44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 1:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that a report was tabled. Once again, this is not a report. This is data. It is literally data sheets, Excel spreadsheets.
The member asked a question about funding big oil. We do not have fossil fuel subsidies anymore. We do have initiatives to help with things like carbon capture. Do I think that carbon capture is the long-term solution? Absolutely not. Do I support the idea of carbon capture in the interim? I know how much fossil fuel we need and depend on right now; if there is an interim solution to get us to another place, then I support carbon capture.
However, I reject the premise of the question. It suggests that we are continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, but we are not. We phased it out earlier than in the original timeline we had.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:27:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is truly despicable is that this additional $3.5 million for medals bearing the image of Charles III is part of the same estimates as the funding that has finally been released for clean drinking water for indigenous communities, which could have used the extra money. That is pathetic.
Frankly, considering that Quebeckers and even most Canadians want nothing more to do with the monarchy, there are a lot of people who think that this money would have been better used in indigenous communities.
Seriously, will the government withdraw that money from the estimates while there is still time?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 3:05:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of chronic underfunding by the Conservatives, our government has made historic investments in housing and infrastructure for communities from coast to coast to coast.
Earlier this week, our government concluded a $2.8-billion agreement with Quebec that will help the municipalities revitalize critical infrastructure and support housing projects through the Canada community-building fund.
Can the minister explain how this funding will help communities in Quebec to build more housing more quickly?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:36:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that I really urge all parties to vote in favour of supports for new housing, supports for the Canadian Armed Forces and supports for Canadians via ESDC. These are measures that are important for the functioning of our country and for the protection and defence of our country. I am sure that all members of this House will recognize that importance.
In terms of the supplementary estimates (A), the estimates present a total of $12.7 billion in incremental budgetary spending, which reflects $11.2 billion to be voted on and a $1.5-billion increase in forecast statutory expenditures.
The primary objectives for that new voted spending on the organizations responsible for that spending are settlements to address past grievances and historic harms committed against indigenous peoples. For example, $1.8 billion is for agricultural benefits and claims and $1.5 billion is for federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholar settlements.
Funds are also requested by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for support and services for migrants, such as $411 million for the interim federal health program.
Finally, $604.9 million is requested by Transport Canada for purchase incentives for zero-emission vehicles.
The main estimates also include additional information about an important priority for our government: refocusing government spending, as first announced in budget 2023. At the beginning of this exercise, I asked ministers to find savings in their organizations. We have already announced some results. I also want to say that, with this initiative, we will refocus our government's spending on Canadians' current priorities while ensuring that we do not reduce the direct supports and services Canadians need.
As indicated in the main estimates, the government is on track to refocus $15.8 billion over five years and $4.8 billion annually thereafter. This is a very important exercise. It is our government's first initiative to address government spending. The goal of the exercise is to refocus spending, in other words, to spend smarter. The goal is not to reduce the programs and services Canadians rely on.
The fact of the matter is that the government is doing what Canadians across our country are doing, which is examining their own pocketbooks. By refocusing funds to Canadians' most important priorities in this way, the government is ensuring that it can continue to invest in Canadians and in the Canadian economy for years to come.
I want to assure members that this process is and will continue to be fully transparent, as it has been from the start. The government will continue to provide details on the initiative through departmental plans and departmental results reports. To that end, the estimates support Parliament's review of proposed new government spending and the bills ensuring appropriation that will occur thereafter.
Every year, the main estimates and related documents provide clear insight into how the government proposes to allocate taxpayer dollars and help to ensure that our spending is transparent and accountable. I cannot overstate the importance of this information to the functioning of our system of government and our parliamentary democracy.
In safeguarding our democracy, exercising oversight of government spending is one of the most important roles that parliamentarians can play on behalf of our citizens.
To conclude, I would like to say that funding in the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) is important to delivering on the government's commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians as well as other key priorities: affordable housing, health care, dental care and supports for Canadian families, the elderly included.
