“I do not oppose this bill, but it is only a first step. I worry that making this housing agency independent means the minister will not be held responsible for its work. Housing is too important for the minister to avoid accountability.”

“Madam Speaker, I have no objection to Bill C-16, but this is only the first step. Now there is a Crown corporation. A Crown corporation is better than having a special operating agency, which is where Build Canada Homes started out. However, I do have some concerns regarding the minister’s accountability and responsibility. The more independent the organization is, the less responsibility he bears. When it comes to the important issue of housing, accountability is crucial. The accountability question is the one that bothers me. We are seeing a lot of new Crown corporations created. Will the ministerial lines of accountability be as strong?”

“I agree that homes should be places to live, not investments. We need to build homes and communities that give people a good life, not just homes to sell for profit. I want to know what the member thinks a government corporation can do to make people's lives better.”

“Madam Speaker, there was so much I agreed with in the speech the member gave. She referred to the fact that we should look at homes as homes and not as investments. If I am not quoting her accurately, I am sure she can correct me. The concept that Greens also bring to this is that we are building homes and communities. We are not just building homes for market purposes. We need to meet the needs of communities and help people actually have a life with dignity. I wonder if the member has any comments on the approach between a Crown corporation, bricks and mortar, and what we can do to make people’s lives better.”

“I want to make sure this bill actually gets homes built instead of just adding more government bureaucracy. I do not think the bill is a bad idea, but we need to deliver housing more efficiently.”

“Madam Speaker, I find it discouraging, as I am sure many members do, when the debates get overly partisan. I did not find the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to be particularly partisan in his comments. Also, in a weird show of solidarity with a former member, I would like to point out that poor Bev Oda has been vilified for years for something that was not her fault. It is her fault that she is addicted to smoking, and her staff put her in a non-smoking hotel. She asked to be moved, and she never bothered to check that, where she was moving to, it was impossible to order breakfast without getting a $16 glass of orange juice. There are many things about which Bev Oda and I disagreed, but I served at the same time as her, and we did share a love of dogs, so I will just put that out there. My concern with this bill, and I will agree with my hon. friend from Pitt Meadows, is the proposed creation of new bureaucracies on bureaucracies. I will address this when I get a chance in my speech, but it does not mean that the Build Canada Homes idea is a bad idea. How do we get more efficient delivery, from a speech and money and a commitment to actually getting Canadians homes?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 15 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →