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

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

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that whenever we bring forward real, tangible solutions that Canadians and stakeholder groups are bringing forward to us, the member opposite hurls insults about the last Conservative government from 10 years ago. Canadians want us to be serious. They want us to act like adults and have a real conversation about this crisis within the country. They do not want to look in the rear-view mirror; they want to look forward. They believe we can solve this issue, and I do not want to play partisan politics with the member opposite. I would rather have an adult conversation and provide real solutions for Canadians, because that is what they expect of us.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois share my colleague's concerns about the centralizing and bureaucratic nature of Build Canada Homes. Of course we want housing to be built and we want the federal government to invest.

I will give an example. There is a program from the Quebec government in my riding, but the situation is somewhat similar. The cost of modular homes was calculated, and the same rule was applied all across Quebec. However, the government did not take into account the fact that, in the Gaspé, house parts need to be delivered. As a result, everyone who was accepted for the program is now short on funds to finance the construction.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the bill seeks to give Build Canada Homes the power to carry out construction work? Is there not once again a risk that Ottawa will impose a one-size-fits-all solution and think it can oversee housing construction?

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel like we see this in a lot of the Liberals' policy, their standing in the ivory tower and wanting to take credit for all kinds of things that they never have anything to do with. We need to respect municipalities and provinces and the solutions they bring forward. I think that is the best approach. These overarching, large federal policies oftentimes do not make sense, and I definitely feel that in my part of the country, where I come from. I do not believe that is effective policy that manages the diverse country we live in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment a little more on this adding of bureaucracy. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have the Canada Lands Company, and we have the first-time homebuyers' programs. We have a number of federal government programs in place already.

What we said during the election was that it was oftentimes municipalities that were standing in the way. I am wondering if the member has heard anything from the government on what it is going to do to incentivize municipalities to get out of the way so we can build more homes in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point, and I think that is consistently what we have been saying about Bill C-20. It never ceases to amaze me that more bureaucracy is, somehow, going to get solved by another housing bureaucracy. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we need modernization at the provincial level and at many of the municipal levels. I think if we tied federal infrastructure dollars, those conversations could start to happen. There could be collaboration without adding all kinds of expenditure to the taxpayer. I think that would be a much better approach.

Even CMHC says we should use existing levers. It is not just us but people who understand this issue intimately. I absolutely agree with the comments that my colleague has made on that issue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple in their thirties here in London both work hard. They did what they were told to do. They saved. They planned. They imagined buying a home and starting a family in the city where they grew up. However, over the past several years, home prices surged far beyond what they could realistically keep up with. The down payment required moved further and further out of reach. The life they pictured for themselves, a home, stability and children growing up near grandparents, began to feel uncertain. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot.

The government's own housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its latest housing market outlook, projects that prices are expected to continue rising in the years ahead because we are not building enough homes to meet demand. That is the reality facing families in London, and that is what this bill must address. The housing crisis did not happen because the Liberal government failed to expand its role in housing enough. It happened because housing supply did not keep pace with the surge in demand created by government policy.

Over the last decade, the government dramatically increased immigration levels without ensuring that the housing supply could keep up. The result was predictable: Demand surged, supply lagged and prices were pushed beyond the reach of young Canadians. Housing capacity was never aligned with immigration policy. This is a supply and demand problem driven by inadequate housing construction and immigration levels that were never aligned with housing capacity. Any economist will tell us that what happens when demand rises while supply lags behind is that prices go up.

On top of that, the cost of building has risen sharply across the country. According to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, government taxes and regulatory costs now make up nearly one-third of the price of a new home. That was not always the case. Over the last 25 years, those taxes and regulatory costs have increased by more than 700%. Development charges, fees and regulatory levies are not marginal add-ons. In many communities, they represent a substantial portion of the final sale price before a family ever receives the keys.

Layer upon layer of government-imposed costs and approval delays are built directly into what buyers are forced to pay. Builders are telling us clearly that current cost pressures and regulatory burdens are making it harder, not easier, to bring new homes to market. Housing starts are projected to decline in the coming years, and the share of homes intended for ownership has fallen.

For years, Conservatives warned that the housing market was heading in the wrong direction. When the Liberals finally acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, their default response, under the previous prime minister and with the support of the NDP, was the same response we have seen time and again when challenges arise. It was to expand the role of government, with more programs, more spending and more federal control. However, affordability declined, home ownership fell and confidence was eroded. Canadians do not need more announcements; they need more homes.

Now we are presented with Bill C-20. At its core, this legislation would significantly expand the role of the federal government by turning it into a direct participant in the housing market, acting much like a national developer with broad authority to finance, acquire and manage housing projects. Instead of focusing on removing barriers so that builders can build, it places the government deeper into the business of building itself. This approach is not unique. We are hearing similar arguments from voices within the NDP leadership race, suggesting that government should enter other sectors as well, whether that is grocery stores, banking or telecommunications. It reflects a growing faith that whenever a market struggles, the answer is for government to take over.