That is what we will continue to put on the table. That is what we urge all members of this House to vote in favour of, and to that end, I will encourage us all to support the motion before us.
642 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:48:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the main estimates
One of the key components to our estimates process is to ensure that we have an open, transparent and accountable government. Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them have a right to know how public funds are being spent so they can hold government to account. That is why, in addition to the estimates documents, reporting tools such as the GC InfoBase and the Open Government portal provide easily accessible and easy-to-understand information to Canadians about authorities approved by Parliament.
With respect to the specific numbers, I will begin with the highlights of the main estimates for 2024-25. This year's main estimates present a total of $191.6 billion in voted-on spending. Also presented are non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion. Some significant investments included in these estimates are $28.8 billion for national defence, including support for Ukraine, and training and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces; $20.9 billion for Indigenous Services for programs for indigenous communities and legal settlements; $8.4 billion for Global Affairs Canada to advance Canada's international relations; $8.4 billion for Health Canada, including funding to expand the Canadian dental care plan; and $5.6 billion for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for much-needed housing infrastructure.
All the funding in the main estimates allows the government to provide many different programs and services to Canadians and support other levels of government, organizations and individuals through transfer payments. The statutory spending in the estimates, which is the spending that has been approved in previous legislation, includes $81.1 billion in elderly benefits, $52.1 billion for the Canada health transfer, $25.3 billion for fiscal equalization, $16.9 billion for the Canada social transfer and $11.4 billion for the Canada carbon rebate.
I would now like to turn to the supplementary estimates (A). Overall, the estimates present a total of $12.7 billion in programs and supports for Canadians. Here are some of the highlights. First I would like to note that much of the new voted spending is requested by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada for settlements with indigenous groups. As the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions, no relationship is more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples. This is why we are continuing to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to honour treaty rights and resolve historical wrongs.
To that end, the supplementary estimates include $1.8 billion for agricultural benefits claims. These funds would support the negotiation and settlement of agricultural benefit claims related to Treaty Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10, which are part of a series of 11 treaties made between the Crown and first nations from 1871 to 1921. There is also $1.5 billion for federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholars settlements. This will be used for compensation, administration costs and legal services relating to these two settlements.
There is $1 billion to replenish the specific claims settlement fund, based on anticipated payments for negotiated settlements and tribunal awards up to $150 million. The supplementary estimates also include $447.9 million to settle historical claims, and the federal government is committed to resolving legal challenges through respectful discussions and mediation. As such, it is in active discussions related to various legal challenges. The funding would ensure that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is in a position to quickly implement negotiated settlements should agreements be reached.
Finally, there is $393.1 million for land-related claims and litigation, and another $303.6 million for a settlement providing compensation for individuals placed in federal Indian boarding homes.
There is new voted spending for the Department of Indigenous Services to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and create new opportunities in communities across the country. For example, there is $769.7 million for water and waste-water treatment. This includes the construction of new water and waste-water infrastructure on reserves, repairs and upgrades to existing systems, facility operations and maintenance, training of system operators, water monitoring and testing, and development of local governance capacity.
The Department of Indigenous Services is also requesting $633.5 million to improve services that preserve the ability of indigenous families to care for children in their communities, such as the availability of safe and adequate housing for children on reserve.
Let me also mention spending for immigration. Canada continues to bring people from other countries to safety and provide them with resettlement and settlement supports. As such, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is seeking funding for support and services for migrants. This includes $411.2 million for the interim federal health program, which provides limited temporary health care coverage to specific groups of foreign nationals, including asylum claimants and refugees who are not yet eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance. There is also $314.5 million for the interim housing assistance program, through which the government provides funding to provincial and municipal governments to address housing pressures resulting from increased volumes of asylum claimants.
As the House knows, a priority of the government is to also cut greenhouse gas emissions. To help meet our 2030 emissions reduction target and reach net zero by 2050, we are making it more affordable for Canadians to switch to zero-emission vehicles. Accordingly, the Department of Transport is requesting $604.9 million to provide purchase incentives of up to $5,000 for eligible zero-emission vehicles.
