Taleeb Noormohamed
Vancouver Granville, British Columbia · Liberal · Canada
“Taking away child care means telling the parents at Butterfly Kisses, a child care centre in his own riding that has brought fees down for working families, that those working families will no longer be able to access the subsidies that make it possible for children in his riding to access affordable child care.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know we are living through one of the most dangerous and divided moments the world has seen in generations. We all know the pressure that is coming toward Canadians is not coming from just one direction, but all directions at once.”
“When the real thing arrives, that council is the one that names it, not politicians. Three days ago, the council looked at exactly the same data the Leader of the Opposition is brandishing, and it refused to use his word.”
“I want to take a moment to focus on a single word that is at the centre of it. The motion does not say “a difficult quarter”. It does not say “a slowdown”. It reaches, in the very first line, for the biggest word available: “recession”.”
“Let us ask the question that the motion was built to stop anyone from asking: Why? Why would the Leader of the Opposition reach past the experts, as is custom for him, for the most frightening word he could find? Why does he need a slowdown to be a catastrophe?”
“We all understand that. We all understand the concerns and the risks, and we all understand that it is our job to figure out how to make it better. No honest account of how we got here points to a single villain or a single year.”
The complete record
Every one of 211 lines we hold for Taleeb Noormohamed, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“This is true reconciliation, where rents to 30% below market are being provided by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Squamish Nation is moving toward economic independence and helping Vancouver provide the housing it needs. Property rights will be respected, indigenous rights will be honoured, homes will be built, and jobs will be created. For the Squamish Nation, there will be prosperity, and for the city that I represent, 6,000 families will be able to call Sen̓áḵw home. That is reconciliation, that is prosperity, and that is what is possible when we refuse the false choice being put upon us by the opposition. That is happening in real time in my riding. To the homeowners in my riding and across B.C. who have been worried, the government has appealed the Cowichan decision.”
“Not one Canadian has lost their private property as a result of a negotiated agreement. They know this, and they are choosing every day to tell their constituents the opposite because fear is more politically useful than the truth. It is not leadership but a calculation, and the people paying for that calculation are the homeowners they claim to defend. I want to close with a story about what is possible when we get this right. This Friday in my riding of Vancouver Granville, I will be at the blessing ceremony of the opening of Sen̓áḵw. Sen̓áḵw sits in Squamish territory at the foot of the Burrard bridge, where it has always been, in the land, in the stories and in the people. What is new is what is being built there: 6,000 rental homes in a city that is desperately in need of them.”
“The only people who seem to disagree are the Conservative members opposite, who have decided that uncertainty and a parliamentary committee are more useful to them than actual resolution of the problem. The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the Cowichan decision is under appeal. They know that the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the City of Richmond, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nation have all gone to the Court of Appeal precisely because the legal questions need to be resolved. They know that the Prime Minister has committed, clearly and repeatedly, that this government will defend private property rights. They know the historical record across this country is that modern treaties and negotiated agreements have always protected private property.”
“that are delaying decisions; holding back on investment; watching the noise around this case created by politicians, not by the courts; and concluding that the cost of moving forward is too uncertain to bear. That is what irresponsibility looks like in practice, and it is being done deliberately for the political gain of the party opposite. The seriousness of this moment is not lost on the political leadership of British Columbia. The Premier of B.C. has spoken at length about the impact of legal uncertainty on his province. Mayors have spoken. The City of Richmond is in court. There is broad cross-partisan recognition in B.C., not from one party and not from one ideology but from across the political spectrum of my province, that resolving this matters and that the work cannot wait.”
“They are reducing those investments because of misinformation and uncertainty that is being spurred on by people who would like to use the Cowichan decision as a political cudgel. In this House, in this Parliament, we must ensure that does not continue, for the security of the economy in British Columbia and for preservation of the principle of true reconciliation. The people who are supporting reconciliation are very clear. This is a business community that is pro-reconciliation and is exhausted by uncertainty. They are not asking us to choose. They are asking us to lead. The damage is not abstract. Homes are not being built. Jobs are not being created. There are workers waiting for projects that have been paused while financing is renegotiated. There are businesses across B.C.”
