SoVote

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Nov/7/23 10:04:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-356

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present our dissenting opinion. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canada has been plunged into a never-before-seen housing hell. Forty-eight per cent of Canadians have given up the hope of ever owning their own home, mortgages have doubled, rents have doubled and Canada is in a housing crisis. To address this, Conservative members of the committee recommend the immediate implementation of Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act, which includes seven recommendations: (a) establish a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target; (b) provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets; (c) require that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects’ stations; and (d) make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure and transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing. It also amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to (a) eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met and to reduce executive compensation if applications for funding for new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days; and (b) provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate. It would also require “the Minister of Public Works to table a report on the inventory of federal buildings and land, to identify land suitable for housing construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and all land that would be appropriate for housing construction”.

333 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 248 - Nov/7/23

Mr. Richard Cannings

Nov/7/23 1:39:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we just had a conversation about tradespeople and how important it is to have enough of them. This is not going to happen in one year; it will happen over a number of years. I would have to do some quick math, but, yes, $4 billion can buy only maybe 400,000 heat pumps. There might be three million households in Canada, so it would take maybe five or 10 years to get through the program, but we have to start it now. This is a very common-sense, easy-to-understand approach with a funding mechanism, a clear goal and clear benefits for all Canadians.

108 words

Context: House Hansard - 248 - Nov/7/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/7/23 4:30:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the NDP leader's attention to a certain aspect of today's motion. This weekend, I met someone in Quebec who is originally from France and who is well versed in environmental issues in Europe. He told me that we cannot keep thinking that everything will be fine with the environment if we do not take drastic action. Let me explain. We cannot continue to fund the oil companies. He told me that the countries that have seen a real drop in greenhouse gas emissions are the ones that have invested in transition technologies and not in their oil industry. I would like my colleague to say a few words about funding change by implementing a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas companies. That would be a way of quietly saying that we are taxing them and trying to phase them out, not giving them billions of dollars in subsidies.

161 words

Context: House Hansard - 248 - Nov/7/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/7/23 5:25:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to bring the debate back to help for households with the lowest incomes. I have here a letter from Efficiency Canada that proves that federal environmental programs overlook the fact that Quebec mainly uses electricity, a cleaner form of energy. I am wondering whether the same problem exists with the green fund. Let me explain. The executive director of the Centre d'action bénévole de Farnham, which serves Ange‑Gardien and other communities in my riding of Shefford, would have liked to be able to get money from the green fund to do some renovations. The city had given the organization a nice building, but it needed some TLC. These people did their research into whether they could apply to the green fund. From what they saw, this funding is being distributed in other places, but not in Quebec. Why not have a program that will really help households and organizations in Quebec? Why not have an environmental program to help make buildings more energy efficient, a program that takes into account other factors besides the fact that the building is heated with electricity? The whole building envelope could be included in programs to really help organizations and individuals in Quebec.

219 words