Another organization, the Department of Veterans Affairs, is requesting $471.4 million for compensation and administrative costs relating to settlement for veterans as part of the Manuge class action settlement.
I would also note that, of the planned voting, about $1.6 billion relates to the funding announced in budget 2024. This includes the already mentioned incentives for the zero-emission vehicle programs as well as the interim federal health program.
The voted funding already announced in the budget also includes $141.2 million for temporary accommodation and support services for asylum claimants, $121.3 million for the Inuit child first initiative and $100.5 million to advance indigenous children and family service laws.
I would also like to address the changes in the plan's statutory expenditures, which are shown for information purposes. Statutory budgetary expenditures are forecast to rise $1.5 billion, 0.6%, to a total of $259.1 billion.
Finally, there are statutory non-budgetary expenditures. These are forecast to rise, reflecting the additional allocation of $1.3 billion to the International Monetary Fund's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust announced in September 2023.
To conclude, the funding for federal programs and services presented in the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) demonstrates the government's actions to make life better for all Canadians. It shows that the government is responding to immediate needs while continuing to make long-term investments that benefit all of our citizens.
I would remind my hon. colleagues that we have a responsibility to authorize the spending on behalf of and for the benefit of Canadians, and I encourage everyone to support this.
1196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:59:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely a shame to see any community across this country without clean and safe drinking water. It is precisely why I outlined, in the main estimates, significant funding to help these communities not only to make the infrastructure investments, but also to make the investments in job training to ensure that members of the community can also be part of the continued work ongoing, to ensure that every community right across this country has access to safe and clean drinking water.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:13:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in part of the estimates, we have included funding for the Canada dental care plan. Would the member opposite tell Canadians tonight that this is a program she would recommend we cut and that seniors who need dental care should not have access to that?
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:17:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservatives say they stand with Ukraine. In the main estimates, there is funding to help support and train Ukraine. Will they finally stand and vote to support Ukraine?
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:35:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are debating the estimates tonight, and I want to focus my attention on housing, which finds much support in the estimates. We have a variety of federal initiatives that are given further support or created anew where they did not exist before.
The first, which I think it is fair to say is the signature program of the federal government with respect to housing policy, is the housing accelerator fund. The fund has been topped up by the amount of $400 million. The fund is ultimately about working with municipalities. We cannot address the housing crisis, and we have to call it that, call it what it is, if we do not do so through partnership, working with municipal councillors, with mayors in particular and with public servants at the local level to see critical changes that will address what ultimately underpins the housing crisis, and that is a crisis in supply.
When there is a lack of supply, inevitably costs go up. That is true for anything, and it is true for housing. Let us be clear about something: We are all diminished by that. Whether it is young people or people across the demographic spectrum, when they cannot afford a home, we are all less. When they do not have a roof over their head, that is particularly tragic. That is something we are all especially diminished by.
What the federal government has said is that if cities and towns are willing to move forward in an ambitious way and make the necessary changes to zoning, for example, which we know is absolutely critical when it comes to getting more homes built, and if cities in particular are more open to densification, then there are federal dollars that can flow to cities.
For instance, there is putting in place zoning changes that will allow for more missing middle homes to be built. We are talking about duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. That is what is meant by “missing middle homes.” When those zoning changes come, we see a green light given to developers and builders that they can build more homes that way. When densification is embraced, we get the same outcome.
Already the government has concluded no less than 179 agreements in this regard, and we will continue. This supplementation of $400 million would allow the program to do exactly that, to continue. It is there for municipalities, in return for making those kinds of changes. It is not simply federal dollars that go to municipalities without any expectation. There is an expectation here. The expectation is that if those changes get put in place, federal dollars can go to a variety of things that will create more incentives, a greater push for housing to be built.
