John-Paul Danko
Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite. I think she did a great job of highlighting and reiterating a number of government announcements, so I want to thank her for reannouncing that good news here in the House. She mentioned new announcements and new commitments every few weeks, and I concur. That is exactly what we are doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from the member opposite and to see him back here in Ottawa. Our government is working collaboratively with the Province of Ontario to cut the HST on new homes and cut development charges. We are working with Premier Ford, municipalities and affordable housing providers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. secretary of state bringing forth closure on this very important legislation, it being a key campaign promise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I tremendously respect the member opposite's experience here, and she said something really interesting. She said that she has never seen anything like the current government for moving fast.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely beside myself right now. I heard the member opposite defending the use of the noose as a symbol of hatred. It is absolutely disgusting. Withdraw those comments. That is beyond the pale, sir.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada led the invention of modern artificial intelligence, and now AI is used by millions of Canadians every day. Canadians want AI to strengthen our economy, to enhance job opportunities, to deliver new research and innovation, to protect our communities and our national sovereignty and to always prioritize people.”
The complete record
Every one of 240 lines we hold for John-Paul Danko, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, especially those drawing on his experience in policing and the need for clear laws and enforceable rules. These are exactly the requests that the Hamilton police have made in our consultations about the combatting hate act. There has been a 35% increase in hate-related crimes in Hamilton, primarily against Black, Jewish and LGBTQ individuals. White supremacist rallies with hate symbols are routinely going through municipalities across Canada, including in Hamilton. My question for the member opposite is this: Will he listen to the requests from law enforcement across the country or the extremist wing of his party?”
“Mr. Speaker, the despicable behaviour from the members opposite continues. We have had six months of debate on this topic, and the members opposite are now bemoaning the fact that we are finally calling the question on this. It is ridiculous. As for the impact on communities in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, we have seen an unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism. There have been white nationalist rallies in Hamilton. We are seeing an ongoing erosion of reproductive rights for women. These tactics and emulation of the politics from the United States are absolutely reprehensible. Your leader and your deputy leader have called for action on anti-Semitism. Will you follow their example and vote in favour—”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it embarrassing that the members opposite continuously bring up conspiracy theories in the House of Commons, so I am not going to acknowledge the premise of that question. Suffice it to say, we are taking tangible action to build more housing that Canadians need.”
“Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, during the constituency week, I toured a prefab housing factory in my riding that is gearing up for production. People there are really excited about the federal investment in prefabricated housing, because they see it as a way, once those factories are at scale, to produce much-higher-quality housing at a lower production rate versus doing it on site. Most countries across the world, including in Europe, have gone in that direction. It is a tremendous opportunity not only for businesses and industry but also for homebuyers, at the end of the day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite brings up an interesting point in the fact that we recognize the need to build more homes faster, and the goal was to double the speed of construction across Canada. My experience is that this takes a cultural shift. This needs to have the government get to a point of yes, and that is what Build Canada Homes would do. It would build a way to get those approvals done faster and get to yes, to get those houses built.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see the Build Canada Homes Crown corporation as similar to the approach that the City of Hamilton took with its housing secretariat. It would be an oversight agency, to make sure that $13 billion of funding is flowed through to the areas across the country where it is needed most. On top of that, there is another $51 billion in infrastructure, which would offset a lot of those costs that are going into development charges, allowing municipalities to further reduce development charges with the goal of a 50% reduction.”
“When we build homes, we support thousands of direct and indirect jobs, from the skilled trades and suppliers to manufacturers and small businesses. Hamilton has the workforce and the expertise required to scale growth responsibly and efficiently. It took nearly a quarter of a century of structural market shifts to create today's affordability challenges. They are not going to be solved overnight. With Build Canada Homes, supported by unprecedented federal housing investments and long-term infrastructure funding, we are aligning federal tools with municipal action, and we are working with provincial partners toward genuine, long-term solutions to housing affordability in Canada.”
