For her right of reply to conclude the debate, I recognize the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was kingdom.
House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was kingdom.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act First reading of Bill C-268. The bill requires updates to Canada’s spectrum policy framework to improve the accuracy of coverage data and prioritize the expansion of reliable cellular connectivity in rural areas and along numbered roads for public safety. 100 words.
Income Tax Act First reading of Bill C-269. The bill amends the Income Tax Act to introduce an investment tax credit for waste heat to power technology, aiming to improve energy efficiency in industrial processes and reduce emissions. 300 words.
Stand on Guard Act First reading of Bill C-270. The bill amends the Criminal Code to establish a legal presumption that force used by homeowners against intruders is reasonable, aiming to protect those defending themselves and their families from criminal prosecution. 200 words.
National Strategy for Children and Youth Act First reading of Bill S-212. The bill proposes a national strategy to improve coordination, accountability, and outcomes for children and youth across Canada by requiring federal collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners, and stakeholders to develop measurable action plans. 200 words.
Putting of Questions The Speaker makes a statement to clarify procedure regarding Standing Order 45(1), establishing how the Chair will interpret the House's will when members are silent or conflicting instructions arise during votes on motions. 600 words.
Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act Members debate a motion from the Liberal government rejecting a Senate amendment to Bill C-4, which proposes changes to the Canada Elections Act. Liberals argue that Parliament should retain authority over election rules and highlight future privacy legislation. Elizabeth May (Green Party) criticizes the inclusion of election provisions in an "affordability" omnibus bill and advocates for accepting the Senate's amendment regarding data privacy. 1700 words, 15 minutes.
An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Report stage of Bill C-13. The bill implements the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Proponents argue it enhances economic diversification and strengthens international partnerships. Conversely, some Conservative MPs criticize the lack of fair trade regarding agricultural non-tariff barriers and frozen pensions, while Bloc and NDP members express concerns about investor-state dispute provisions and parliamentary oversight. Despite these debates, the House concurs in the bill and passes it at third reading. 45900 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-220. The bill amends the Criminal Code to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences when sentencing non-citizens. Conservative members, such as Brad Redekopp, argue this prevents a two-tiered justice system, while Julie Dzerowicz of the Liberal Party contends that existing jurisprudence correctly allows sentencing to remain proportional. The Bloc Québécois, represented by Alexis Deschênes, favors committee study despite expressing significant reservations regarding judicial discretion. 7100 words, 40 minutes.
Bill C-220 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
For her right of reply to conclude the debate, I recognize the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by responding to the member for Davenport. I wholeheartedly look forward to using every ounce of my media reach to refute her position that there is no evidence showing the need for this bill. Much like the government House leader, who said that there was no evidence that rapers had not used these loopholes to remain in the country, I would say to her that I am so looking forward to using that quote over and over again to show how many instances of evidence there are to show the need for it. In the next week, I will be taking that quote from her and repeatedly showing her how many times she is so very wrong.
If there are immigration officials watching in the lobby, I would ask them to tell the member for Davenport to get ready, because she said there was no evidence showing the need for this and I will be strongly refuting her as many times as possible over the next week before the vote to show how much evidence there is, which colleagues have brought forward during this debate, so she can giddy up on that. Here we go.
The second thing is that the member for Davenport said that non-citizen criminals face the consequences of their actions. We know that is not the case. In fact, just to strongly further refute her comment that there is no evidence of this, I will also be refuting that over the next week. Therefore, if members would like to, they can tune into my Substack or any of my social media feeds, where her quote that there is no evidence will be strongly featured over the next week. They should stand by as it will be very awesome.
I want to comment very substantively on some of the concerns from my Bloc colleagues. They talked about the balance between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government. I am concerned that when it comes to immigration law, we have seen a disproportionate influence, particularly at the federal level of the judiciary, and interference not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level. The Supreme Court ruling that was issued on Friday, as it relates to Quebec's decision to restrict benefits to certain classes of non-citizens, is problematic for not just the province of Quebec but every province across the country.
It is also problematic for federal immigration law. Federal immigration law is predicated on the Constitution Act of 1867, which states that not only does this place have the right to make laws over immigration, but the provinces in some aspects do as well, and that non-citizens are treated differently than citizens in Canada. That is what our entire immigration system is predicated on. The Friday Supreme Court ruling, which overturned a Quebec government benefit decision, which was put in place in order to manage a decade of Liberal mismanagement, completely upended that. Therefore, I would say this: We need to reassert our right in this place over the judiciary to make laws when it comes to the immigration system. Members can expect to hear more from the Conservative Party of Canada on that.
