SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 189 - May/2/23

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

May/2/23 3:05:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that when we replace the Liberals as the government, we will deliver better. We will not waste taxpayers' money so egregiously to achieve nothing for results. Under the Liberals, local politicians are delaying and even blocking new housing. Saskatoon guarantees a building permit for a house in five days. It can be done. There is no reason for the delay. When will the government finally stand up to local politicians who are creating costly delays, so we can get the homes built that Canadians so desperately need?

93 words

Context: House Hansard - 189 - May/2/23

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/2/23 4:56:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as someone who also comes from the municipal sector, like my friend across the way, one clause stood out to me, around clawing back infrastructure dollars from municipalities that delay housing construction. It feels like something that perhaps makes for good politics, but poor policy. Of course, not every housing development is created equal and municipal governments are tasked with deliberating on very complex issues, whether they are environmental, infrastructure or social issues. When it comes to implementing this statement around clawing back money from municipalities that impose delays, how does he foresee the federal government defining delays in a way that is fair to municipalities of different sizes and that accounts for the fact that many housing developments are quite complex? We could create, in this case, a bit of the opposite effect to what we are trying to do. If we are clawing back the infrastructure dollars that are needed to fund the infrastructure that then empowers and creates the housing developments that are so needed, how do we avoid those unintended consequences of—

179 words