“Most importantly, it positions federal funding to be proactive, to unlock and leverage private investment, rather than simply react to market cycles. I want to reflect on the position of the homebuilding industry in municipalities and communities as a major employer. Many of these builders are people I have worked with for years as chair of the planning committee. They provide thousands of jobs in Hamilton and drive billions of dollars in economic activity. Local homebuilders in Hamilton are our partners, and they actively deliver quality housing. This growth drives the need for roads, transit, water and waste-water infrastructure. New housing construction enables infrastructure, and infrastructure enables more housing.”
“Costs cannot be continually downloaded onto municipalities. I am optimistic that new partnerships through Build Canada Homes will come forward with the province of Ontario, and provinces across Canada, but we need all levels of government at the table to be successful, and we need to be working toward solutions that actually work. I know there is a genuine desire across the House to see more affordable housing units built, and that is something that all members share. Build Canada Homes reflects that understanding. It is designed to streamline federal funding so that projects move faster. It seeks to scale up modular and prefabricated home construction to improve productivity. It emphasizes energy efficiency and quality, ensuring that the homes we build today are net zero and are reducing costs for families over the long term.”
“I also want to talk about supportive housing. When we talk about supportive housing, the wraparound supports that are needed include addictions treatment, mental health treatment and health care services. These are strictly within provincial jurisdiction as they are tied to provincial health care systems. In Ontario, municipalities are often left carrying significant financial and service delivery responsibilities that have been downloaded from the province. As an example, Ontario Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, and broader provincial policy decisions downloaded about $55 million in annual expenditures to the City of Hamilton, which resulted in a 2.4% property tax increase each and every year for every single City of Hamilton property taxpayer. That is not a sustainable system.”
“Families found themselves bidding against investors, homes sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking, and real estate became tied to global capital flows, which was then accelerated even further with unprecedented inflation during COVID and the resulting increase in the cost of construction. The current housing affordability crisis was not created in a single year by a single government. It reflects long-term structural pressures. At the same time, many of the core legislative tools that directly shape housing supply and affordability, for both ownership and rental housing, are strictly under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Ontario Heritage Act are all provincial acts and provincial systems.”
“That is what coordinated action looks like to provide more affordable homes, with the federal government taking a leadership role and stepping up to the table with the housing accelerator, agreements, relief for first-time homebuyers and historic investments in housing and housing-enabling infrastructure. (1645) It is important that we also be honest about how we arrived at this moment, and it is not just the opposition's talking points about the last 10 years. Over the last 25 years, Canada has experienced historically low interest rates. Housing increasingly became viewed as not simply shelter but an investment asset. That happened across multiple federal governments, from Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin through Stephen Harper and into recent years. Housing markets evolved in ways that encouraged commodification.”
“The housing secretariat is currently prioritizing over 30 projects within a three-year investment plan that is expected to deliver, at minimum, 2,100 new affordable housing units, of which 511 will be supportive units and 138 attainable, low-income or geared-to-income special markets. We are hearing from the mayor and council that Hamilton's application through the Build Canada Homes fund will be targeting 4,500 new housing units, leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in private, institutional and public funding across all levels of government. That is the plan moving forward, which this legislation would help unlock for cities such as Hamilton and municipalities across Canada.”
“This created a real housing strategy, with centralized accountability and faster approvals for housing projects across the city. That structure is making a measurable difference. Hamilton and representatives from all levels of government have been working with the housing development industry to ensure good quality developments are approved for construction as quickly as possible. In fact, the City of Hamilton recently implemented a 20% decrease in citywide development charges, applying to both residential and non-residential development, with the goal of boosting housing construction and promoting jobs during the difficult downturn in the construction market.”
