Mr. Speaker, I want to begin not with a policy argument but with something more fundamental, a question that I think most Canadians are grappling with right now: Can the next generation afford to live in the communities they grew up? For too many Canadians, and certainly this is the case in my riding of Vancouver Granville, the answer is no. I think it is worth sitting with that for a moment before we get into the mechanics of the legislation.
The mechanics matter only if we are honest about the scale of what we are trying to solve. We are not dealing with a temporary market fluctuation. We are dealing with a structural deficit in housing supply that has compounded over decades in communities large and small in every province and every territory. The cost of inaction shows up in families doubling up in homes that were not designed for it, in workers who cannot live near the jobs they are being asked to fill, because they cannot afford to, and in young people who have quietly stopped imagining home ownership as something that belongs to them. This bill is one part of the government's response to that reality.
Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, proposes to transition Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada into a Crown corporation. I want to take a moment to explain why the distinction matters, because I think it is easy to hear “Crown corporation” and think of it as a bureaucratic technicality or a boondoggle, but it is anything but.
A special operating agency, however well resourced and however well intentioned, operates within the constraints of its parent department. It cannot independently hold assets, it cannot take on the kind of financial risk that is required to build complex or large-scale housing developments, and it cannot move with the speed and flexibility that a housing crisis of this magnitude demands. A Crown corporation, on the other hand, can do all those things while remaining fully accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.
What the legislation would do in practical terms is give Build Canada Homes the legal and operational independence to deploy $13 billion in additional capitalization to hold and to develop public lands; to enter into complex financial arrangements with provinces, municipalities, non-profits and indigenous housing providers; and to do so without the structural friction that has, quite frankly, slowed federal housing delivery in the past, regardless of who has been in power.
The legislation would authorize the integration of the Canada Lands Company, which would bring with it significant land holdings and deep development expertise, under the Build Canada Homes umbrella. It would enable non-profits, church groups and other organizations to bring their land to bear in helping to solve the housing crisis in the country. That matters. Federal land is one of the most underleveraged assets we have in addressing the housing supply gap, and the legislation would begin to change that.
The arguments that one could make against the bill are predictable, and they deserve a substantive response. We will hear and have already heard that this would be yet another federal bureaucracy, that the government would be inserting itself where it does not belong and that builders build homes, not bureaucrats. I would say with the greatest of respect that this framing misunderstands what Build Canada Homes is designed to do.
Build Canada Homes would not be competing with the private sector. It is not designed to replace builders, developers or market mechanisms that have an important role to play in housing supply. It is designed to go where the market on its own has demonstrated it will not go: deeply affordable housing, non-market housing, supportive and transitional housing, housing for indigenous communities and housing in places and for populations where the financial returns do not attract the scale of private capital that other markets do. This is not government overreach. It is government doing what only government can do.
I want to point out something concrete, because I think this debate benefits from moving from principle to evidence. Last month, Build Canada Homes and my province, the province of British Columbia, announced a partnership that I think illustrates exactly what this model is capable of. Through that agreement, Build Canada Homes committed $170 billion in capital, which in turn unlocked $640 million in provincial investment through BC Housing.
Together, that partnership will deliver over 700 shovel-ready and supportive transitional homes, with construction beginning in the next 12 months, alongside at least 400 affordable rental homes using B.C.'s DASH program, Digitally Accelerated Standardized Housing, which uses prefab Canadian components to reduce costs and construction timelines simultaneously. It is one federal investment and multiple times its value in leveraged provincial dollars. It is over 1,000 homes built using innovative Canadian construction methods on a timeline that would not have been achievable under the old model.
This is the logic of the legislation made real, and it is not an isolated example. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