On the specific concerns that some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues raised with regard to the Pham decision, I would note this. The court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, the ruling did not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the ruling also made it clear that the flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences, and that to do so would be circumventing Parliament's will.
If my Bloc colleagues maintain the right for Quebec to assert its jurisdictional rights on certain grounds, then I would ask them to pay specific attention to what I have clarified here, because what has happened is that federal courts have started to overcome provincial jurisdiction in these matters. That is also part of the reason why I put this bill forward. What we are seeing is that the spirit of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has been overturned. This bill will correct that.
I encourage all colleagues in this place to vote in favour of it and to stay tuned to my social media.
Bill C-220 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Bill C-220 Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Pursuing to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question I asked about ethics, in particular, the Prime Minister's ethics. I think all members of the House would agree that all Canadians expect the highest level of ethics and transparency from the highest leader in the land. Unfortunately, there continue to be instances where that does not seem to be the case. I will give some examples that I think appear to be more than coincidence when it comes to the Prime Minister and his former business dealings. Of course, I encourage successful people to seek public office, but we want people to be transparent about their investments and transparent about their business dealings. It appears to me that that has not been the case.
I will share just a few examples. On April 30, 2025, just a few days after the election, the Prime Minister was personally lobbied by NorthRiver Midstream, a Brookfield portfolio company. On May 6, 2025, after a meeting with the President in Washington, the Prime Minister met with Sam Pollock, the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure, also in Washington, who is also now subject to his ethics screen. On September 27, 2025, while in London, the Prime Minister attended a working breakfast with the high commissioner and a number of institutional investors. Four of those investors were from companies that have major connections to Brookfield.
On August 11, just one month after the ethics screen was put in place, Mr. Carney was seen speaking with—
EthicsAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the member. The Prime Minister's name cannot be used in the chamber. He can only be referred to by his title.
I will let the member for York—Durham continue.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, on August 11, just one month after the ethics screen was put in place, the Prime Minister was seen speaking with and taking photos with, again, none other than Mr. Pollock, who is, as I mentioned, a part of Brookfield Infrastructure. Then, on October 3 of last year, the Prime Minister met again with the CEO of Brookfield, Justin Beber. All of these things taken individually may be understandable, but when we consider the entire picture of all of the meetings and lobbying that has taken place with the Prime Minister and his former business associates, it leads to questions. When the CEO of Brookfield appeared at the ethics committee, he suggested a very simple means to address some of these concerns, which was for the Prime Minister to divest himself of these assets.
Given there is a simple solution to this issue, which is to sell the assets, why has the Prime Minister not done so yet?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I will start off by indicating that the Prime Minister followed all the rules, even before they were actually required. These are rules that the Conservatives put in place under former prime minister Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister took this step from day one.
The Leader of the Opposition has been here for 20 years and still does not necessarily deal with issues of great national importance. Before I expand on that particular point, I want to talk about how the official opposition has played constant gutter politics with respect to character assassination, and that is why I am reluctant to say “official opposition”. One gets tired of it over the years. Conservative member after Conservative member has stood up in this place, even when I was in opposition, and consistently attacked the character of an individual, including the leader of the Liberal Party.
There is no conflict. I would think the Conservative Party, or at least some of its members, would understand that. Instead what we see are the people who want to put on a tinfoil hat to say that here or there is a great conspiracy. It is a ridiculous approach by the Conservative Party to deal with public policy, when we have a Prime Minister who has an incredible history and is respected around the world as an economist, a former Bank of Canada governor and a former Bank of England governor.
All the Conservative Party wants to do is assassinate his character, when the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, if we talk about Brookfield, there are a number of members of the Conservative caucus who have investments in Brookfield. I say shame on the members of the Conservative Party of Canada for their character assassination.
Instead of doing that, why do they not focus on what is in the best interest of Canadians and deal with public policy? They should have some honour. Instead what we see is a sad state where the far right has taken over the Conservative Party of Canada. That is fine. Conservatives can keep it up. I hope they will be in opposition for many more years to come, because they are not going to fool Canadians.
I can tell the House that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to focus on the Canadian economy and on building a stronger and healthier Canada. That is the priority of the government, because we understand the issues of affordability, the importance of international trade and the importance of building a strong, healthy infrastructure.