“Over the past several years, the City of Hamilton has been very proactive and has taken significant steps to enable housing development and construction. The City of Hamilton modernized zoning to allow more as-of-right development, expanded permissions for secondary dwelling units and reduced parking minimums. They set a firm urban boundary and protected the greenbelt from development, and promoted smart, sustainable infill growth throughout the city. I really believe that Hamilton is a leader across Canada when it comes to municipal housing reforms to make sure that the permitting and permissions are in place to get as much housing built as possible. A really important part of that was the implementation of the City of Hamilton housing secretariat.”
“We have strong industries, amazing opportunities in the skilled trades and small businesses, access to nature and vibrant communities and neighbourhoods, but those opportunities only exist if housing is affordable and attainable. Before being elected to this role, I served nearly two terms on Hamilton city council. A significant portion of that was as the chair of Hamilton's planning committee. I also worked as a licensed professional engineer in the construction industry. I have worked on construction sites and navigated the approvals process, so I understand how homes actually get built. I do acknowledge and understand how easily projects can be delayed or be made unviable through permitting and business cases.”
“Parents worry whether their children will be able to live in the communities where they grew up, and seniors cannot afford to downsize in their own community. My kids are 17 and 19, and as a parent, I think about this often. My children are at the age when they are starting to look towards independence. They are going off to university. They are building a life of their own, just like so many kids in so many families across Hamilton. I want them to have those opportunities to be able to stay in Hamilton, get a job and be able to afford the lifestyle that they deserve. A big part of that is being able to afford a home in their community in Hamilton. I do believe Hamilton is a city of tremendous opportunities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke . Housing affordability is one of the defining challenges that Canadians face today. Across this country and in my community of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, families are really concerned about the cost of housing and whether their children are going to be able to afford a home in their community. Build Canada Homes is an important step forward in addressing the housing supply crisis across Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging plainly that the cost of housing is far too high. While incomes have been increasing, we are nowhere near the sustainable market that we need where the average income earner can afford an average-priced home. Young Canadians are feeling locked out while renters are feeling squeezed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite quoted some lyrics from The Offspring, which I really appreciated. It is also a band from my youth. I am going to quote some lyrics from another band, a hometown band from Hamilton called the Arkells, and its song about cynical people. It goes: If you're the kind with nothing to say, You heard about this party, But you're praying for rain. Now, if you want me to boil it down, All you cynical [people], Get out of town now. Will the member opposite take the advice of the Arkells?”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that the Conservatives would cut the HST off all new homes, cut development charges and give tax breaks, 35% of the cost of new housing being government fees. It is easy to make those kinds of comments from the opposition benches when you have no plan, but how would you actually pay for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it always astounds me when members stand up in the House and have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about on the ground. The member opposite talked about past housing projects. Through the housing accelerator fund, $93.5 million went to the City of Hamilton. That was used to build nearly 3,000 additional homes and housing units and for building growth-related infrastructure. In terms of CMHC funding, nearly $200 million went to CityHousing Hamilton and affordable housing projects in the City of Hamilton. Before members stand up and speak nonsense, they should know the facts.”
“Madam Speaker, I am listening closely to the discussion this morning on the combatting hate act here in the House of Commons, and I have to say that the comments and the approach in the talking points of the Conservative members are absolutely shameful, from the countrywide circus, the show that they are putting on, to the mobilization of communities of faith and the division and hatred. My question for the member is this: What I am seeing here is the MAGA wing of the Conservative Party of Canada. On the heels of shootings at synagogues in Ontario, I was on the phone this weekend with members from my community who were asking when the combatting hate act is going to be passed. That is what this is about. The discussion from the members opposite is absolutely shameful. Have they no shame?”
