Bill C-20

Build Canada Homes Act

An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes

This enactment establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation. The purpose of Build Canada Homes is to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada. The enactment, among other things,
(a) sets out the powers of Build Canada Homes and its governance framework;
(b) authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to fund the operations and activities of Build Canada Homes; and
(c) provides that the Governor in Council may transfer to Build Canada Homes the property, rights, interests and obligations held by any Crown corporation or subsidiary of a Crown corporation and may issue directives for measures to be taken in relation to the reorganization of Canada Lands Company Limited or any of its subsidiaries.
It also includes transitional provisions, makes a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act and contains coordinating amendments.

Build Canada Homes Act

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my response to that question would be that we do not need the federal government to direct us on what to do. Each community would have its own priorities, needs and the best way to resolve them.

Again, using Richmond as an example, in the past 15 years, because Richmond has a good housing strategy, we were able to build thousands of homes in partnership with the building community, not with any government funding from the Liberal government.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Build Canada Homes does not address is the need for construction for ownership. This is a huge issue. In fact, the supply that we need should, predominantly, 75% in fact, come from home ownership.

I am wondering if this is something the member hears about when he is in his riding, and if he would just like to speak to that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, this is exactly what I hear, day in and day out.

People need homes, not allocated or dictated by the federal government on what type of housing they should have. They do not need to rent for life. They want to have the opportunity to save enough money to own their own home one day.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing our study of a new structure that the government wishes to create called Build Canada Homes. We are not against optimizing housing resources, quite the contrary. It is necessary to invest heavily in housing, and for that to happen, every tax dollar must be invested to generate maximum benefits. However, instead of opting for the simplest and most affordable solution, which is to transfer the money to the provinces, the true housing program authorities and experts, this government is opting to create a new structure. Meanwhile, many of the programs that Build Canada Homes will be responsible for were already being taken care of by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Once again, the federal government is going to set its own housing priorities rather than working with local governments. The Quebec National Assembly, regional county municipalities and cities are in the best position to understand the needs and to determine priorities, zoning, urban planning and the real needs of the people where they live. For the Bloc Québécois, there is one essential condition: There must be a “Quebec clause,” so that Quebec can opt out of Build Canada Homes with full compensation in the form of dedicated housing transfers paid to the Government of Quebec. At the very least, the government has an obligation to transfer to Quebec the funds to which it is entitled on a per capita basis, without conditions. Quebec is and remains the sole driver of its housing policy. It is up to Quebec to determine its housing priorities and to develop its own tools and programs, not Ottawa.

There is something else I am concerned about. Since Build Canada Homes is designated as an agent of the Crown, it will be able to expropriate residents and will benefit from tax exemptions. That will be good for the cities, which will be unable to collect property tax to fund this infrastructure, because that is a possibility. The same goes for land use planning, if the government can simply decide to expropriate residents to build wherever it wants to build, all while having the opportunity to acquire shares in affordable housing companies. That can open a Pandora's box. If a real estate company receives government support for a private project in which the government is a shareholder, could Build Canada Homes use these expropriation and tax exemption powers to increase the value of its investment? The answer is obvious. The question certainly seems relevant when we look at projects like Alto.

I want to bring this Parliament back down to earth because we need to identify the problems that we are now facing if we want to resolve them in the long term. Speaking of coming back down to earth, I would like to talk about rural life, a reality in a region like mine. My team, particularly my executive director Lynda Perreault, has helped many non-profit organizations work out the intricacies of housing projects. Our team can easily list the obstacles to the development of social and affordable housing in my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Given that Build Canada Homes has not been created yet, we must talk about the problems we experience almost daily with the CMHC in the hopes that, at the very least, changes will be made and that, in many cases, the promised money can be disbursed. The first key point is delays. There is no big surprise there. For 10 years, this Liberal government has made long delays one of its specialities. This has happened in many areas other than housing, but it has also happened in housing, even very recently.