We are talking about permit modernization. All too often, I hear in my capacity, not just as parliamentary secretary responsible for housing but from colleagues across the aisle, about cumbersome permitting processes in municipalities, large and small, that extend the length of a building project. What we are seeing is that with federal funding that comes through the housing accelerator fund, part of that funding can go to modernizing permits, including through the use of artificial intelligence. There is a whole debate, obviously, transpiring across democracies about the place of AI, and that is an important debate to have. There are many negatives, of course, that come with it, but there are also positives that can be embraced as well. A modernized permitting system is something that can have a very good impact.
We are seeing in Kelowna, for example, through funds secured through the housing accelerator fund, permitting modernized with the help of AI. It is cutting down on application approvals, not just by months, but even better than that. What used to take years could potentially take just days and maybe even just a few hours. We are seeing Kelowna just start this. It is a pilot project, but let us see where it goes. There are other cities that have embraced that kind of vision as well.
Housing accelerator funding can also go to community-related infrastructure. Local roads, bridges, sidewalks, lighting, bike lanes and even fire halls are eligible for financial support through this program. Again, this is if cities and towns step up and decide to be ambitious with what I talked about before, the necessary zoning changes and densification in municipalities that should be embraced.
Transit, for example, where it connects to housing, can be funded through this particular program and, of course, non-market housing, which colleagues in various parties, not in the Conservative Party unfortunately, have brought up.
Just yesterday, I was in my community of London, where $2 million was allocated for a supportive housing project that will see 50 fellow community members, who unfortunately have experienced homelessness, taken off the street with the support of a not-for-profit and given access to wraparound supports on site. Those wraparound supports include mental health support, addiction support, employment training and a variety of other basic supports that will allow them to transition to something better.
Opposed to the housing accelerator fund is the Conservative Party. Just a couple of weeks ago, one of the longest-serving members of the Conservative Party, who I believe is the dean of the Conservative caucus, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, made clear her view, and I think she spoke for her party when she did so, that the federal government has no role to play in housing policy. She said it is outside of federal jurisdiction to worry about housing. It explains, for example, why the Conservatives' so-called housing plan is so weak. There are no details in their plan on how to get more homes built. There are a few details, but nothing substantive. That is the reason why I do not believe they think that the federal government has any meaningful role to play.
How else would we explain the fact, and it is a fact, that the Leader of the Opposition, at every opportunity, has found ways to insult mayors and has found ways to insult councillors, instead of wanting to work? Yes, difficult conversations have to sometimes take place around issues like zoning, around the culture of NIMBY. All of these things do play a role, but constructively we can overcome them. The Leader of the Opposition has found ways to create difficulties, to create a difficult relationship already with municipal leaders, with mayors in particular. That is not acceptable, certainly for someone who aspires to be prime minister. We know what is at stake, and that is why we are pushing back against it.
Also in the estimates, there is $6 billion for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. That funding will go to what is called housing-enabling infrastructure, namely water, waste-water, stormwater and solid waste infrastructure. We cannot talk about housing without talking about the enabling infrastructure that makes housing possible, that makes communities possible. As part of this, as part of ensuring that communities have the infrastructure they need to ensure that housing happens, we have attached conditions to make sure that more housing gets built.
I raised a point earlier about missing middle housing. The condition that we are leading with is that provinces have to sign on to agree on four-unit buildings as of right. In other words, fourplexes, for example, do not have to go through a cumbersome bureaucratic process at the municipal level to get approval. We have seen this before, where builders want to put up a fourplex, and where the members of the community want to put up a fourplex, but there are all sorts of local restrictions and bureaucracy in place that prevent that from happening. As part of the conditionality that we have attached to infrastructure funding, we are saying that as of right, these kinds of projects need to be given approval.
Conservatives, again, are opposed. I am not saying anything that we do not already know. They are on the record, but it bears emphasis for a party that talks a lot. I will give Conservatives this credit. They talk a lot about housing. They talk a lot about problems that exist in our democracy. We have challenges. We have a housing crisis, as I said before. However, they never offer solutions. Like any good right-wing populist party, I suppose, they never have solutions to the problems they identify.