“This includes first nations that are using that very system to seek the clarity that each and every one of us needs and deserves. It is the story that members opposite are refusing to tell because it does not serve a political agenda. The cost of that political agenda and of this misinformation is real and is being paid right now in my home province of British Columbia. Just yesterday, the Business Council of British Columbia released a survey of its members. About 74% of respondents are decreasing investment plans in B.C., one in three are reducing hiring, 41% report harder access to external financing, and 80% of those same business leaders say they continue to support reconciliation as an important goal. Why are they reducing those investments?”
“Musqueam is appealing. Chief Wayne Sparrow has spoken publicly about Musqueam's deep concern with the decision that declared aboriginal title in what they assert is their own traditional territory. Tsawwassen First Nation is appealing alongside Musqueam on similar grounds. The Cowichan themselves are appealing on different grounds. This is not the picture of settled judgment. This is the picture of a decision that has satisfied almost no one, that produced a clarity that almost no one was looking for and that is now being worked through by our courts exactly as our system is designed to handle it. (1210) This is also not the story of homeowners on one side and indigenous peoples on the other. It is the story of a serious country with a serious legal system doing serious work.”
“This is false and has always been false, and the people advancing that false choice know it is false. Let me say something very clearly. The legal questions we are working through in Cowichan are not questions that indigenous peoples created. They are the product of decisions made by the Crown over generations in a province where most of the land was never covered by treaty. The Crown made those decisions, the Crown bears responsibility to resolve them, and no responsible government should allow any ordinary homeowner to be made afraid, or indigenous peoples to be scapegoated, while that work is carried out. Here is what is being missed in the noise: Almost every party to this litigation has gone to the Court of Appeal. The Government of Canada is appealing. The Province of British Columbia is appealing. The City of Richmond is appealing.”
“I want to be honest with the House and with the Canadians watching. The legal questions raised in the Cowichan decision are genuinely complex, and the clarity that Canadians deserve is going to come from where it should come from in our system: from the courts on appeal, with all viable arguments tested and all parties heard. That process is under way. It will take time, and none of us should stand in this place and pretend otherwise, because Canadians deserve, as I said before, a serious answer, not a slogan. They deserve facts, not fearmongering. The Conservative motion before the House asks Canadians to choose between the first principle and the second. It asks them to believe that property rights and reconciliation cannot exist in harmony.”
“Canadians who hold title to their homes and their land must be able to rely on that title. This should not be a partisan position. It is the foundation on which families plan their future, on which businesses make investments and on which our economy functions. Second, we believe in the principles of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a slogan, and it is not an obstacle to be managed. It is a constitutional and moral obligation that this country has been working through for generations, and we continue that work patiently, lawfully and in good faith. Third, we believe in building shared prosperity for homeowners, for workers, for businesses and for indigenous communities who have for too long been excluded from the economic life of this country. These are not competing goods. They are connected goods.”
“I want to speak to the family in my riding of Vancouver Granville who have spent 20 years paying down a mortgage and are now wondering whether the ground beneath their home is as solid as they believed it to be. I want to speak to the small business owner who has been asking their bank for financing and getting questions they have never been asked before. These concerns are legitimate. A home is the largest investment most Canadians will ever make. When a court raises questions about the relationship between aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, people are right to ask for clarity. They deserve a serious answer, not a slogan or a sound bite, so allow me, if you would, Mr. Chair, to give them one. Three principles guide this government's response to the Cowichan decision. First, we believe in the security of private property.”
“The fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood in this House and stated clearly to all who would listen that private property rights are fundamental, that this government will protect them and that federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. These are the facts. They are on the record. They are not in dispute, except by those who find facts inconvenient to the story that they would prefer to tell, a story that leads to mistrust, anti-indigenous racism and, perhaps most importantly, instability in British Columbia's economy. I want to speak directly to the homeowner in Richmond who read a headline and felt their stomach drop.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock . I rise this afternoon to speak about a court decision that has caused real worry in my province and to speak directly to the Canadians, particularly British Columbians, who have been watching this debate and wondering what it means for them and for their homes. Let us begin with the facts, because the facts have been in short supply in the debate by members opposite. The fact is that the government has fundamentally disagreed with, and continues to disagree with, the British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan. The fact is that we appealed that decision on September 8 of last year.”
“Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member opposite's comments, he expressed that somehow these Musqueam agreements were secret. If he would like, I am more than happy to share with him the links online, where they are available to the public. He also spoke about the need for true reconciliation, which he alleges his party believes in. Does that strategy of true reconciliation include condemning the comments of the member for North Island—Powell River , who said indigenous people “asked for” residential schools and there was no indigenous genocide?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what the facts are. The fact is that the Prime Minister has stood and said very clearly that our government is going to protect private property rights. Let us be clear about the facts. We have said that we are appealing the decision, which we are. Let us also be clear that the fearmongering and misinformation coming from the other side of the House is causing uncertainty in British Columbia, not what the facts on the ground say. The facts on the ground say that we are defending private property rights. The opposition is trying to drive uncertainty and is driving problems in the housing market in British Columbia.”
“Asian Canadians did not simply arrive in Canada. They have helped build it. They have established communities, preserved culture and built bonds across differences. This month we honour that legacy and this commitment, not as a footnote to Canadian history but as a critical story in that history and in Canada's future. I invite all members of the—”
“Mr. Speaker, this May, Canadians mark Asian Heritage Month, and someone who comes from a city like Vancouver, as I do, does not have to look far to understand why that matters. There is no one Asian story in Canada; there are tens of thousands. They are written in many languages, carried through many faiths, shaped by many histories and lived through families that crossed oceans, built lives from nothing, endured exclusion and still chose to give this country their labour, their hope and their children's future. Those of us who grew up in Vancouver know this story well. We know it in the restaurants that feed us, the businesses that raise up our neighbourhoods, the music and festivals that fill our streets, the athletes who carry our pride and the volunteers who show up for community day after day.”
“He leaves a massive hole in the heart of the Greek community, of which he was a pioneer and a builder, and a massive hole in the hearts of his loved ones, including sisters Marikoula and Parthena; his children, George, Dimitrios and Kaity; his grandchildren, Mati, Anna, Mia, Amalia, Andreas and Adriana; his first great-grandchild; and so many people in our community who celebrated his life in Van Gran's St. George’s Greek Orthodox Cathedral on April 15. We will all miss him dearly. May he rest in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, British Columbia and Vancouver's Greek community lost a giant earlier this month with the passing of Andreas Arsoniadis. Those of us who grew up in Vancouver remember Andreas not for his incredible skill with numbers or his entrepreneurial spirit but as the guy who was responsible for feeding us some of the most incredible food: Greek food, pizzas and the most generous portions one could ever imagine. He always greeted us with a big smile and welcomed us into his restaurant like we were coming home. For decade upon decade, he made sure that each and every one of us felt like we belonged when we walked into Andreas Restaurant.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about a few things. First of all, our government has been opposed to the B.C. Supreme Court decision, which is why we are appealing that decision. However, let us also understand a few other things. Not a single negotiation, not a single agreement with a first nation since the 1970s has resulted in a single Canadian losing any of their private property. The Conservatives are fearmongering, they are spreading misinformation and they are causing disruption in the economy of British Columbia.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this bill represents exactly that. It reflects the changing reality that we are currently facing. This bill is designed to protect rights while providing responsible support to law enforcement in a digital environment that has become very complex. It reflects both the desire and the need to take significant yet responsible action for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the law is clear in that regard. We need to create an environment where service providers must work with and help law enforcement in a way that respects the law. [ English ] As the member opposite knows, it is important to make sure these definitions are clear and correct. This bill does that. It makes sure that the folks who are in the positions to provide that information, the service providers, know exactly what their responsibilities are and, within the constructs, are able to do the work and have the capacity to do what is required to address the needs of local police.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he has put in, and for his advocacy on behalf of his citizens and, of course, all Canadians when it comes to matters of public safety. The reality is that this bill works precisely within the limitations of the law. It works within the instructions of the court and ensures that the rights of Canadians are protected. That includes their privacy rights. It includes ensuring that the appropriate information is or is not disclosed within the bounds of what is acceptable in this country. I would argue that one of the challenges we will always have in dealing with legislation like this is the question of whether seeking perfection is preventing us from getting done what is necessary and right in this moment. I believe this bill addresses those concerns and the concerns of my friend across.”