After seeing first-hand how overwhelmed and inefficient parts of the federal system can be, I can tell members that this faith is misplaced. Since I took office, our constituency office has helped thousands of residents navigate basic federal services, many of whom come to us as a last resort after being unable to get timely answers or assistance through the system itself.

That experience has made one thing clear: Expanding the size of government does not improve its performance. Canadians do not need government-run grocery chains, and they certainly do not need government acting as a national housing developer. Canadians need conditions that allow supply to increase, competition to work and costs to come down.

The central question is this: Will expanding the federal government's role as a developer lower the cost of building homes in London and increase supply at the scale we need?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that Build Canada Homes will add roughly 5,000 homes per year. The minister has confirmed there are no top-line production targets set. Meanwhile, the government's own outlook projects that housing starts will decline over the next several years.

There is a gap between rhetoric and results. When something is not working, adding another layer does not fix the underlying problem. After nearly three decades working in information technology, something I learned first-hand is that when a system fails, it is not solved by adding more complexity. One needs to troubleshoot what is broken, remove the bottlenecks, correct the misalignment and then rebuild it so that it works. That mindset is why I entered public service. What fixes the problem starts with identifying what is actually broken and then fixing it. Conservatives want to work with anyone in the House to restore affordability, but that has to start with an honest look into why young Canadians have been priced out of home ownership.

That begins with first principles. If housing is unaffordable because supply is constrained and costs are inflated by policy, then the solution must be to remove those constraints and reduce those costs. Federal tools should be used to align incentives with results. Infrastructure funding can be tied to measurable increases in housing approval so that municipalities are encouraged to speed up permitting and reduce unnecessary obstacles. Development charges and other local levies that are driving up final sale prices must be addressed. That goal should be simple. When more houses are approved and barriers come down, communities see tangible benefits.

At the federal level, tax policy also matters. Reducing the GST on new homes would directly lower the cost to buyers and improve project viability for builders. Unlocking private capital and removing disincentives to reinvest in housing would allow the market to respond at scale. Affordability is not only about the price of a home but also about the ability to save for one. When families face rising daily expenses driven by punishing policies such as the industrial carbon tax, it becomes harder and harder to put money aside for a down payment. High energy, transportation and input costs ripple through the economy and the cost of building as well. Restoring affordability means tackling both sides of the equation, increasing supply and lowering the policy-driven costs that make homes and everyday life more expensive.

Housing is too important for structural experiments that do not confront the underlying drivers of unaffordability. The young couple in London does not care which department holds the file. They care about whether they can put down roots, plan for the future and raise their children in the city they love. Let us fix what is actually broken. Let us remove the barriers holding back supply. Let us deliver results, not just rhetoric, because families in London deserve more than another expansion of federal control over housing. They deserve a home.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two different things here. The member opposite mentioned the need to speed up housing writ large and to address a lot of the barriers that are at the municipal level. In fact, we have programs that are doing just that. One called the housing accelerator fund is helping municipalities speed up their permitting systems, and I have seen its impact across my riding.

Today, we are talking about Build Canada Homes, which is an agency to build below-market units. We have a major need for this right across the country. I know the leader of the official opposition has called this Soviet-style housing, which he does not support, but this agency is meant for things like supportive or transitional housing for low-income folks.

I am wondering if the member agrees that this is a need across the country and something that the federal government should be involved in supporting.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that I feel that wanting housing built and supporting this bill are also two different things. This bill would expand the federal government into the role of a national developer. It would not reduce development charges. It would not speed up approvals. It would not align immigration with housing capacity. It would not lower the tax burden on new homes.

If the problem is cost and supply, expanding government control does not fix what is broken. We are ready to work with real supply reforms. This bill is not that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take a moment to congratulate the Citadelles de Rouyn‑Noranda on making it to the finals of the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament. It was a remarkable achievement. Indeed, my nephew Renaud was among those who participated in the tournament. I want to tell everyone that I am very proud. It was a heartbreaking overtime loss, just like Team Canada. Still, it is an experience that makes us proud and that will inspire the youth of Rouyn‑Noranda.

As for Build Canada Homes, there is something that still baffles me. It is the federal government's stubborn determination to build only in already populated areas where housing already exists. These programs are not going out to the regions. There is nothing in the bill that gives me the sense that there is a desire to decentralize and move closer to rural regions. Build Canada Homes has so many criteria that, at the end of the day, decision-making is still centralized. The government is not connecting with people's needs, particularly in rural areas.

Is my colleague concerned about that too?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite's family celebrating the win in Quebec.

With regard to the bill, the government absolutely has a role. The government sets tax policy, controls immigration levels, transfers infrastructure funding and sets regulatory frameworks. The question is not whether the government acts. It is whether the government acts in ways that remove barriers or add new layers. We believe a government should remove obstacles to building, not compete with builders.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw to the attention of my colleague that Build Canada Homes is a big bureaucratic program. It has been around for six months and, according to its own website, it has not finished one single home.