What we are saying is that if one is serious about getting more homes built, then attaching this kind of conditionality is important. What did we see? Just a few weeks ago, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party stood on a yacht and declared that missing middle housing is not a priority, that we do not need to see more homes built. That is not an acceptable position, not for a deputy leader, not for a leader, not for any member of Parliament.
Furthermore, in the estimates, we can see $1.5 billion for affordable housing. This is the affordable housing fund that will help to fund non-market housing in this country. We do need to see more non-market housing in Canada. There is no question about that. Currently, it is estimated that around 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. We need to go beyond that.
As I said, 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. The OECD average is around 8%. We certainly need to meet at least that average, and I believe that a measure like this can help us get there.
It is not enough to focus only on market solutions. Our government is doing that. We understand that there is a place for market solutions to incent the private sector, and the building sector specifically, to get more homes built. Months ago, we lifted the GST from the construction of purpose-built rentals, and it took a while to get it through the House because of unfortunate Conservative filibustering. Those are rental apartments that will be for the middle class or for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class.
In an environment where we have high interest rates, where we have high construction costs and where we have high costs related to labour as well, we have to think outside the box. We have to do things we have not done before, and lifting GST is something that we have done to incent the private sector, recognizing that market-based housing—in this case, apartments—has a place. That private sector has seen a green light already. I think any member of Parliament in this House who has engaged with builders in their community will say that this is exactly a green light.
Builders are quite excited by this prospect, but the Conservatives have a so-called “housing plan” that does not include this vision at all. They want to attach the GST. They want to keep it in place for the purposes of putting up rental apartments. It makes no sense.
Deeply related to this, when we are talking about ensuring that people have a roof over their heads, we have to look at non-market options. I talked before about the vision for supportive housing that programs like the accelerator fund make possible. This affordable housing fund also makes that possible. It allows people to find something better, a new path, a path with dignity, and already we have seen 71,000 people taken off the street through the national housing strategy. We have seen 125,000 people who were very close to being homeless but are not homeless and have a roof over their head.
Every year, as we saw in a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 50,000 Canadians are supported through our affordable housing programs that exist right now. This supplements those programs, but the Conservatives, in their housing plan, never mentioned homelessness, not once.
There is $1.5 billion for co-operative housing as well. This is another affordable option. Of course, it is a perfectly good example of affordable housing.
What are co-ops? They are not-for-profits. At a co-op, residents own jointly and manage jointly their homes. Surplus dollars go toward the upkeep of the co-op. The form varies. They be large apartments or smaller townhouses. In either case, they provide a sense of community and a sense of democratic decision-making. So much is the Leader of the Opposition insulted when he sees visions like this come to fruition that he called it Soviet-style housing just a few months ago.
That is something that the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops have not forgotten. He was criticized roundly, and not just in this House of Commons. Even this morning, I was sitting with the Housing Advocate in the House of Commons committee that is responsible for housing, and we do have a Housing Advocate in this country. It is an important role. It is something that this government created to ensure that we had monitoring of the overall housing situation, and that includes understanding where we are with respect to non-market housing.
Madam Houle made it clear that the position of the Conservative leader is an unacceptable one when it comes to co-op housing. In the 1970s and 1980s, we saw thousands of co-op homes built. In the 1990s, different governments of various partisan persuasions—not just Conservative governments, but Liberal ones too—decided to invest elsewhere, or not at all, with respect to housing. As such, we saw far fewer co-ops, but just a few days ago, the federal government put forward an initiative that would invest $1.5 billion, as I mentioned already. That is the single largest investment in co-op housing that we have seen in the past 30 years. That is transformational when it comes to getting more homes built.
Again, the co-op model offers a lot. It is not an example of Soviet-style housing at all. The Leader of the Opposition says he is a student of history; he really ought to go back and look at that history. Co-op housing is something that allows for people to live with dignity, and that is why Liberals have embraced that vision for housing, along with other visions,.
There is $1.5 billion in the estimates for the Canada rental protection fund. We see that grants and loans will be provided to not-for-profits so that they can purchase apartments and keep rates of rent affordable. Rental rates in Canada have gone up. We know that. They have gone up dramatically in many cases. That is not an acceptable situation.