“Madam Speaker, I apologize that my question is not in French, but I really appreciated the speech from the member opposite. The combatting hate act was developed in close consultation with impacted communities, with faith communities and with police across Canada. The member made some important points, including that the show, the performance, we are seeing from the members opposite is extremely unfortunate. I really question the motivation for what the Conservatives are doing. I would like the member opposite to comment on what he sees as the damage of this performance, of building the bill up to be something it is not, in a purely cynical way, to fundraise and gain followers, likes, clicks and subscriptions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the general acknowledgement that high-speed rail is a positive thing for Canada as a nation-building exercise, as a transportation corridor and as an economic building opportunity to use Canadian steel, Canadian labour and Canadian skilled trades. I really take to heart his comments about the impacts on the communities he represents. I have worked in construction for 20 years. I have been a part of the planning process at the municipal level. What it really comes down to is building trust with communities in the proponent and also ensuring that, when there are mitigation measures that come forward, they are actually implemented and taken seriously. How can we help the member make sure that this happens in his community?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think if Canadians wanted to understand exactly why the Conservative Party lost a 25-point lead in the last election, they could look at the member's speech here this afternoon. Even in Alberta, recent polling is showing a tightening and Liberals being competitive in ridings such as the riding of the member opposite. I do not know if there is anything that they will bring to the table that is new. That is really unfortunate, because we just heard members opposite being collaborative and willing to work together for the betterment of Canadians. Frankly, it is embarrassing, this kind of rhetoric in the House of Commons. It is nothing but a word salad of catchphrases and Conservative talking points.”
“Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought I was back on Hamilton city council on the planning committee. Every single time a project comes forward, we hear the exact same rhetoric from retail politicians who want to stand in the way because it is politically expedient. Every single industrialized economy in the world, except for maybe the U.S., whether it is Europe, China or Japan, has a high-speed rail network that brings their country together as an alternative to air travel. Why not take a leadership role to make this project the best that it can be for one's community, instead of just taking the easy way out to say one is opposed and get in the way?”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the comments from the member for Newmarket—Aurora. I genuinely appreciate the experience that she brings to the House. The member spoke about productivity, competitiveness and the need for economic growth, which we are very much aligned on, and also the need to work together and the importance of our Canadian democratic institutions. My question to the member is on the global context of things that are going on in the world right now. Where does she see that continuous collaboration and constructive criticism fitting into Canada's place in the world?”
“Mr. Speaker, listening to multiple speeches today, it seems like the main objection is that this creates an additional bureaucracy, but that is ignoring the fact that this is actually built in consultation and collaboration with indigenous leaders and indigenous rights holders. What would the member say to those indigenous rights holders who are asking for this legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a key point here: that this legislation was co-developed with treaty partners and indigenous rights holders in order to ensure accountability, oversight and transparency and to build trust. I wonder if the member could elaborate on what the input was from rights holders and how it was included in the legislation that is before us.”
“Mr. Speaker, the United States government has started a trade war against Canada. In response, the Prime Minister has committed to doubling non-U.S. trade, with direct measures to help Canadian businesses adapt and grow. Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources tell the House what our government is doing to support Canadian businesses impacted by unjustified American tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the United States government has unilaterally started a trade war against Canada. In response, the Prime Minister has committed to doubling non-U.S. trade, with direct measures to help Canadian businesses adapt and grow. Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources tell the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, with respect to projects of national interest, we heard over and again from the many witnesses at the natural resources committee that the path forward for Canada is working in reconciliation with indigenous rights holders to get projects built and to share that economic prosperity. Can the member opposite comment on his leader 's opinion that the federal government should override those rights in order to build pipelines?”
“Madam Speaker, there were a lot of interesting points made by the member opposite. In particular, I take her point about property rights and economic stability. She noted, at the beginning of her comments, that the bill on the commissioner for modern treaties was built and developed with the support of, and in consultation with, indigenous rights holders and indigenous communities across Canada. I wonder how she would respond to them, in that the bill would implement specifically what they have been asking for.”
