver, homelessness has grown by at least one-third in the last three years. In Halifax, homelessness doubled in the last year.”
“Mr. Chair, it is not a personal question. It is a simple question on whether or not the minister is willing to grant him honorary citizenship. The government put in the program for caregivers, and many of them were actually unable to to finish the process when the system crashed. Will the minister provide alternatives for those applicants?”
“Mr. Chair, from that answer, the minister's department has not done an assessment on the U.S., whether or not it is a safe third country, with the travel ban being imposed today. My next question is this: Will the minister grant Jimmy Lai honorary Canadian citizenship?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling and many of them are turning to food banks for support, yet the member is silent on the tax rates and the excess profits big corporations are receiving. Since the 1980s, the corporate income tax rate went from 36% to 15%. In 2023, corporations recorded $664 billion—”
“Mr. Speaker, the throne speech indicates that the government is going to cap spending, the rate of increase of 9%, at 2%, so that is a 7% reduction. In light of the government's commitment to raising military spending to 2% of NATO, that is a $20-billion gap that needs to be made up, so my question to the member is this: Is he at all concerned that there will be service cuts to Canadians, many of whom are vulnerable, from vulnerable populations, who rely on government services?”
“By targeting people based on their race, religion, or nationality, from countries with predominantly Black, Brown and Muslim-majority populations, this blanket ban constitutes racial discrimination under international human rights law. It also spreads hate and disinformation, reinforcing the misleading idea that certain populations are more likely to pose security risks or engage in acts of violence. Canada has a duty to respond. This is especially urgent given that the government has signed the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. Urgent action is required on Canada's diplomatic and policy response to the new U.S. restrictions to protect the rights of Canadians and for Canada to ensure a human rights approach to protect vulnerable communities. I hope that this request will be granted.”
“A former Biden administration official at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services called it “a misguided concept of collective punishment”. It echoes the xenophobic and Islamophobic Muslim ban from Trump's first term and raises serious human rights concerns. Many Canadians have family, work or study ties in countries facing a travel ban in the United States. Dual nationals, cross-border families and individuals from affected communities are already experiencing fear and confusion. Human rights organizations report widespread concern and uncertainty. Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard, in response to the travel ban, said: Trump’s new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2), I am seeking leave to propose an emergency debate regarding the discriminatory U.S. travel ban announced by President Donald Trump, which came into effect at 12.01 a.m. today. The sweeping travel ban bars entry to the United States from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Additional partial travel restrictions have been imposed on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. This is a deeply troubling and discriminatory policy that disproportionately targets countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America, many with large Black and Muslim populations, or those deemed “anti-American” under vague ideological criteria.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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, 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, 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?”
“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, 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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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: Amendment to the amendment That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, as well as Indigenous peoples”.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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. (1610) There is no mention of needing to invest in building social housing and co-op housing in Canada.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”