We are incenting the private sector. I already talked about the GST waiver the government introduced, and we are incenting the private sector in other ways, such as with low-interest loans facilitated through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, to allow builders to have another option. When we look at what CMHC can provide in terms of a low-interest loan compared to what the big banks would provide, the CMHC option is much more affordable. It gives builders the opportunity to build and add more apartments to the market.
When we have a situation like the one we have, a supply crisis, it makes sense to work with not-for-profits to give them the resources they need, either in the form of grants or loans, to go out and purchase apartments and keep that rental rate at an affordable level.
Having only a market-based solution as a vision is not recognizing that there is a continuum that we need to understand with respect to housing. We need social housing on the one side, all the way to market-based options on the other. Rental options and options for prospective homeowners all have to come together in policies to address the continuum that is housing. That is the vision on housing that the government has put forward.
Let me also talk about other measures that go hand in hand with that vision for housing.
I said earlier that we are all diminished when people do not have a roof over their heads. We are all diminished when people cannot afford to buy a home or rent a home. These are all questions of well-being. That is what we ought to be pursuing: the politics of well-being and the policies that allow for people to live with dignity.
Hand in hand with that kind of approach is a vision that allows people to get access to health care in ways that they have not had before. We talk about oral health care. Going to the dentist is as important as any type of health care. We cannot talk about healthy people without talking about housing. We cannot talk about people living in a healthy way unless they have access to dental support. That is why $8.4 billion is in these estimates to go toward people in a middle-income situation and in particular a lower-income situation.
Just on the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to seniors in my community. I was approached by two seniors when I was out in London who thanked me for the federal initiative. I will have to thank the government and the Minister of Health in particular for their vision on this. The seniors will get dentures for the first time in a decade. In fact, in one case, it was over a decade. Imagine the dignity that flows from that. Imagine the pride that they can have now. In fact, I do not have to imagine it because they shared it with me. It was really quite moving to hear, and that is why the government believes in programs exactly like this.
We can add to that a vision on child care, a vision on pharmacare and a national school food program. They are all examples of the kinds of programs this government is championing, is going to fund and is funding already.
Finally, the Canada child benefit attaches to that. Hundreds of thousands of children and 2.3 million families have been lifted out of poverty as a result of that particular benefit. To my estimation, that is the most important advent in social policy that we have seen since the introduction of public health care in the 1960s. It has ensured, as I said before, a dignified life for everyday Canadians. That is something that all of us have the responsibility to work toward.
3149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his talk.
Obviously, we are going to disagree on a lot of things, but one thing I want to bring up is the most recent Auditor General report on housing on reserves.
The Auditor General noted many things with regard to CMHC. CMHC was relying on data that was 20 years out of date. CMHC had been warned, but it refused to get updated data, which left Alberta, Manitoba and several other provinces severely underfunded. The reserves with the poorest housing conditions were given the least amount of funding per capita, because CMHC was not following up to get proper data.
The application process, even though CMHC had been warned since 2017 that it was too onerous on smaller, poorer reserves, was ignored, and this onerous application process was continued. Then CMHC did not track whether the work done on the housing actually met building codes.
These items noted by the Auditor General had all been going on for a long time, yet somehow the government managed to find millions and millions in bonuses to reward the failure of this parliamentary secretary's department. Why?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/24 12:05:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I am always happy to speak about housing and to work on that committee, so I look forward to working with the member on these issues. Of course, the specific matter she raises is a matter for the committee to take up. Speaking of that committee, the committee has also heard about challenges relating to getting homes built, specifically on things such as permitting.
I raise this because of the housing accelerator fund, which that party stands against and, unfortunately, the member has voted against; this meant that the funding support Kelowna needs to see would not have flowed if Conservatives were in power. It did flow because we made the decision to fund Kelowna's application under the housing accelerator fund. Kelowna gets funding to modernize its permit application, using AI to get fast approvals. She is against that, evidently.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
