“A Quebec housing group is worried that this bill funds homes that are still too expensive for regular people. They fear vulnerable people will be left behind. They want more money spent on real social housing. What does the member have to say about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price. For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing. What does my colleague have to say about that?”

“The government caused the housing crisis by letting immigration get out of control. Now it is creating new housing programs instead of admitting its failure.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today’s debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government’s inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs. What goes through my colleague’s head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 21 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 →

“I want to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his independent spirit. I want to ask him how independent he thinks members of Parliament are from their parties today.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is sad for me to have to say this to my colleague from Beaches—East York, whom I knew and particularly appreciated at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for several years. First, if his wife is in the gallery, I would like to take the liberty of telling her that she and my colleague have a lovely kitchen, which we have had the pleasure of seeing many times in committee, and that they also have very beautiful children. What I will take away from my colleague is his spirit of independence. Independence obviously resonates with me very much. That is one of my motivations for being in politics. I actually wanted to ask him about that, and he talked about it in his speech. Indeed, for me, and just like the member for Calgary Nose Hill or the former NDP member for Windsor West, when we were on the Standing Committee on Industry, we knew that we had truly independent members. As for my colleague’s legacy in the House, I would like to ask him the following question: If we were to create the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith index to measure MPs’ degree of independence from their party line, how would that index look right now? I want to thank Nate, and I hope to see him again soon.”