On January 21, 2026, Ottawa finally signed an agreement with Quebec as part of the Canada housing infrastructure fund. However, Ottawa launched the program nearly two years before that, on April 16, 2024. The goal was to modernize and develop essential infrastructure, such as drinking water and waste water treatment infrastructure, to support new housing projects. The agreement with Quebec took two years to finalize. Things happened a lot faster in Ontario, as usual. Why? The reason is that Ottawa's programs are designed with Ontario laws in mind. They do not take Quebec's reality into account, and the government refuses to transfer the funds.

We have seen this play out before, such as in 2017, when there was the agreement with the provinces. It took three years for the money to make its way to Quebec. There was the COVID‑19 pandemic, ballooning costs and inflation, which meant that we were building a lot less than everywhere else in Canada, especially Ontario. That is not right, and it is so frustrating because the problems are just getting worse, especially in Quebec.

Two years after the program was launched, an agreement was reached for $1 billion of the $6 billion allocated to the fund. That is 16.6% of the envelope even though Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's demographic weight, so there is a huge equity issue there that needs to be addressed. Quebeckers are receiving less, and they are receiving less two years on, which means that it is much less.

It is also important to understand that with the skyrocketing construction costs, Quebec is not meeting its housing needs, all because Ottawa is incapable of respecting its jurisdictions. It is one thing for Ottawa to want to invest in housing. It needs to transfer the money to Quebec.

I discussed this with the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he was appointed recently. If Ottawa let the provinces manage their own affairs and simply transferred the money, that would save enormous amounts of money that are currently being wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy. One good example is the child care program. The government took inspiration from Quebec and transferred the money. Quebec is where the most spaces have been created. Why not repeat that pattern when it comes to building housing? It is such a simple solution, perhaps too simple.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, takes too long to make decisions and does not even meet its own deadlines. In my region, one project was approved in January 2025 with construction set to begin in April or May. The developer was waiting for CMHC's final approval before starting construction and getting on with the work. Months went by. The documents were submitted correctly, but CMHC was slow to issue its final approval. April and May passed, but nothing happened. In June, CMHC finally responded, but with a letter announcing that unless the work started in the next two weeks, the money would be allocated to another project.

Developers are waiting for the bureaucracy to act, but the bureaucracy can say that it is going to spend the money elsewhere, even though CMHC never gave its final approval. I hope that Build Canada Homes will learn from that. Although it will allegedly be much more agile, implementation issues around the transition from CMHC to Build Canada Homes are precisely what happened over the past year.

There were problems with the construction of a women's shelter for victims of domestic violence, the Maison l'émeraude, in La Sarre. The project almost never saw the light of day because of bureaucratic delays. It also almost did not happen because of repeated last-minute requests that do not apply to the Quebec reality, but are required nonetheless, such as requiring the organization to take out a mortgage. All of this can have an impact on the quality of services, the size of the building or even the quality of the fences to protect the women. There are consequences to such a lack of consistency and lack of efficiency.

This kind of delay slows down construction. These delays hold up projects, leading to increased costs for developers. The subsidy does not increase, and we know how much interest rates can fluctuate depending on the situation. However, the CMHC takes months not only to make decisions, but also to disburse funds. When we talk about non-profit organizations, or NPOs, and co-operatives, we are not talking about organizations that are rolling in money and have deep pockets.

They are being asked to pay construction costs just to wait. Wait for what? Once an organization reaches its project completion percentage, the CMHC money arrives but it arrives late. A non-profit that takes out a loan has to pay interest on the loan purely because the CMHC is not paying on time. That is a lot of money that the non-profit and the co-operative cannot reinvest in their facilities. These are additional costs that increase project costs.

That is to say nothing about the consultants that the CMHC asks for, even though the Quebec civil code already provides various options for recourse. That is completely unnecessary duplication. As a result, the Government of Canada and non-profit organizations are paying consultants to analyze something that is already covered or has already been done. There is a saying that laws are made for Ontario, not for Quebec. This is a clear example of that. Money is being flushed down the drain.