“Madam Speaker, it is very good this morning to hear the comments from the members opposite and their new-found respect for treaties and also for reconciliation. I am just wondering how the member opposite would reconcile that with the comments from her leader that the federal government should override indigenous rights in order to get pipelines built, regardless of the objection of those rights holders.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite raised the need for Canada to engage in nation-to-nation consultation, or duty to consult with indigenous nations. She spoke about pipelines and other projects. The Prime Minister and our government have been clear that we need consultation and a better relationship with indigenous nations. Her leader has stood in the House and said that the federal government should basically override indigenous rights. Would the member not agree that a stronger, closer relationship between indigenous rights holders and the federal government is necessary?”
“Madam Speaker, for the record, I was on the receiving end of multiple code of conduct complaints by my political enemies, who used those as a way of retaliation. As I said, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected official. However, broadly, we could all use a little bit more respect for the House, the institution and our Canadian democratic values.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question, because what is a lie is very subjective, and I think the last thing we want to have is the Speaker being a fact-checker. We need to have robust debates. We are going to have different political opinions on things, and statistics or certain facts may be interpreted differently. However, what I would like to see, when it is a blatant lie or an attack against an identifiable person or organization, is that the Speaker becomes more involved and steps in to ask the member to withdraw statements that are clearly false and defamatory.”
“Madam Speaker, question period is its own thing. As others have mentioned, such as my colleague from Calgary , when we have students here observing question period, it is a bit of a shock. Personally, I would like to see a more forceful intervention from the Speaker in question period. My experience, again working at the municipal level, is that questions have to be on specific topics. I think that is worthwhile to include in our question period, that we stay on the topic of the day and have more robust and truthful answers.”
“Madam Speaker, as Monica said, “Rules help control the fun.” As someone who has chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings, of course I very much value the rules that control and direct debate to ensure that everybody has a fair opportunity to contribute. With respect to taking photos or selfies in the chambers or the standing committees, as I said in my speech, I do not believe there is actually a restriction on that. Rather, it falls under a Speaker's ruling, and we should consider adding that as a Standing Order.”
“Technically, the Speaker, under Standing Order 16 on decorum and Standing Order 18 on parliamentary language, can intervene to correct statements such as that, misinformation or lies. Maybe we need to encourage the Speaker and the party whips to be a little more aggressive and use formal points of order to correct blatant lies that are put on the record. I will make a couple of comments on dress and decorum. The Standing Orders require members to be properly attired in the chamber. Of course, for men, that means wearing a tie. I am strongly in favour of maintaining those provisions. I think losing the tie is the thin end of the wedge to hoodies and track suits in the House of Commons. We have an obligation to Canadians to be professional in our role and project that to the public. I welcome any questions.”
“I am not a lawyer, but I would love to investigate that further. That brings me to a point about the need for a strong and robust mainstream media, such as the CBC, because legitimate journalists are bound by a code of ethics and the threat of lawsuits. They do not generally re-publish false and defamatory materials. Standing Order 18 on parliamentary privilege does prohibit personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and disrespect toward Parliament, the Crown or members. As a member, I cannot say that a member is lying, even when it is a blatant lie, and that is kind of bizarre if we think about it. I can use all kinds of euphemisms. I can say it is misleading, it is misinformation or the member did not understand, but I cannot straight up say it is a lie and the member is lying. That may be something that needs to change.”
“How I am seeing parliamentary privilege being used here, and this is my observation, is that there will be false, defamatory, over-the-top hyperbole or a statement made in the House that is clipped and shared on social media, and then there are legions of followers, trolls and alternative news sources that then share and promote it as if it is true. It is an intentional strategy that builds anger and creates division and an entire industry of political grift. I would be really interested to test this theory: In the House we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but if a member shares a false or defamatory statement on social media, are they still protected by parliamentary privilege when they are publishing false and defamatory statements outside of the House? As far as I know, the courts have not tested that.”
