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

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important point, and I probably should have spoken about it more in my speech. I listened to the minister, and I heard all about these new projects. They are all focused on rentals, and there is clearly no question that there is a need for rentals in Canada. It was the first Trudeau prime minister who cancelled the incentivization of building purpose-built rentals, and we see the implications of that today. However, what the government seems to forget is that home ownership is still, in fact, the dream of young people in this country, and until we reduce the cost of new homes, we are just not going to make that a reality.

The Liberals will talk about how they have removed the GST on new homes, but only for first-time homebuyers. The problem with that, particularly in the markets where housing is really in crisis, the largest markets in the country, is that the first-time homebuyers do not make up enough of the market of new homes for builders to break ground. As such, it is not enough to actually stimulate the market. Builders are laying people off as we speak, and they are not starting any new projects.

We have to reduce the cost overall so that we can get builders building again, and the government is not doing that. This is putting home ownership further and further out of reach. The Conservatives have a plan to actually make home ownership a reality again for Canadians by reducing the cost overall, which includes fees and time.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument, and all one needs to do is take a look at the contrast and compare today's minister to the leader of the Conservative Party when he was the minister responsible for housing, which reflects the Conservative Party's policy. He constructed six houses while he was the minister of housing. The fundamental difference is that a Liberal government, under this Prime Minister and this minister, recognizes that the Government of Canada has a role to play. That is what the legislation would do. It would reinforce that role.

We can complement that, with our working with provincial and municipal governments and our recognizing that housing is something in which the federal government has an important role to play, and the Conservative right, not the red Tories, disagrees fundamentally with the federal government in housing. Why is that?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, as usual, there is a fundamental flaw with that member's line of argument. I honestly do not understand what he is talking about. There is no question that the federal government has a role. I think I have talked about that many times. He is just not paying attention. That is fine. I do not really expect him to pay attention.

The fact of the matter is that, as Conservatives, we would much prefer that Canadians have the opportunity to own their own home rather than rent from the government. It is great that the member wants to build lots of government homes, but Canadians do not want to live in those homes; they want to live in one they own. That is the promise that we would restore.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. Why would the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure think it responsible to develop a new government agency, with the use of taxpayer dollars, without set targets and timelines to outline to Canadians how many homes would actually be built?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the new Crown corporations talk to the other Crown corporations, but the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is the first housing Crown corporation of the government, and it is talking about making sure we build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes a year for the next several years to restore affordability. However, instead of engaging CMHC to help with this project, and instead of engaging Canada Lands Company, the other federal Crown corporation responsible for housing, the government is creating a third one, and it does not have any targets.

The government has let the first corporation talk about targets, and it let the newest one take over one of them. Honestly, it makes zero sense to create yet another corporation. The first one has told us what its targets are, and the government would create a new one without targets. It would just be more bureaucracy, and I do not foresee any results coming out of it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work on this important issue.

I will go to the people affected by these policies. I speak often to young people, and I know the member does as well. Comparing their concerns today with where we were 10 years ago, many young people fear they will be worse off than their parents, and their top concerns are access to jobs and access to homes. Those are pretty fundamental things in life for starting a family, having kids and pursuing a positive future. Can they afford a place to live and find a job, and is that job going to allow them to pay for basics, including, most essentially, a home? Many young people, after 10 years of the Liberal government, have started to lose hope that that is even possible.

I wonder if the member could share a bit about the conversations he is having with young people, but also offer them a sense that something is possible if we change direction in terms of public policy.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work with young people. He focuses a lot on youth employment and unemployment, as it were, and he is quite correct. I have talked to young people all across the country and in my own community, even before I came to this place. Young people hope to own a home. This is something my generation and previous generations simply took for granted. The reality is that we have done it before. It is only over the last 40 years that we have made it so expensive and so hard to get permission to build a home. The way to fix that is to make it easier, and Conservatives would do that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing Bill C-20, which seeks to establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to build affordable housing. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that.

The budget, which is currently being debated as part of Bill C-15, provides for $13 billion over the next four years, until 2030, and gives the government and the Crown corporation the power to build so-called affordable homes.