Let me go back to the definition of what a rural area is and what an urban area is. Once again, there is a clear lack of vision. The federal government and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities have a vision based on the concept of census agglomerations versus census metropolitan areas, with a scale ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 people or fewer. I am sorry, but there is a significant difference between a municipality of 45,000 residents located eight hours away from major urban centres and a municipality of 45,000 residents that is two hours away from Montreal or Toronto.

Programs need to reflect the reality of these remote regions. They need to reflect the fact that building 150 housing units in municipalities like Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Amos, La Sarre, or Notre-Dame-du-Nord is much more difficult, almost inconceivable. We would need programs tailored to six, 18, or 24 housing units to have an equally significant impact on our populations. In a rural town or census area, we must take into account the geography and the ability to create and organize these projects to also meet bureaucratic requirements.

I would also like to note an important aspect of the definition of affordability. During the committee's study of the Auditor General's report on the current and future use of federal offices, I had the opportunity to question officials from the Department of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities on this. While Canada has always been out of touch, I was pleasantly surprised by the thought process that officials had gone through. For example, income-based affordability, in the case of housing that costs less than 30% of pre-tax income, can be applied differently. Again, this calls for flexibility and an understanding that there may be income disparities in certain regions.

I will stop here. I will continue my thoughts during questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective and the way that I look at it is that it does not matter what region of the nation one is coming from. I truly believe that people want to see opposition and government members working together, not only here in Ottawa but working with other jurisdictions in order to be able to deal with the serious issues that we have to face.

The Province of Quebec has signed off with a memorandum of understanding, and the member made reference to it. The Government of Quebec is working with Ottawa, and Ottawa is working with the Government of Quebec and other stakeholders to increase affordable housing. Does the member feel any compulsion whatsoever to respect the memorandum of understanding that has been signed by the two levels of government?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the fact that there is an agreement, but, once again, we need to be able to look at that agreement to see how it is applied. The reality is that we do not feel that this money is having a real impact in the regions. When we look at the public accounts, we see that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has invested zero dollars in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. That is unacceptable.

A Radio-Canada article showed that Ontario received $2 billion from the Canada public transit fund and Quebec got nothing. Does that make sense? Programs are simply not being designed for Quebec's reality. Needs are not being taken into account, particularly the issue of energy efficiency in the north. They are also causing more delays. Is that fair? It is already costing us close to 30% more.

Lumber is cut in our forests, processed in my riding and sent to Boucherville, Toronto or the United States before coming back to my region, generating a lot of transportation costs, not to mention the environmental impact. That is one of the key issues, and I hope that it will be addressed by this new bureaucratic structure.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we see that the Liberals would set up another bureaucracy, the board of which they would then stack with their friends. Where have we seen this before? We saw this with the green slush fund. I know that the member was here before, when this broke, when directors of the board of the green slush fund were handing their own companies money. There were over 180 conflicts of interest in that decision-making.

Does the member not see that this would also be a place where the Liberals would be able to enrich their friends?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the culture of cronyism in the Liberal Party is still a danger. What I also find dangerous is not knowing what the government is using our money for. Abitibi—Témiscamingue creates approximately 2% of Canada's GDP, notably through its mining and forestry sectors, but what does it get in return?

We have been experiencing a housing crisis for 20 years. Housing costs are just as high in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as they are elsewhere. A neighbourhood in what is known as the buffer zone has to be relocated. Yes, there are a lot of questions about the federal government. I can give a very simple example. According to current specifications, Canadian roads do not account for the fact that rectangular houses have to be shipped.

There are companies that make prefabricated houses, which could be used by workers, in particular. This would prevent them from occupying available housing, since we know that they are not going to put down roots. We want to leave that housing for people who are investing in our community and who will be able to stay there. As a result of the housing shortage, workers fly in and fly out. This is the reality because the programs have not been tailored to the situation in Abitibi-Témiscamingue over the past 20 years.