“Without it, MPs could be under the threat of silence through frivolous lawsuits, and courts could be second-guessing parliamentary debate, but again I go back to my initial point that, at the municipal level, municipalities across Canada have wide-ranging democratic debates without parliamentary privilege protecting members from lawsuits. What it comes down to is that it really only works when members of Parliament approach this role in good faith. People have often asked me what the biggest difference is that I have seen between working at the municipal level and working at the federal level, and it is the hyperbole, nonsense and expanding the truth that we see rather routinely in this chamber, which is at times, I would submit, rampant abuse of parliamentary privilege.”
“Mr. Speaker, the debate is on the Standing Orders, but we are also discussing parliamentary procedure in general, which I am doing. As I was saying, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected representative, and I am rather used to some rough treatment. I am very proud to say I have served two terms. Before that, I worked for 20 years in heavy civil construction as a structural engineer. In total, that is 27 years working as a professional and being accountable, publicly and privately, for what I said, what I wrote and how I presented myself, in an environment where making a false or defamatory statement would quickly result in a lawsuit. Now, I understand the history of parliamentary privilege and why it exists.”
“This is an inherent feature of the Westminster system of government, but, interestingly, it does not exist at the municipal level. I am obviously rather new to this role, but I did spend seven years as a municipal councillor in Hamilton, Canada's 10th-largest city, with 650,000 people and a $2-billion annual budget. I was the chair of the planning committee, the budget and the public works. I served as deputy mayor. In that span, I probably chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings. Local politics in Hamilton are fairly ruthless, cutthroat—”
“I appreciate the reminder, Mr. Speaker. That is actually an important point among the points that I am making this afternoon. As I was saying, some of the biggest risks that we are facing as a country are extremist movements, extremist ideologies and the politics of division, anger, resentment and hatred being directly imported from the United States. That is not on one side of the spectrum; that is on the extremes of both sides. It is damaging to our democracy and it is undermining the public's confidence in our democratic institutions, which brings me to the issue of parliamentary privilege. In the House, MPs cannot be sued or prosecuted for things that they say in the chamber, in committee or in official parliamentary proceedings. In itself, this is not a standing order.”
“There is the U.S.'s hostile government and the deliberate destruction of the global allegiances and stability that our country has relied on. We have the Conservative Party of Canada's own Unity Mitford, who is attempting to freelance negotiations with the American President right now. There are separatist movements—”
“We have over 30 former municipal councillors and former provincial elected officials in our caucus, which is amazing, along with a number of doctors, lawyers, always tons of lawyers, engineers, farmers, business executives, labour and social justice advocates, indigenous leaders, women and diversity. We have people who reflect the entire spectrum of the Canadian population, which is amazing. It is an absolutely amazing group of people to work with each and every day, and I am so grateful that the residents of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas have given me that opportunity. That reflects the outcomes of the last election, in which Canadians clearly wanted to elect a government with serious representatives and competent representation. There are very serious issues facing Canada at the moment, which have intensified since the last election.”
“Maybe that is something that we should consider adding to the Standing Orders, to make a formal restriction, because the last thing that we want is a continuation of “like and subscribe for more great content” and actually bringing that into the House of Commons. I am going to take a moment to reflect on the current Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister is a world-renowned economist with a lifetime of leadership on the global stage, and we have a really extraordinary set of ministers with decades of experience. In our caucus, we have former provincial legislators and council leaders.”
“Mr. Speaker, to start my remarks, I want to thank my family: my wife Dawn, daughter Sadie and son Isaac; our three cats, Tinkerbell, Luna and Max; and our dog Duke. One of the interesting parliamentary rules of order is that if my daughter Sadie happened to be in the gallery today, I would not be able to acknowledge her and say, “Hi, sweetie. Thanks for coming and seeing Dad at work.” I am just going to quickly pose for the camera here. I am on that camera, but I am wondering if we could switch to this one, because I have a way better background. There we go. That brings me to my first point, which is that this entire room here is a television studio, which in many ways encourages performance. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that there is no actual prohibition of using a cellphone to record ourselves to take photos and videos.”