“It is built within the charter. It responds to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and it closes a gap that has left Canada behind every one of its Five Eyes allies and G7 partners. This is how we keep Canadians safe, not by standing still while the world moves forward, but by keeping pace with the threats and the values that define us. I urge all members to support this bill.”
“The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has supported the advancement of this bill. The National Police Federation has recognized that this legislation is a long-overdue modernization that protects the rights of Canadians while keeping them safe. When law enforcement and child protection organizations are telling us the same thing, we have a responsibility to act, not recklessly, but deliberately, and with the kind of care that this bill reflects. Responsible governance means modernizing our tools while respecting the rights of Canadians, not one at the expense of the other, but both together. Bill C-22 gives law enforcement the investigative tools that they need to combat serious crimes, while ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is protected through judicial oversight, proportioned authorities and robust accountability.”
“They are the product of careful work to get the balance right. The bill also includes mandatory public reporting in a parliamentary review three years after royal assent. I think we have an obligation to build that kind of transparency into any legislation that touches on investigative power, and this bill does exactly that. I would like to end with what matters to me as a dad, what should matter to all of us, because what matters is at stake. The crimes that depend most heavily on digital infrastructure, such as child exploitation, extortion, human trafficking and money laundering, are precisely the crimes where law enforcement currently lack the tools to investigate effectively. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has called for the modernization of our lawful access regime.”
“The courts have said that these things engage privacy. This bill seeks to address the instructions of the court. It builds a system where the protections match the intrusions. I want to speak briefly to the safeguards, because they reflect something important about how this bill came together. Earlier proposals around lawful access raised legitimate questions. The government's members heard those concerns. We went back and refined our approach. The definition of subscriber information was narrowed to basic identifiers. Ministerial orders under part 2 are now subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Data retention requirements are limited to metadata only and for a maximum of one year, and the bill explicitly excludes content, web browsing history and social media activity. These are not small refinements.”
“However, it is still narrower than a general production order, because we are not seeking content or communications, just the basic identifiers that allow an investigation to proceed. Then, when an investigator needs access to the content of communication or more detailed data, the full weight of the existing production order and warrant process applies, such as judicial authorization and full oversight. These are the same protections that have always existed under Canadian law. Each step up in what the police ask for comes with a corresponding step up in the scrutiny that is applied. The oversight is proportionate to the invasiveness. I would suggest that this is not just good policy. It is in line with what the courts have told us about privacy and privacy interests in a digital context.”
“It asks, does this particular provider service this IP address or phone number, yes or no? There are no subscriber details, no content, no further information. This simply tells investigators whether they are knocking on the door of the right service provider. Because it reveals so little, it does not require a warrant. We are not learning anything about a person. We are learning whether a company has a connection to an identifier. The next step is the subscriber information production order. Now we are asking for something that starts to identify a person, such as a name, an address, a phone number or an email address. This is more intrusive, so, appropriately, it requires the consent or the authorization of a justice or a judge.”
“That is simply not a sustainable position for a country that takes both public safety and sovereignty seriously. We also need to have the conversation about whatever concerns exist about privacy. (1720) I would ask members to look carefully at how this bill is structured, because I think that when we do, we see something that should give Canadians confidence. The principle at the heart of this bill is proportionality. The level of oversight is calibrated to the level of intrusion. The more information one is seeking and the more it touches the privacy of an individual, the higher the bar that has to be cleared. Most Canadians, I believe, would agree with that instinct. Let us walk through what that might look like in practice. At the most basic level, there is confirmation of service demand, which is a threshold question.”
“They cannot confirm whether a provider services a particular IP address, not the subscriber's identity, just whether the provider has any connection to that address at all. If they serve the order on the wrong provider, they have to start all over again. Meanwhile, evidence degrades, trails go cold and, in some cases, kids remain at risk. That is the gap I am talking about. It is not hypothetical; it is playing out in investigations across the country, and it is costing us time that we simply do not have. We are the only Five Eyes country and the only G7 member without a modernized lawful access framework. What that means practically is that Canadian law enforcement has had to rely on international partners to do what we should have been able to do ourselves.”
“Those decisions also made clear how outdated our existing legislative framework really is. The law as it stands was not built to function in a world where, rightly, judicial authorization is required at these stages. Without the proper tools to operate within that reality efficiently, investigations are slowing at precisely the moments when timeliness matters the most. Here is a practical reality. When police are investigating a serious crime, such as a child exploitation case, an extortion ring or an active threat, and have a court-authorized production order in hand, they still need to know which service provider holds the relevant data. Under the current framework, they cannot even ask that question.”