For several years now, we have been experiencing a major housing crisis. The Bloc Québécois is pleased that the government and the minister, whom I commend, are taking steps to expedite efforts to build affordable housing, but why are we in the midst of a housing crisis to begin with? Why are young people no longer able to buy a home, since prices have skyrocketed in recent years? Why are people who are struggling to make ends meet no longer able to find a place to rent? Why are they no longer able to move, to find a new place to live at a price that does not force them to make sacrifices when it comes to putting food on the table or buying other basic necessities?

That is the housing crisis we are facing today. I must remind the House that the housing crisis was caused, in part, by Justin Trudeau's government, in other words, by the Liberals sitting here today, through the Century Initiative, which planned to increase Canada's population to 100 million people by the end of the century. The immigration floodgates were opened. The Bloc Québécois supports immigration, but the government must ensure it can meet its ambitious goals. Increasing immigration to such a level, which no other OECD country has done in terms of immigration, was very risky. Neither McKinsey nor the government even thought about implementing measures to support this sudden spike in immigration. Such support would include schools and hospitals and, of course, housing. That played a major part in the situation we are now in.

Of course, one of the problems related to the housing crisis concerns the financialization of housing. Rather than investing in shares in companies that produce goods and services and then receiving a portion of the profits, some people are relying on the housing market's tendency to rise in value and buying a condo or house without necessarily intending to reside there, but rather to put it back on the market in a few years and make a profit. This is another major problem. Justin Trudeau's government and his finance minister Chrystia Freeland put a few measures in place to mitigate that. For example, there was the anti-flipping measure, which required a certain amount of time to pass before someone who bought a house could resell it. There was that too. There is also the fact that a lot of people are living in increasingly larger spaces, which leaves less space available, in terms of housing stock, for people who need it.

Now the government is putting its shoulder to the wheel and finally making a major effort, which we applaud. It is going to invest $13 billion over the next four years, with the possibility of more to come later on.

Housing essentially falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned when we see that Ottawa wants to bypass the provinces and Quebec to tackle the housing issue. Yes, we are happy that the government is putting money on the table. Why is the government putting money on the table? It is because it can afford to do so. Why can it afford to do so? It is because of the fiscal imbalance, which is thoroughly documented in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's annual reports. These reports point out that, when taxpayers pay their taxes, about half of the revenue goes to the federal government while the other half stays in the provinces. However, the expenses that the provinces have to cover in order to deliver services in areas under their jurisdiction, such as education, health care, roads and so on, are much higher than those incurred by the federal government in meeting its responsibilities, which essentially consist of transferring funds to either the provinces or to individuals. Examples include EI and OAS. The federal government has fewer exclusive jurisdictions. National defence is one, although the government made a significant shift in this area in its most recent budget. The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa does have some flexibility, as documented every year by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The government sees the crisis that it helped to create, and it is saying that it will do its part and take decisive action. We welcome this gesture, but we are concerned about jurisdiction. Why? Up until the late 1980s, there used to be many partnerships between Quebec and Ottawa in the area of social housing, such as low-income housing, for example. Then, all of a sudden, the federal government decided that it was no longer interested and was abandoning the whole thing. All of a sudden, Ottawa, which had been involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction, changed its policy and left people in poverty. In other parts of Canada, this was a real disaster, a real dismantling of social and affordable housing. In Quebec, because we care, we decided that we could not let that happen. The Government of Quebec came to the rescue and saved the day by taking over the federal government's share. Then a few decades went by without Ottawa putting any money back into social housing, and that was a serious problem.

Over the past 10 years, under Justin Trudeau, there has been a renewed focus on affordable housing, and even some social housing programs, which we welcomed. However, it has been a pittance given the housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. That is our concern.

Now, all of a sudden, Ottawa is getting on board and creating a Crown corporation. It is putting money in the budget that will be transferred to the new Crown corporation. Yes, but what will happen in four years, six years, eight years, ten years? Will organizations and people who want to submit projects then have to go to the federal government, continue to work with the SHQ or turn to the Quebec government? We shall see, and I will come back to that since it is not specified in Bill C‑20, which establishes the Crown corporation.

