44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2023 10:00AM
- May/2/23 1:55:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I am going to share my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Davenport.
I have to admit it, I love opposition days. We get to debate issues and policies from the opposition's point of view.
It is too bad that the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka did not win the Conservative Party leadership race, because even though I do not agree with his ideas, they are a lot more sensible than the ideas of the member for Carleton. We would be better off if his party supported this member's brand of conservatism.
I believe in some parts of his motion, but I see weaknesses too. First off, provision (a) mentions “imposing clawbacks on municipalities who delay new home construction”. What would constitute a reasonable delay? Would it be based on decisions about public safety, related to drainage, for example?
That is important because it is easy to say that there are unreasonable delays by municipalities. What standard do we set for that? How do we look at smaller municipalities and what their capacities are to deliver reasonable timelines for developers versus larger cities?
I have before me an example from Huntsville of drainage work that delayed Sabrina Park attainable home construction. This is in the member opposite's riding, and he is the housing critic for the Conservative Party. The project was delayed for a year because of drainage that had to be reditched and repurposed because of concerns from the municipality.
Is the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka suggesting that the Government of Canada should claw back some of the money that we would be sending fro infrastructure after those types of delays, or not? That is a question that needs to be asked and to be figured out. It is easy to talk about this in principle, but what does the member actually mean by a reasonable delay.
An hon. member: He wants to add gatekeepers.
Mr. Kody Blois: Who are these gatekeepers? We have heard that during the debate. I would like to see the Conservative Party start to name the individuals in question. I am not against the principle of trying to reduce red tape whatsoever, but the principle of how we go about this has to be a little more nuanced than what the Conservative Party is throwing forward right now.
The next part on provision (a) is allocating infrastructure dollars to municipalities based on housing built. Does the town of Kentville, which might build 25 houses a year, have a reasonable standard? Where do we go? Is it based on a percentage? If the City of Toronto builds 500, is that a reasonable standard? Who determines this? With the different nuances and sizes of municipalities across the country, how would we even go about this?
What about municipalities that are doing a good job and are above the average? Let us say one of the standards was to try to give municipalities money, as is in this motion, on the basis of the success of building new houses. If a municipality was a laggard, we would give more money to it versus municipalities that had been doing a good job, which might not be able to demonstrably show they are improving their housing stock in the same fashion because they were doing a good job before. Is that really the position of the Conservative Party right now? I have my concerns.
The Conservatives are essentially suggesting that, if there is local leadership, and that is in their view, not ours, but I will speak for them, they think we should punish Canadians where local leadership is not being lived up to and we should somehow cut federal infrastructure support to those communities. Again, I want to know who they think has poor leadership at the local level so I can know whether or not they are suggesting that the Government of Canada should be pulling back infrastructure dollars in my community. I would certainly like to know where they stand, other than just creating these arbitrary words about gatekeepers and creating these villains without naming who they are. Let us pull back the mask and see who we are talking about.
The provincial governments are in the best position to issue construction permits, considering their constitutional authority over municipalities. However, they must use this authority in a reasonable manner.
I do think the provincial governments, because of their constitutional relationship, are better arbiters of being able to help intervene, where necessary, in a reasonable fashion.
761 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 3:08:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three years ago, 22 people were killed in Nova Scotia in what was the worst mass shooting in Canadian history. The victims were friends, families and neighbours, and all Nova Scotians were touched by this tragedy.
Last week, our government announced funding, in partnership with the Province of Nova Scotia, dedicated specifically for mental health support for those who were impacted. Can the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions update this House on how that will support those who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 4:01:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to get back to what we are talking about today, which, of course, is the opposition day motion.
I am going to take a moment to recognize Beatrice Weaver. Beatrice lives in Elmsdale, Nova Scotia, and this past weekend, she turned 109 years old. I had the opportunity to visit Beatrice. While recognizing and celebrating her birthday, I promised her that I would make sure her name and her accomplishment of reaching 109 are in Hansard forever. She is still spry. I am going to have this clip recorded and make sure she and her family can see it. Congratulations to Beatrice. I hear some colleagues clapping.
To go back to the matter before us right now, the opposition day motion, I actually agree with provision (b) in the fact that any time we can align all three governments with regard to investment and line this up with residential development, that makes a lot of smart public policy sense.