“I would ask us all to think about that for a moment. A judge can authorize access to evidence, but the system to carry that out may not exist. That is the gap this bill seeks to close. Folks may ask, “Why now?” The answer is simple: The gap between criminal capability and law enforcement capability is widening, not narrowing. Two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Spencer and R. v. Bykovets, have brought important clarity to the legal landscape around digital investigations. In Spencer, the court confirmed that police need a warrant to obtain basic subscriber information. In Bykovets, the court extended that principle to IP addresses. These rulings affirmed something important: Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital lives. This bill would respect that.”
“Part 2, the supporting authorized access to information act, would establish the technical requirements for electronic service providers, companies like our major telcos, to be able to comply with existing court-authorized processes. I want to emphasize the word “existing”. The bill would not create new surveillance powers, new intercept authorities or back doors into any one system. It would make the court-authorized processes that we already have, warrants and production orders, which are tools that have always required judicial oversight, functional in a world that has moved online. Right now, if a judge were to issue a production order for evidence held by a service provider, there is no regulatory framework in Canada that requires the provider to have the technical capability to comply.”
“What has changed, however, is how these crimes are carried out and the degree to which our existing investigative tools simply cannot keep pace. The second question is just as important: Are we doing this in a way that protects the privacy of Canadians? If the answer to the first question comes at the expense of the second, then we have not done our job. Bill C-22 seeks to answer both questions. I think it is important to walk through what the legislation would do because there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about what is being proposed. Bill C-22 has two parts that would work together. Part 1 would modernize legal authorities that law enforcement and CSIS need to investigate crimes in a digital environment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hull—Aylmer. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access. I want to start by asking two questions that I think Canadians are rightly asking. The first is this: Are we meeting the moment when it comes to investigating crimes in a digital world? The tools that criminals use today, including encrypted communications, cryptocurrency and transnational digital networks, did not exist five years ago the way that they do now and certainly not at the scale at which they exist now. The crimes have not changed. Child exploitation is real and still exists in our world. Organized crime has not changed, and fentanyl trafficking is still there.”
“Mr. Speaker, our government has made it clear, first by appealing the decision and then by making clear statements that we not only stand for property rights but also defend them. The concern here is that the opposition is not interested in the answer. What its members are interested in is fearmongering, spreading misinformation, driving mistrust in the market and creating economic uncertainty. That is what they are about. We are about making sure we are protecting property rights, building a strong economy and pursuing reconciliation.”
“For Ismailis, this visit holds special significance as it will be an opportunity for thousands of people in our community to meet with our imam and to recommit ourselves to our values of kindness, compassion, spiritual search and working to build stronger societies in which everyone can belong. On this important historic occasion, I know that all members in the House will join me in welcoming His Highness the Aga Khan to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Canadians will welcome His Highness Prince Rahim Aga Khan, the 50th hereditary imam of the Ismaili Muslims, to Canada. It is his first visit to Canada since his ascension to the imamate. Canada and the Ismaili imamate have a decades-long history of partnership and co-operation, built on shared values and a commitment to improving the quality of life of people around the world. This relationship transcends politics and reflects the best of Canada in action in some of the most challenging places across the globe. This visit by His Highness will serve to reaffirm that commitment and to find new ways to work together in a complex world, supporting development through economic progress, collaborating to address global issues like climate change and food security and building a stronger, more pluralistic Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the amazing work that she does in that community. The example she presented is a perfect example of how community-led initiatives give government the priorities that it should be using. When we look at the types of projects that communities need, we see that communities know best what they need. By being able to work through the Build Canada Homes process, they will be able to put those projects at the fore as their priorities. This is one perfect example of that, and the more of this that we can do, the more communities will see that government partnering with them can deliver the types of results that they deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this agreement between Quebec and Canada to work together within the Build Canada Homes framework should reassure my colleague that the Quebec government is committed to protecting the rights of Quebec and Quebeckers. We can draw on Quebec's experience and capabilities to assure Quebeckers that the federal government's involvement in this matter will benefit Quebec. In fact, we can leverage all of Quebec's and the Quebec government's experience, authority, and capabilities to ensure that Quebeckers—”
“In my own riding, there are several pieces of land that the federal government owns that are now going to be part of the portfolio approach, including the Heather Lands, which is going to be an important development. If we all look at those opportunities together, we will be able to achieve success.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question because it illustrates some of the information that I think people should have access to. As each department has gone through and looked at their land inventories, that is one step in the process. There is also a process by which Build Canada Homes will ask pointed questions when inventories do not look like they line up with reality. I will give a good example of this. As we all know, there are Canada Post facilities across this country, some of which have been designated and some of which have not. There is going to be a process that the folks at Build Canada Homes will be certain to undertake to ensure that, where there is an opportunity to access those lands, they will.”