However, an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, was signed between Quebec and Ottawa in that regard. We need access to that document, but we do not have it. Why? This is not unusual. Ottawa waits until it has signed agreements with all of the provinces before disclosing the content of those agreements. Why? The reason is that, often, Quebec manages to negotiate a little more autonomy than the other provinces, and Ottawa does not want the other provinces to follow Quebec's lead. That is why Ottawa generally tends to sign agreements with Quebec last. However, in this case, it seems that the federal government was in a rush to reach an agreement. The agreement was signed and my riding neighbour, Caroline Proulx, the Quebec housing minister, praised this agreement and said that the MOU respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We find that reassuring and it encourages us to support the principle of this bill, but, obviously, we will have to look at the specifics of the MOU.

Bill C-20, however, leaves much to be desired. The bill establishes the Crown corporation and gives it a plethora of possible tools. The corporation can do great things, but the House has no control over it. The Crown corporation and the government have a great deal of power to develop affordable housing, but, after that, there is no accountability.

For example, the government's definition of affordable housing can be found on the website for Build Canada Homes, which was initially mistranslated in French as “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. That definition states that affordable housing should cost 30% of the median income of the neighbourhood or region, so we are not talking about an individual's ability to pay. A person living in poverty has an income below the median income of their neighbourhood. This is completely different from social housing, which is based on ability to pay and is set at 30% of the income of the person or household living in the dwelling, rather than on the median income of the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, this definition is nowhere to be found in Bill C-20. It is only found on the Build Canada Homes website, not in the legislation.

If we can trust the government when it says that it will build affordable housing, then that is great. However, the bill provides no guarantee that the housing will actually be affordable. We have no guarantee that any of the funding will go to social housing. That is really worrying.

Social housing, whether it is co-operatives, low-income housing or housing from other organizations, is based on the ability of households, as I was saying, of individuals, to pay based on their income. That is what we need to focus on. Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, allows for that. However, if Build Canada Homes did not build any social housing at all, it would still be within its framework or mission. That is a serious concern.

The same is true for energy efficiency standards, for example. The government says it needs to make an effort to fight climate change and set higher standards. That is set out in a document online stating that, yes, efforts must be made in that direction, but it is not in the bill and it is not in the mission. Build Canada Homes is not required to ensure that environmental standards are in place for the projects it will support.

Once again, we are supposed to just trust the government. Once Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill, is passed, the government and the Crown corporation will no longer be accountable to the House. We are being asked to trust the government, and this raises concerns.

It is the same thing with local materials. Obviously, when people buy two-by-fours or two-by-sixes, they do not import them from the U.S. or Europe. We make enough of those products here in Canada. However, the government has said that people need to maximize local benefits, make efforts to ensure that the materials purchased are produced locally and drive Canada's economy. That is all well and good, and we welcome that. However, that is also in a schedule that is neither on the website, nor in the bill. The government has made a commitment, but what kind of accountability mechanisms will there be? Once again, it is not within the Crown corporation's mission, and it is not in the bill. We have to trust the government, which will not be required to keep its commitments afterwards.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance prior to the last election. The committee heard from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. In fact, the committee heard from a great CMHC economist who had done the study the committee was discussing. He told the committee that at the rate things were going with the Century Initiative, which was a major factor, rents and home prices were going to double between 2019, the base year he was using, and 2030. That is deeply concerning.

When CMHC officials appeared before the committee, they presented some tables that the committee had requested showing the various CMHC affordable housing programs. The committee found that standardizing programs, such as the rapid housing initiative, ensured each province and each territory received its fair share on a per capita basis. Quebec would receive its share. As for the rest of the programs that were not standardized, Quebec did not receive its fair share.

Again, the Build Canada Homes website states that the government would aim for regional fairness, but this is not in the bill. What does regional fairness mean? There are no standards or obligations. Build Canada Homes will not be required to say that each province will have its share. What we have learned over the past years is that when this standard is not included, Quebec does not get its share. This is a matter of great concern for us. It is a question of fairness. When there is no standard, Quebec does not get its share. There is no standard here. I will say it again: We have some real concerns.