Although Conservative Party members are inwardly focused, thinking about nothing else but moving further to the right, and their own political interests, at least the government party, and maybe a few red Tories who might be left on the other side, will continue to focus their attention on Canadians in improving the quality of life of all Canadians in every region of our great nation. It is a great nation, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party tells Canadians.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed and saddened by the member's response. Not once did I impugn the Prime Minister. Not once did I cast aspersions on his character. I simply asked questions about his ethics screen, which is applicable to him as the Prime Minister. That is a fair question. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. The member can protest all he wants. He can yell all he wants, but that does not change the facts of the matter.
My follow-up question is this: The Prime Minister is about to take another trip to Europe, and I would like the parliamentary secretary to confirm for us that he will not be taking any meetings with any Brookfield-related companies while on that trip.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the member read the question he asked, because it is the reason we are here this evening.
If you reflect on the question, how can you not say that it is about character assassination—
EthicsAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The member is speaking directly to the member for York—Durham and is supposed to speak through the Chair.
I invite the member to continue.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
In one sense, it is almost something that is encouraged, because we see that it comes right from the leadership. The member, in his comments, talked about Canadian expectations that the Prime Minister would do X and Y. What is the Canadian expectation regarding getting a security clearance?
Why has the leader of the Conservative Party not gotten his security clearance? There are lots of internationally sensitive issues, yet the leader of the Conservative Party refuses to do what is in Canadians' best interest, and they want him to get the security clearance.
William Stevenson Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are feeling economic pressure, it is more important than ever that all levels of government work together. Municipalities are under growing strain. The cost of building and maintaining infrastructure continues to rise, while local councils are still expected to deliver essential services and support the growth of their communities at the levels residents deserve.
It is my pleasure to work with the mayors and councillors of 18 municipalities across my riding of Yellowhead. It takes nearly eight hours to travel from north to south, and while it is not always possible to be everywhere on every occasion, I remain in constant contact with my municipal and provincial counterparts.
I want to thank my municipal leaders for their dedication, hard work and commitment to their communities. Their leadership makes a real difference in the lives of residents every day. By working together, we can move projects forward and ensure that our communities continue to grow and succeed.
As tax season is under way, families across the country are gathering documents to comply with our voluntary self-reporting tax system. Meanwhile, my fellow CPAs and accountants are working long hours helping Canadians navigate an increasingly complex system. My colleagues in the profession are doing a great job. To them, I say stay strong; May is coming soon.
However, there is an elephant in the room. While hard-working people are doing the right thing, I continue to hear that the CRA creates confusion and unnecessary errors. Too often, a single parent who made a mistake faces a lengthy and difficult process to correct it, while large corporations can see millions in tax debt forgiven with no transparency.
As the only CPA with public practice experience in the House, I proactively engage with the accountants in Yellowhead and across Canada to bring forward their concerns and their ideas for change, specifically with respect to authorizations. Together, we will restore common sense, accountability and fairness to the CRA.
I recently asked the Liberals to remove the taxes and red tape holding Canadians back. I asked a simple question: What are they waiting for? Sadly, what Canadians heard was an attempt by the government to blame everyone else for problems it had created. Yes, global uncertainty and trade tensions matter, but Canada's economic weakness did not start yesterday. For years, businesses across the country have been warning about rising taxes, endless regulatory delays and inflation fuelled by the Prime Minister's $78-billion deficit. Those decisions are made here in Ottawa.
The facts speak for themselves. Canada now has the weakest economic growth in the G7, and GDP per capita has shown negative growth. Investment is leaving the country, productivity is failing, and too many businesses are choosing to expand elsewhere instead of here. Instead of dismissing the legitimate concerns of hard-working Canadians as a “hissy fit”, as the Liberal parliamentary secretary did in response to my question, the government should listen to these workers, entrepreneurs and families who are living with the consequences of its policies every day.
If the government truly wants to create good-paying jobs, it must restore confidence in Canada as a place to invest, build and grow. When will the government finally take responsibility and remove the barriers holding back Canadians?
Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House after a short time of being away. I was fortunate, and I will start by thanking my wonderful wife, who has delivered another baby girl to our family. That is our third girl.
