Adam Chambers

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber on behalf of constituents of Simcoe North. I understand that we are running late on debate, so my comments will be brief this evening in order to provide opportunity for other colleagues to make an intervention. I would just like to point out that Bill C-31 is 338 pages long. It was first introduced in the chamber in May. We are not even at third reading. This is report stage. Nothing screams that we are at war like a bill’s taking multiple months to get through the chamber on something that is supposed to be as important to the government as its financial plan. When a government creates a bill this big, it makes it quite difficult for parliamentarians to get answers to very specific questions, and there are some things in the bill that I think deserve some further scrutiny. For example, division 7, part 4, says that the government would increase the total borrowing capacity of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, that is, in effect, to increase the liabilities the taxpayer has to backstop or to support the activities of the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. Of course, we are in a housing crisis in this country. However, I would say the government has preferenced its support of the sector that suggests it would further subsidize rental units as opposed to single family dwellings or other different forms of ownership of homes that are not apartments but actual owned homes. The construction of owned homes, owned units, is way down, but the construction of apartments is way up. I happen to be an all-of-the-above conservative, and I think the government should be making sure it is creating equity in the housing market by not preferencing one style of housing over others. There is also an overbuild of apartments right now because rents are falling across the country. That is a good thing. More supply means lower rents, but what about the other forms of home ownership, such as of single-family dwellings, townhouses or condominiums, in which the owner occupies the residence? I also would like to point out that in the bill, there would be a further consolidation of power from the bureaucracy into an individual minister. I am referring to the power of the minister to get more involved and take power from the Canadian Transportation Agency into the minister’s office with respect to consumer complaints. If we like the current Minister of Transport, as many people do, and I have nothing bad to say about him, there is no problem if he gets more power, I suppose. However, what would happen when the minister is a dud? We would have just given them more power. This is yet another example of how, time after time, the government has further consolidated power within its own ministerial offices, giving it more discretion and more power, and taking it away from unelected individuals who may exercise that power in a more judicious manner. That is a risk I would like to highlight. I think my previous colleague hit the nail on the head very well when he talked about challenges with debt service costs. It is the fastest-growing line item in the budget. It is unclear to me whether the government even cares about this. It will retort that we should be thankful and appreciative that it has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. However, Canadians would be surprised to learn that the calculation includes the assets of the CPP and not any of the liabilities, which I do not think is the impression the government is trying to give. I do not think it is saying that it could take money from the CPP to pay the government debts, but we could be forgiven for making that mistake, given the number of times the government refers to that stat in the House. Frankly, given the recent announcement by the government to invest in a private AI corporation called Cohere, I would like to highlight the risk of the government’s turning the Prime Minister’s Office and the government into an investment bank, not into an appropriate policy shop, such that the only things that get done in this country are those that get a permission slip from the Prime Minister’s Office and are those that require significant sums of taxpayer money to be contributed.