As I said a few moments ago, Build Canada Homes is structurally very flexible. It allows for partnerships, it allows for funding to be transferred directly to the provinces, and so on. Build Canada Homes has considerable latitude to do great things. However, depending on the government's goodwill, it also makes it possible for housing projects intended for social housing or transitional housing to be converted into housing projects that would not really be affordable. There are no restrictions in this regard. That is obviously a serious concern.

Yes, the government said so. Yes, it was in the presentations last fall. Yes, the Build Canada Homes website says there will be money for transitional housing for people trying to get out of homelessness. The government says that funds will be allocated and that there will be partnerships with the provinces. That is what we want, so we welcome that. There will be opportunities to fund co-ops, social housing and low-income housing. We welcome that, too. However, there are no guarantees in this bill, so that is a concern.

I would like to mention a tenant advocacy organization in Quebec, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, which is located in Montreal. After reading an interview published by The Canadian Press on February 7, members of FRAPRU publicly expressed their concern that Build Canada Homes could be used to financialize housing. They said, and I quote, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing through Build Canada Homes, the...government's new strategy is becoming clear. Build Canada Homes will be nothing more than an investment bank”.

These people, who are on the ground fighting for tenants' rights so that we have social housing and so that people can live with dignity, had a lot more to say. Given what the minister has said in media interviews, FRAPRU is now concerned because the Build Canada Homes tool box comes with financial levers that the government can use to have the private sector develop housing. Some of that housing could be considered affordable, but there are no guarantees. Organizations like FRAPRU believe that this will undermine the mission of Build Canada Homes.

Are we talking about projects where support or subsidies will be granted to construction companies or real estate developers to build more housing, or will the spirit of the bill truly prevail, meaning that more affordable housing will be built? Supply and demand dictates that if there is more housing overall, prices will tend to fall. However, the members of the Bloc Québécois are asking for more than that, as is FRAPRU.

We do not just want more housing. We want more truly affordable housing, which ideally means more social housing. We would have liked to see a guarantees regarding social housing in this bill. We would have liked to see guarantees for local purchasing in construction and for environmental standards. We would have liked to see guarantees for transitional housing to lift people out of homelessness. We would have liked to see a standard that ensures fairness between the provinces to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, Ottawa has a record of doing some great things on social housing, but overnight, the government changed priorities and left things in a state of ruin. Quebec had to step in to clean things up, and I am genuinely concerned that with the latest intrusion into an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the same thing will happen in a few years' time. When this issue is no longer fashionable, when it is no longer in vogue, the government will slash the whole program, and Quebec will once again have to pick up the pieces and go back to the drawing board.

If my party has to vote on the bill as it stands, we would have some reservations. We support the principle of social housing, but the bill falls far short of the government's commitments. There are far fewer guarantees. We are not prepared to sign a blank cheque for the government and say we trust it and we know it will do a great job. We will not do that because we want the government to be held accountable. We want guarantees to ensure that taxpayer dollars, money from the people we represent, is invested properly and is not diverted. In the meantime, we remain extremely concerned.

However, Ottawa has signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec. As I said, Quebec was the first province to sign on, which is quite rare and exceptional. Caroline Proulx, the minister in Quebec City, and my friend, whom I wish to acknowledge, noted in a press release that “the agreement announced today is a major step forward in housing. It is significant and fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities, and legislative framework.” This gives us enough assurance, even though we have not yet seen the document, to say that we will support the bill at this stage. I have no doubt the committee will find ways to improve it. We will work on that. We also really need to have access to the text of the agreement to make sure Ottawa fully complies with all of the Quebec government's priorities.

In closing, I would just like to remind the House that the bill gives the Crown corporation Build Canada Homes the status of agent of the Crown, which gives it the powers of the government, including the power to expropriate land, the power to avoid paying municipal taxes and the power to get around Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. We were told that this was not the government's intention and that the issue will be corrected in the agreement, but we are keeping an eye on that.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing what my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has to say. His speeches are always insightful and well thought out.

I wanted to start with a question, but I will just make a comment instead because I think my friend has clearly explained the connection between the bill, which has a specific objective, and his desire for the wording of the bill to be more precise. In my opinion, the agreement that he described at the end of his speech between the Canadian government and the Government of Quebec shows that federalism works. It shows the link between a bill and a good agreement, as he was the first to point out.