It is great to be back in the chamber and in debate with members opposite, whom I respect, even though I strongly disagree with the premise of the member's question. In response to the member, I would say that the government is actually doing a lot of the things that he is calling for. We have cut income tax by 1% in the lowest income tax bracket, which is saving dual-income families an average of $840 per year. We have cut GST on new home purchases of homes valued under $1 million, which will save families $50,000 on average. We have cut the carbon tax. In budget 2025, we have also put in place tax breaks and tax incentives for businesses to boost productivity. The Bank of Canada governor has come to committee and confirmed that those tax incentives, including the investment tax credits but also all of the different capital investment tax breaks that we have offered to Canadian businesses, are going to help boost productivity.
We are already seeing examples and signs within our economy that there is movement, and that for our manufacturing industries, for example, the PMI, the purchasing managers index, has been improving. It is at a 13-month high. We have seen that foreign investment in Canada has surged to the highest level since 2007, with net investment in Canada exceeding net outflows by $17.4 billion. Also, Canada's dollar has become a top pick in the $9.5-trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. Canada is projected by the IMF to have the second-strongest growth in the G7. Top economists in Canada actually had to revise their forecasts after budget 2025, and they revised them up to show that there would be growth in the economy. This is all despite being in a trade war, with tariffs obviously having a drag on the sales of our economy.
The Canada pension plan, which is world-class, was just announced as second in the world. That is pretty impressive, I would say. Also, we have heard quite a lot from investors around the world who are looking at Canada as a place to invest their capital. With FDI up as a measure, we can see that that is actually realizing itself.
We have seen that the Prime Minister and cabinet's attention to trade diversification is having an impact. Canada and India agreed to sign a new comprehensive economic partnership, doubling trade between the two countries to $70 billion a year. Canada and India signed a $2.6-billion agreement for Cameco in northern Saskatchewan to supply 22 million pounds of uranium for nuclear energy. Canada and India signed another strategic energy partnership focused on renewables: solar, wind, hydrogen and battery storage.
Canada and Australia recently, with the biggest superannuation pension funds in Australia, agreed to boost investments in Canada by $10 billion over the next nine years.
Canada and China have reached an agreement to open up market access for canola and seafood, which is good news for many of our canola and seafood producers across Canada.
Similarly, Canada and Japan signed a new comprehensive strategic partnership as well, and we have seen that the Port of Churchill just entered into an agreement with Belgium, one of the biggest—
The EconomyAdjournment Proceedings
William Stevenson Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell me if he has any information or any statistics on this mythical unicorn of a first-time homebuyer who is spending $1 million to get $50,000 off their taxes.
I have never actually seen a first-time homebuyer buy a brand new home. This GST that you are supposedly giving back to them is only for their very first home, on a brand new home. People in my riding cannot afford a $1-million home the first time they are buying a home. They are never going to get this $50,000, which you said was an average but have said before is actually the maximum.
I am just wondering if you have any actual statistics to show that there are people buying new homes as their first home.
The EconomyAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Despite it being Adjournment Proceedings, the requirement is still to speak through the Chair and not directly to the member. This is just as a reminder for the member for Yellowhead.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, yes, there are families in my riding purchasing homes that are in the average of $700,000 to $800,000, which I admit is a high price for a new home, but it is the case in many parts of where I live in the GTA, the greater Toronto area. Cutting the GST on new home purchases for homes under $1 million, which is what the policy does, is actually very beneficial.
However, it is not the only thing we have done. We are also increasing housing supply through Build Canada Homes. I am sure I will get to talk more about housing with the next question. We have reduced mortgage insurance by 25%. We have amortized mortgages over 30 years to decrease payments. We have offered tax-free home savings accounts for the first purchase of a home. There are lots of things, which all compound to make it easier for people to buy a home.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I had a round of questions in question period about Canada's housing affordability crisis hitting young people particularly hard. Normally, supply meets demand, which is just economics 101, but the current real estate market is in such a state of imbalance that the new homes that buyers want and can afford are just not being built. That was the basis of my question.
I noted that despite demand, CMHC was reporting a reduction in new housing starts over the next few years. The response I received was that we should just support the Liberals' housing plans, which are the ones that have been missing the mark and causing all the problems in the first place.
I was directed to Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which a couple of sitting days later I actually had the opportunity to speak to. I am not going to repeat that speech, but I will highlight a couple of quotes from Professor Friedrich Hayek, the 20th-century free market economist of the classical liberal tradition.
I noted, and will note again, that the current Liberal Party has abandoned classical liberal economics and replaced it with central planning socialism. This is why I quoted Friedrich Hayek, because he spent a good part of his academic life attacking central planning socialism and pointing out its weaknesses. He said, “The beauty of the market lies in its ability to coordinate actions without requiring omniscience.” He also said, “No single mind can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity—only a decentralized process can manage it.”