I am wondering what my colleague would suggest as the Conservative solution to building houses without this huge bureaucracy surrounding it.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when nearly one-third of the cost of a new home now comes from government taxes and regulatory costs and those costs have increased by more than 700% over 25 years, we cannot ignore the structural drivers of unaffordability. Reducing the GST on new homes, aligning infrastructure funding with approvals and removing policy-driven barriers would allow builders to build at scale. We want more homes. We want to make it easier and more affordable to build them. That is how we restore affordability for young families in London and across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe is a really important issue. One of the things I really like about this issue is that it clearly demonstrates the contrast between the Conservative Party of Canada and where it is on the political spectrum today, and the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, as we develop, promote and encourage good, sound public policy.

That is what Bill C-20 is all about. It is sound public policy. Canadians would benefit from the passage of Bill C-20. Listening to today's Conservative Party, a party that, as I have articulated in the past, is pretty far to the right, it is hard to imagine what Canada would look like today.

We have had Progressive Conservative prime ministers, from Diefenbaker to Brian Mulroney, who actually contributed to the building up of non-profit housing. There are literally tens of thousands of non-profit, affordable housing units across Canada that exist today because of the government, whether it was the federal government, provincial government or municipal government, and the efforts of indigenous communities. If it were not for that direct involvement, we would not have many aspects of affordable housing today.

If we were to follow the leader of the Conservative Party, I suspect we would have very few housing co-ops in Canada today. People need to listen to what the Conservative members of today are actually saying. They like the slogan “Just get out of the way.” They talk about it a lot.

I was criticized a bit earlier because I was reflecting too far in the past. The leader of the Conservative Party previously sat in the government caucus and was the minister responsible for housing in Canada. That is when the leader of the Conservative Party had his hands on the public purse. He was the one responsible for building non-profit housing and supporting it.

Six houses were built in total. It was amazingly deficient, if I can put it that way. He was arguably the worst minister responsible for housing in Canadian history. Now he is the leader of the Conservative Party and has convinced the far right that the best way the Conservatives can help Canadians on the housing file is to just tell the Liberals to get out of the way.

I have talked to mayors, including the mayor of Winnipeg. I have talked to the premier of the province of Manitoba and to many others stakeholders and indigenous leaders. I can say that they want the federal government to be involved in housing. This should be of no surprise to anyone who is following the debate today with regard to Bill C-20. This is something that has been important from day one.

On April 28, 2025, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. I believe we had over 70 new Liberal members of Parliament, more than any other political party. Our new Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, brought forward a throne speech. Less than a month after the election, a throne speech was delivered to Parliament by the King of Canada, because there was a great deal of concern in regard to Canadian sovereignty, members will recall. I will not get into that aspect of the debate, but the King was here, and he delivered a historical throne speech.

I would like to quote part of the throne speech just to remind all members exactly what was said within a month of our new Prime Minister's assuming his role after the election:

...the Government will undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of home building while creating an entirely new housing industry – using Canadian technology, Canadian skilled workers, and Canadian lumber. The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes. This mission-driven organization will act to accelerate the development of new affordable housing. It will invest in the growth of the prefabricated and modular housing industry. And it will provide significant financing to affordable home builders.

Members should really listen to this part here. This is what the King had to say: “The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes.”

What are we talking about today? We are actually talking about Bill C-20, which is the build Canada homes act. We have a Prime Minister who is fulfilling an election platform campaign promise that was put into the throne speech delivered by the King, and today we have the legislation.

The Conservatives, true to form, according to the guru, the leader of the Conservative Party, do not believe there is any need for the federal government to get directly involved in housing. As a direct result, I would suggest that the Conservatives are wrong in the biggest way.

Where are the progressive or red Conservative Party members, the individuals who, I suggest, understand and appreciate that there is a role for the federal government? Surely to goodness they would recognize that Bill C-20 is a bill that would help Canadians in every region of our great nation, yet the far right continues to dominate the Conservative Party today. That is why Conservatives are opposing this legislation. I find that unfortunate, because the legislation itself has demonstrated very clearly that it can and would be effective.

We are talking about the establishment of a Crown corporation that, upon royal assent, has already been budgeted, I believe, at $13 billion, which is already in the 2025 budget, so the money is there. Many of the stakeholders are very much aware of it and are eager to see Build Canada Homes fully up and running as a Crown corporation. A Crown corporation is good. It would then be at arm's length and would be more permanent. Members of the Bloc ask, “Well, is it going to be there into the future?” Having it be a Crown corporation, I think, would make a very powerful statement. I think it would have a greater ability to deliver on the needs of housing in Canada.

The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has made the determination that there is no need for the government to get engaged or involved. How does that compare to what we hear from the different stakeholders? I wonder, if we were to talk to some of the mayors, premiers, municipality leaders, rural communities, indigenous community leaders, or some of the purpose-driven, non-profit organizations that are looking for partners that want to develop plans to be able to provide low-income housing, what kind of consensus we would find.

I believe that the Prime Minister and the government got it right, because the stakeholders I just referenced, as a whole, understand and appreciate the impact that a Crown corporation could actually have on providing homes and making them more affordable. That is the reason, I would suggest, that today's Conservatives really need to revisit their positioning.

I have asked questions to the members opposite in terms of the issue of filibuster.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!