“It would also make sure our communities are resilient, our cities are strong and rural Canada has what it deserves: the type of housing where we are going to see an increasing and growing need. I encourage every member of the House to support Bill C-20 . I know that by moving forward on the legislation and by giving Build Canada Homes the space and the mandate it deserves, we would see the results that Canadians deserve from all of us.”
“That is why Build Canada Homes, given the space, the authorities, the capacity and the independence to be able to act, would do what we all need it to do. It would unlock private capital, unlock the investors who are going to be able to partner with government, and unlock lands held by the federal government. It would enable all manner of groups and organizations that have land, but do not have the means to be able to develop it, to work with the federal government and to look at a portfolio approach across this country to develop housing where we need it most, in the communities that are in desperate need of this. The legislation would transform positively the lives of Canadians, young Canadians and the people most in need.”
“When I think about what we have already accomplished in my own riding, whether it is the Soroptimist project, which is women-led housing for women and women-led families; whether it is the Ashley Mar project, which turned a small number of co-op units into hundreds of co-op units alongside rental; or whether it is the Sen̓áḵw project in the north end of my riding, each and every one of these projects, supported by the federal government, has enabled different types of housing to take shape. It has helped to address the missing middle challenges. It has helped to address what workers need in order to be close to their jobs. However, we need more. We need to be able to move quickly, and I think every single member of the House recognizes that CMHC has not been able to deliver this on its own.”
“Turning Build Canada Homes into a durable, well-capitalized, operationally independent institution is not a quick fix; it is a foundation that if built well will be delivering homes for Canadians long after the politics of this moment have moved on. I believe, and on this side of the House we believe, that is worth doing, and I think it is worth doing urgently. The evidence of the last six months, the partnerships, the projects, the capital deployed, the communities engaged from British Columbia to Nunavut and to Nova Scotia, suggest that we have in Build Canada Homes an institution that is ready to rise to that responsibility.”
“I think about what the bill would achieve when we look down the line 10, 15 or 20 years. What would it make possible in that time frame? We know, because history has shown us, that the most consequential investments governments make are rarely the ones that produce immediate visible returns. This is not just about between now and the next election but about security and stability for generations of Canadians. The infrastructure that was built by previous generations, the institutions established over decades, and the long-term bets on innovation and capacity that have compounded over time are what define whether a country is building toward something or simply managing its present. Housing affordability is one of those long-term bets.”
“Accountability is not a distraction from the urgency of the housing crisis; it is what makes sustained, long-term delivery possible. Build Canada Homes, as a Crown corporation, would operate with a board of directors and a Governor in Council-appointed leadership. It would be subject to the FAA. It would report to Parliament. The minister would retain authority to issue directives. These are not weak accountability mechanisms. They are quite the opposite. They are the standard framework that has governed effective Crown corporations in this country for generations. The question is not whether there will be accountability but whether we are willing to give this institution the independence it needs to actually deliver. The legislation seeks to balance that in the right manner.”
“Since its launch in September, Build Canada Homes has already secured partnerships and agreements with the City of Ottawa and with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, and a tripartite agreement with Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. All of these represent, together with the B.C. agreement, more than 8,600 new homes already. Since I was elected, I have made a commitment to my constituents that I would do everything possible to bring affordable and rental housing to our riding. Since then, we have delivered more than 10,000 units of affordable and rental housing in Vancouver Granville. However, that is not enough. That is why this work with Build Canada Homes is essential. I want to say a word about affordability and accountability because I know it will be raised, and accountability should be raised.”