I would therefore like to better understand how this agreement can promote the interests of Quebec and my colleague's riding.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not complicated. We have been in a housing crisis for several years now. Housing prices have skyrocketed, and people no longer have access to home ownership. There are not enough condos, apartments or houses. More importantly, there is a huge shortage of social housing. The most vulnerable people are making immense sacrifices to find housing, often in unacceptable conditions.

Ottawa is providing $13 billion over four years, and everyone welcomes that. Finally, Ottawa is fully acknowledging the current crisis, and the government is introducing a bill and allocating $13 billion in the budget to address it. We are very pleased about that.

However, as I was saying, this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. Ottawa has been known to bring in projects and then pull out of them overnight, leaving a mess. That is what worries us here. If there is good co-operation between Ottawa and Quebec on this issue, then that is perfect. However, we would like the bill to be more detailed and include more guarantees to ensure that the government continues to report on the appropriate use of funds.

We would also like to have access to the memorandum of understanding in order to confirm that that is the case, but we have been told that we cannot currently read it. The bill makes the Crown corporation an agent of the Crown. As such, it is given full powers and would not have to comply with any municipal bylaw. Again, we are being asked to blindly trust the government, but we are not prepared to do that.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's statement and thoughtful words.

Could the member comment on the notion that, just like the magic of compound interest, we have what seems to be compound bureaucracy, where we get bureaucracy upon bureaucracy that just gums up the works and makes matters worse? Could the member also comment on how the system could become more efficient to reduce the bureaucratic, administrative and regulatory loads to get homes built faster and more affordably for Canadians?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and question. In the most recent budget, the government committed to keep the deficit at just $78 billion this year. That is double Justin Trudeau's deficits and makes him look positively frugal. The government is saying that it is going to make cuts to the public service, that it is going to cut 40,000 jobs, which is huge. We are still waiting and we are interested to see that. We have been told that those jobs may be replaced by AI. We will see.

What we do know is that the government is putting a new program in place to try to simplify the task for organizations and stakeholders. We will see if it succeeds. In our opinion, the simplest solution would be to pay out the $13 billion, to transfer Quebec's share to the Government of Quebec and entrust it to build social and affordable housing. That would eliminate an administrative level and a ton of red tape and paperwork for everyone. The money could be sent directly to where it is needed and housing could be built a lot faster. That is what we want and that is what we are calling for.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree that this is not a matter of jurisdiction or an ideological fight. When Quebec families are struggling to put a roof over their heads, our duty is to take action, not to debate about jurisdictions. We just need to house Quebeckers. People want solutions, not jurisdictional bickering.

Can my colleague provide more clarity for Quebeckers?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the need is great. There is a crisis, so yes, urgent action is needed. We are asking the federal government and the Quebec government to come to an agreement. They signed an MOU. They seem to be in agreement. I want to make sure that the areas of jurisdiction are respected.

Why? It is because we want the federal government to do a good job in its own areas of jurisdiction, which it is not currently doing. Take the Cúram software, for example. The government is unable to properly pay out OAS benefits. Development costs for this software have skyrocketed. In terms of EI, the government is unable to make reforms because the software is faulty. It is unable to care for veterans or fund health care. The federal government is having a hard time carrying out its core missions, and yet it is always sticking its nose into the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces to get some some visibility.

There is a housing crisis. We applaud the fact that funds are being allocated to address it. Ideally, we would have preferred that the money be transferred. As I was saying, my fear and the fear of the Bloc Québécois is that this is a priority for the government now, but will it still be a priority in four years?

In recent decades, we have witnessed the federal government in Ottawa disengage from social housing and low-income housing overnight, leaving a path of destruction in its wake, and yet, social housing is not its jurisdiction. It skipped town, dropped everything and left families and people in need of low-cost housing to cope with the disaster. We do not want that to happen again. That is why respecting jurisdictions is important.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about urgency. People talk about the urgent need for housing and social housing. The Fédération québécoise des municipalités, or FQM, and the Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ, have levelled some criticism at the government for causing housing construction delays.

I would like to hear my colleague briefly address that issue.