Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2024-10-07 19:35:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park\u2014Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)",
        "fr": "M. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park\u2014Fort Saskatchewan, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"8595679\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madam Speaker, even in opposition, Conservatives have put solutions before the House to address the housing crisis. One of them is Bill <a data-HoCid=\"12568130\" href=\"/bills/44-1/C-356/\" title=\"An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts\">C-356</a>, the building homes, not bureaucracy act. I am perplexed by the fact that all other parties voted against this common-sense piece of legislation. I asked the New Democrats tonight why they had opposed this bill and they said they had certain objections to the section about selling off federal lands.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8595680\" data-originallang=\"en\">However, notably, the section on selling off federal lands in this report would not prescribe particulars around what kind of housing would be constructed there. It does not contain limitations on additional policies that might be put in place around that. It simply says that a report would need to be tabled on an inventory of public buildings and land, identifying land suitable for construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings; and that all land would be appropriate for housing construction subject to certain exceptions, and would require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report. The report does not contain any of the sort of strictures or necessary implications that the NDP has applied. It simply talks about making buildings and land more available.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8595681\" data-originallang=\"en\"> On that basis, I do not see any credible reason why the other parties would have rejected the common-sense proposal that Conservatives have already put forward to the House. Does the member have any insight into why the other parties would have voted against this common-sense piece of legislation?</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"8595679\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madame la Pr\u00e9sidente, m\u00eame dans l'opposition, les conservateurs ont propos\u00e9 des solutions \u00e0 la Chambre pour r\u00e9gler la crise du logement. Le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"12568130\" href=\"/bills/44-1/C-356/\" title=\"An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts\">C\u2011356</a>, Loi visant \u00e0 construire des logements et \u00e0 combattre la bureaucratie, est une de ces solutions. Que tous les autres partis aient vot\u00e9 contre ce projet de loi plein de bon sens me laisse perplexe. Ce soir, j'ai demand\u00e9 aux n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates pourquoi ils s'\u00e9taient oppos\u00e9s \u00e0 ce projet de loi, et ils ont dit qu'ils avaient certaines objections concernant la disposition relative \u00e0 la vente des terrains f\u00e9d\u00e9raux.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8595680\" data-originallang=\"en\">Cependant, la disposition sur la vente des terrains f\u00e9d\u00e9raux dans ce rapport ne prescrirait pas de d\u00e9tails sur le type de logements qui y serait construit. Elle ne limite pas les autres politiques qui pourraient \u00eatre mises en place \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. Elle pr\u00e9voit simplement le d\u00e9p\u00f4t d'un rapport dressant l'inventaire des immeubles et des terrains publics, la d\u00e9termination les terrains convenant \u00e0 la construction, et la proposition d'un plan visant la vente d'au moins 15 % des immeubles f\u00e9d\u00e9raux et de la totalit\u00e9 des terrains qui conviennent \u00e0 la construction de logements, sous r\u00e9serve de certaines exceptions, et elle pr\u00e9voit l'obligation pour le ministre des Travaux publics de mettre les biens en vente dans un d\u00e9lai de 12 mois apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9p\u00f4t du rapport. Le rapport ne contient aucune des restrictions ni aucune des implications n\u00e9cessaires que le NPD a indiqu\u00e9es. Il vise simplement \u00e0 augmenter la disponibilit\u00e9 d'immeubles et de terrains.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8595681\" data-originallang=\"en\">Dans ce contexte, je ne vois aucune raison cr\u00e9dible pour les autres partis de rejeter la proposition pleine de bon sens que les conservateurs ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e \u00e0 la Chambre. Le d\u00e9put\u00e9 sait-il pourquoi les autres partis ont vot\u00e9 contre ce projet de loi plein de bon sens?</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2024/10/7/garnett-genuis-3/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/garnett-genuis/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4383/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "12911299",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Concurrence in Committee Reports",
        "fr": "Adoption de rapports de comit\u00e9s"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Committees of the House",
        "fr": "Les comit\u00e9s de la Chambre"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Public Accounts",
        "fr": "Comptes publics"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2024/10/7/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2024%2F10%2F7%2F"
    }
}