The Liberals used to believe that, but they do not anymore. They have become central planning socialists. They think that they are, in the professor's words, the “omniscience” or the single mind that can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity. They think that just one more little tweak or a little adjustment to our comprehensive plans, one new bureaucracy, and the problem will be solved and the market will start to behave the way they think it should behave.
The Liberals have failed so far, and they will continue to fail until they understand that the best thing they can do is to just get out of the way of the free market and let the market decide how it is going to be. The answer is not another bureaucracy and not an over-regulated economy. It is just to let the market behave the way it should. Do they agree with that?
Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, very simply put, no, I do not agree with the member opposite. I do not agree with his assessment of the problem. I do not agree that the free market is actually going to solve the problem he is talking about. I think we have seen evidence of that with the federal government under Conservative leadership. It made no investment in housing for over a decade under Stephen Harper, and we saw the problem get worse and worse.
Our government stepped up under previous leadership and created the national housing strategy. I have evidence in my riding of 220-million dollars' worth of investments across my region that have repaired 1,838 housing units and built 1,236 new units, with 29,000 more over the next decade built into housing accelerator agreements, as well as 137 new shelter beds and 177 supportive and transitional housing units. That has all been built in my region.
I have seen first-hand that delivering investments in my community through the federal programs that our government has put in place have made a substantive difference for people in my riding and the ridings adjacent to mine, with the exception of the Conservatives' ridings because they never advocate for those funds. They actually talk down those investments in the House every single day and vote against them, and then they do not actually stand up to help their communities by getting those investments into their communities, which is a shame and actually making the problem worse. I would suggest that Conservative members use the programs and initiatives the federal government has put in place to help solve the problems in their communities instead of complaining about them.
Our government has stepped up with Build Canada Homes, which has gone even further. It is a new approach. It is a new strategy. It is not based on central planning. It is based on what Canadians have told us across the country, which is that we need to build at scale. We need to adopt and embrace the new modernized construction methods that can really decrease the cost of housing. We have cut taxes. We have encouraged municipalities to move faster on approvals. We have used and leveraged federal lands to help get more housing built, and we are removing the cost of acquisition on that land and property to build those properties.
We are doing all of that. We are also buying Canadian. There is the desire, which I think is shared by all Canadians, to utilize materials that are Canadian and use a Canadian workforce to build those homes. We are actually using every lever we can think of to decrease the price for the average consumer.
The fact is that the market would not solve the problem. It is not building enough affordable and deeply affordable housing. That is exactly how we got into this mess over 30 years. Our government has done the lion's share of work with no help from the Conservative Party, which is a shame. The Conservative Party says we should just do nothing. Getting out of the way is basically synonymous with saying to do nothing and that the market will solve the problem itself. It will absolutely not do that. I fundamentally disagree.
It is not socialism to have temporary government intervention. Intervention is responsible government. It is listening to the public, being sensitive to their needs and responding to those needs with smart policies that are going to get at the root causes of the problem. That is exactly what we are doing.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Mr. Speaker, if all that wishful thinking would actually solve the problem, we would not have a problem. I think the member will agree that we actually do face a housing affordability crisis.
I just want to give a couple of examples of the government getting in the way. In a British Columbia setting, we have the provincial government chasing away investment dollars that drive the pre-sale market, which is one of the pillars of condo market financing. Number two is the national building code driving an aggressive green agenda that is not tied to economic reality. Third is the wild west in development cost charges by municipalities that is taking any profit away from builders. I was talking to one land developer who says that until there is a change in attitude, they are leaving their money in a GIC, which is much safer and returning a better profit these days.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Speaker, in relation to development charges, our government has incentivized municipalities to freeze or lower those development charges through the housing accelerator fund. All of those funds that go directly to municipalities are predicated on municipalities either freezing or lowering those charges to make it easier for developers to afford and to make the math work on new housing developments.
That is exactly why we went forward with the housing accelerator fund. It was both to incentivize municipalities to build medium density but also to speed up the approvals and planning processes, and to lower or at least freeze development charges. Those things have been put in place. I know that many of the members opposite actually secretly, in defiance of their leader, advocated for that program to continue, and there was quite the shake-up in the Conservative Party. Why? It is because they know that program works. Their leader just does not like it or want to admit it.
HousingAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
It being 6:50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)