I was surprised to see the motion include these words: “so that young and middle-class people don't need to use cars”. I know the Conservatives have been against the government's effort to help renew the Canadian auto sector. The leader of the official opposition spoke against the partnership with Volkswagen to create 3,000 jobs in St. Thomas. However, I was surprised they did not say something along the lines of the following: “so that individuals can more easily access public transit”. I thought that the fact that they talked about not using cars was a little off brand for the official opposition, and I was quite surprised to see it. I want to make sure that it is there.
I also agree with provision (c); in principle, there is merit in being able to use federal resources, in terms of surplus lands. I would note that any time the government can create a more efficient process to deem federal lands surplus, where appropriate, it makes a lot of public policy sense. The lands could then be used for the type of purpose the motion talks about, which is affordable housing.
As I have said from the outset, for the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for my remarks before question period, there are merits in this motion that are, frankly, good public policy. There are other areas where I think there are real, considerable gaps. One of these is how to constitute what a reasonable delay is and whether we should be punishing Canadians who live in municipalities that, according to the official opposition, are not necessarily meeting the outcomes that they are arbitrarily putting in place.
I want to talk about one element that was not included in the motion, and that is skilled trades and access to labour. I have before me a CTV article from Talisman Gate, a housing project in the Gravenhurst area in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, which is that of the shadow minister for the Conservative Party. There is no mention whatsoever about access to labour. Developers talk about the challenge they have, which is that they are finding it more and more difficult to find the people who are able to build the housing.
I can appreciate the hon. member raising this concern around how we can expedite processes. I have some legitimate concerns about the simplification and how they framed this in the opposition day motion. It does not talk about having the men and women to build the houses. This particular project in Gravenhurst has been delayed by over a year because the developer was struggling to find the available labour. Why would the member not have included that? That is a really important point that could have helped round out this dynamic.
I will summarize my remarks by saying that there are elements within this opposition day motion that have merit. I thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, because I think he is better than others at public policy framing in terms of what he can accomplish. I said earlier in my remarks that it is too bad he did not win the leadership. I think the opposition party would have been in better hands, although this is not to create grenades on that side. However, there are some real issues, particularly around what constitutes a reasonable delay and how we would go about even establishing rewarding municipalities that are doing good work on developing and building housing. There are not a whole lot of answers there. There are a lot of problems identified and simplistic solutions, but there is not a whole lot of nuanced public policy that is going to solve the issue.
795 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 4:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my apologies to the good people of the Gravenhurst community in the member opposite's riding.
The point remains that I wish that was something the party opposite had put in the motion today.
The Minister of Immigration is developing skilled pathways that are specific to regional outcomes, whereby the provinces are able to identify gaps in particular types of labour positions. They can help identify ways we can create skilled pathways for immigrants who might want to come here and bring their trades and the opportunities to build the housing the member talks about. Also, the government is putting a lot of investment in working with provinces, institutions, universities and the skilled trades to get the folks who have the skills to build the houses we need.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 4:08:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I understand it, there are already significant devolved and delegated powers for the Government of Quebec in relation to selecting the immigrants who come to Quebec. Our government has been very clear regarding our desire to increase, on the federal side, the amount of immigration that is francophone-based. We know that is extremely important from a linguistic perspective, not only across the country but indeed in Quebec as well. Therefore, I think there is already a lot of devolved power going to the Legault government, the Quebec government, to help it choose. We are working on a regional basis as well to make that happen.
I think there are a lot of good existing programs. If the member has concerns about the immigration pathways in Quebec, he should raise that with the Quebec government, which has significant power to choose the immigrants in question.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 4:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad my remarks at the end of the intervention have bled into a really important conversation about immigration. Of course, I will remind listeners at home that this is about housing, but I agree that we have to help folks who want to come to Canada to make a difference.
My view, given my local experience in Kings—Hants, where we welcome almost 2,000 seasonal agriculture workers, is perhaps a bit different from the member opposite's. It is not that I do not support long-term access to pathways for citizenship in this country. I absolutely do. However, if we talk to some of the workers, they do not want to come to Canada and become full-time citizens. They find that the opportunity—
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 4:10:10 p.m.
- Watch
—to contribute to their family at home is one of the best foreign development programs.
The member opposite can try to scream me down in the House, but if she wants to hear my answer, it is simply, yes, absolutely we should regularize the opportunity for folks who want to come to Canada so they can. For those who do not want to, let us make sure there are protections in place to allow their valuable contributions to our country and the ability for them to help support their families at home.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