This is a huge problem, and I hope that this new initiative, Build Canada Homes, will be able to respond to it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the passion of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and his command of the file. People are indeed feeling the effects of these bureaucratic decisions or these kinds of big bureaucratic machines that come to do the work or impose conditions in the regions of Quebec, when the organizations already in place, the municipalities, the regional county municipalities, the Government of Quebec and the provinces are already well equipped to manage these investments.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about the fact that, last time, the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa took years to be implemented. Is there cause for concern now? Is there a concern that the same thing will happen again and that the regions of Quebec will once again be penalized?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously yes, because the municipalities, towns and regions are the ones with the expertise, but there is hope.

I would like to give an example: The Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP has partnered with the Regroupement innovant pour l'impression d'immeubles durables, or RI³D. I want to highlight the leadership of a high school friend, David Laliberté, who is a CEGEP teacher, in implementing this innovation that helps to build walls. Perhaps the homes of tomorrow will be built thanks to initiatives like the one at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the people of Abbotsford—South Langley and I rise on their behalf. They have real concerns with respect to the Liberal House. During the election, the Liberals promised Canadians bold, decisive action on housing. They pledged to create Build Canada Homes, claiming it would solve the very housing crisis that they helped create in the first place; they have failed over and again. It sounded like a plan for hope for the families that are struggling to buy their first home. Today, Canadians are seeing something very different. What was promised as a solution has become more bureaucracy. What was promised as action has turned into inaction. This was meant to bring more homes and hope, but neither was delivered.

Let us remember what was promised. The Liberals pledged to deliver 500,000 new homes every single year. That was a commitment made to Canadians in this country who are struggling to buy their first home. There was a promise made to youth, to the young families trying to get ahead and to the renters hoping to one day own their own home. Now we learn that housing starts have fallen to 212,000 homes per year by 2028, less than half of what was promised. This is a complete failure to achieve what was pledged to Canadians by the Liberal government.

Instead of delivering homes, Bill C-20 would effectively deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. What is most shocking about this is that there are no set targets. The housing minister confirmed during a press conference on Bill C-20 that, under the Liberals' plan, there are no top-line targets set for the number of homes to be built. It is an utter shock that there are no targets set. How are Canadians supposed to place their trust in the government? Canadians were promised 500,000 homes per year. Now they are told there are no targets at all. How can Canadians have confidence when there is no plan to measure any success? How can we solve a national housing crisis without clear benchmarks for success? It is all talk and no action.

When houses start to be built, the Parliamentary Budget Office found that Build Canada Homes would likely add only around 5,000 homes per year. That is 1% of what the Liberals promised. At the same time, construction activity is projected to decline by 18.1% to well below the 10-year historical average. Let me be clear. Prices are projected to rise, construction is projected to fall, and the Liberal government's solution to this is this bill, which only creates more bureaucracy without any set targets. It is just shameful. Build Canada Homes would not solve real problems because it creates a new agency without removing the rules and the delays that make housing more expensive for Canadians. It would not change any zoning laws, settle any case-by-case rezoning fights, set firm deadlines for approvals or cut duplicate fees or environmental charges.

If we do not fix delays, we do not fix costs. If we do not fix costs, we do not fix affordability. Real reform is about creating new programs. It is about removing roadblocks, setting clear timelines, cutting extra taxes and fees, improving coordination between governments and holding departments accountable. That means fixing the system that we currently have, not adding another layer of bureaucracy to it. Builders across the country are saying clearly that we need to see less government in homebuilding, not more. Developers are not asking for new federal agencies, which the government is delivering to them. They are asking for faster approval rates, lower taxes, fewer development charges and predictable rules outlined.

On this side of the House, we believe that Canadians should have the opportunity to own a home and have access to affordable housing. Yes, we believe that the federal government can play a role in it, but it has to be limited. It should not obstruct; it should take out the bureaucracy. Conservatives have a plan to fight and focus on results. Conservatives oppose adding more bureaucracy and red tape to housing sectors already burdened by slow approval rates and rising costs. More government layers do not solve delays, but make them worse. Developers are clear about the challenges they are facing. We are the only party offering a real plan to address them.

Under the Liberal government and this so-called new Prime Minister, Canadians are being offered the same approach we have all seen before: more programs, more announcements, more agencies and fewer real results. We have seen this all before with the housing accelerator fund, where billions were spent on studies and consultants, and many of the slow approval processes have stayed in place. Money was added, but the delays remain.

What Canada needs is more supply and less red tape with less government interference. It is that simple. Construction workers are ready to build, builders are ready to build and Canadians are ready to buy. What is standing in the way is not the lack of demand, but the lack of supply caused by excessive government interference and rising costs.

Private builders, people who construct the vast majority of homes in this country, are asking for something very simple. They are asking for the government to get out of the way. They want less red tape, fewer taxes, less bureaucracy and more building. This is a Conservative approach.

Nearly nine out of 10 Canadians are concerned about housing affordability. This is not a niche issue or a temporary challenge. It is a matter of national stability. Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue. It is an issue that affects everyone, from young Canadians to adults to seniors. That is why the government should care, because it affects everyone and all of us together. When housing becomes scarce and unaffordable, it is more than just an individual strain. It weakens our nation's fiscal health. It reduces productivity and limits economic growth. Scarcity harms us all.

For generations, home ownership has been the centre of a Canadian dream, the promise that if someone works hard, they can buy a home, raise a family and build a secure future. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Too many young Canadians believe they will never have the same opportunity as their parents did. That is just sad. We must restore the dream of home ownership for the next generation.

We must give Canadians, including families in my community of Abbotsford—South Langley and communities across this nation, a real chance to buy a home, start a family and build a future, without being held back by the government's inefficiency and soaring costs. No one in Canada should feel that they will never get a fair shot at success, yet under the current Liberal government, far too many do. It is time to address the housing supply and the urgency it demands, not as a partisan issue, but as a non-partisan issue, as a national priority that secures opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians.

Conservatives are ready to act and we are ready to work with anyone who is willing to put Canadians first. We have a clear plan that cuts costs, removes barriers, empowers builders and gets homes built. We would increase supply, lower prices and make home ownership achievable for families from coast to coast to coast. It is time for results, not red tape. It is time for action. That is why I urge the Liberal government to take a second look and cut out the bureaucracy and the layers.

This Build Canada Homes bill is not what we need right now. We need to make sure we can cut taxes and we can fight for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member in general, but I like his first comment about providing hope. We have a newly elected Prime Minister, from less than a year ago, and we have been working with different levels of government. We have been working with many different stakeholders. We have a substantial piece of legislation to support Canadians in every region of the country. It is not a duplication. It would ensure that houses are more affordable in many different ways.

I do not understand. Is there not a progressive element within the Conservatives? Are there not red Tories within the Conservative caucus who recognize there is value for the federal government to do what it is doing? I would think that members want all of us to be working together on the housing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Abbotsford—South Langley a chance to respond.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague already knows that the government has been in power for the last 10 years. We have seen unaffordability rise under the Liberal government. That is what has been happening.

My generation is not succeeding. We are being held back now more than ever. That is the last thing that we need. Another bureaucracy being put in front of us is the last thing we need.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts held a meeting on the subject of infrastructure. We realized that, according to page 298 of volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was allocated $2.1 billion in financing for housing. However, it spent only $1.3 billion. On that same page, we see that $5 million was not spent in 2025. In other words, nearly $2 billion was not spent.

Are things structured in such a way that all the lovely promises in the budget do not translate into money flowing and construction happening in the regions? Is that not a problem?