Build Canada Homes Act

An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes

Sponsor

Gregor Robertson  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-20s:

C-20 (2022) Law Public Complaints and Review Commission Act
C-20 (2021) An Act to amend the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act
C-20 (2020) Law An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures
C-20 (2016) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2016-17

Votes

June 10, 2026 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes
June 9, 2026 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

This bill establishes "Build Canada Homes" as a new federal Crown corporation tasked with consolidating housing initiatives, leveraging federal lands, and partnering with stakeholders to accelerate affordable housing construction. Debate focuses on whether the measure will improve administrative effectiveness or merely create unnecessary government bureaucracy.

Liberal

  • Establishing Build Canada Homes: The party supports establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to provide the operational autonomy, financial tools, and flexibility needed to address the housing crisis at scale.
  • Fostering multi-sector partnerships: This legislation centralizes federal housing initiatives, allowing the agency to act as a developer and financier while streamlining collaboration between government levels, private developers, and non-profit stakeholders.
  • Prioritizing Canadian industry: The bill integrates the "buy Canadian" strategy by prioritizing domestic materials like lumber and steel, while supporting the skilled trades to ensure that housing investments also strengthen the national economy.
  • Addressing diverse community needs: Speakers highlight that the agency addresses unique regional challenges by tailoring affordability to local incomes and supporting specific projects for rural centers, seniors, and indigenous communities.

Conservative

  • Oppose redundant housing bureaucracy: Conservatives oppose Bill C-20, arguing it creates a redundant fourth federal housing bureaucracy that adds administrative layers and executive costs without providing clear targets, timelines, or performance indicators for home construction.
  • Minimal impact on housing supply: Members highlight Parliamentary Budget Officer findings that the new Crown corporation would only contribute 5,000 homes annually, representing just 1% of the government's promised targets and failing to address the true scale of the crisis.
  • Critique of rebranding existing projects: The party criticizes the government for using the legislation to rebrand existing Canada Lands Company projects, asserting that substantive progress is stalled by regulatory delays, permitting bottlenecks, and a focus on promotional aesthetics over actual construction.
  • Proposed alternative housing solutions: The Conservatives advocate for cutting the GST on new homes under $1.3 million, tying federal infrastructure funding to municipal building targets, and removing capital gains taxes on reinvestments in new housing construction.

NDP

  • Criticizes private sector reliance: The NDP argues the bill over-relies on private developers and market incentives, claiming that billions in funding should instead support public community housing to ensure true affordability for Canadians.
  • Demands accountability and targets: Jenny Kwan highlights the lack of measurable targets and performance benchmarks, criticizing the government for rejecting an amendment that would define affordability as 30% or less of a person's income.
  • Favors non-market housing: The party advocates for large-scale investment in public and co-op housing, calling for policies to end the financialization of housing and protect renters from renovictions and market-driven price hikes.
  • Focuses on accessibility: The NDP stresses that increasing housing supply must specifically address the needs of vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, rather than assuming that generic market units will solve the accessibility crisis.

Bloc

  • Conditional support for the bill: The party supports the bill due to the severe housing crisis and a specific agreement with Quebec that respects its legislative framework and jurisdictional priorities.
  • Concerns regarding jurisdictional encroachment: Members express concern that a new federal structure may encroach on Quebec’s jurisdiction over housing, arguing instead for direct funding transfers without federal interference or conditions.
  • Criticism of administrative inefficiency: The Bloc questions the need for a new entity alongside the CMHC, arguing that replacing functioning programs with new structures has delayed the construction of essential housing.
  • Promotion of the forestry sector: The party advocates for the prioritization of Canadian wood in construction projects to support the forestry sector, which faces significant challenges from international tariffs and a lack of support.

Green

  • Administrative focus over action: The bill merely transitions a special operating agency into a Crown corporation without establishing concrete targets or timelines to solve the housing crisis, rendering it largely ineffective in its current form.
  • Redundancy of new corporation: The party questions the necessity of creating a new entity, arguing that the government should instead properly fund and utilize the existing Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to deliver housing.
  • Lack of clear accountability: Concerns remain regarding the absence of a designated minister responsible for the project, which risks creating an opaque governance structure without direct accountability for housing outcomes.
  • Failure to treat emergency: Stressing that the housing crisis is a national emergency, the party calls for greater political will and immediate action to house vulnerable citizens instead of focusing on legislative reorganization.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I apologize for not being able to answer in French.

I think it gives, first, the financial tools. There is $13 billion seeded in it, so it has a lot of financial capability. It has the necessary vehicles, whether that is using CMHC or its own funding, the new building code with pre-approved designs, and encouraging modular design and working with modular providers. These are the types of tools that give it the assets and capabilities to move much more quickly and much more efficiently, and also to innovate in the industry in a time when sometimes the private sector is a little hesitant to do that. That is the ability it has, and as a Crown corporation, it would have more power than a special body.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price.

For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The affordability measurement is, I think, 30% of pre-tax income of a household, as a means of affordability. That is the test case, so it varies, obviously.

In areas where perhaps housing costs are lower, there might be less of a need for Build Canada Homes, but I think that in most cases, Canadians are feeling the pinch in having to pay a lot more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing. The goal is to build the type of housing for which people do not have to pay more than 30% of their household income.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Mike Moffatt, who is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the housing crisis. He comments on the program, saying, “Canada has a substantial shortage of three-bedroom and larger homes, and the need for our cities to densify, [but this program's] prioritization of small, low-rise homes is a peculiar choice.”

Why is the government making a peculiar choice to help build the wrong type of houses, not what Canadians are looking for?

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with that. When Build Canada Homes makes its judgments, including for the 1,100 homes that are being built in British Columbia, it uses a varied metric of all types of housing, such as three-bedroom units in these buildings, two-bedroom, one-bedroom and accessible units. It is designed and built for a mosaic of the families that need them. If that needs to be adjusted, I would welcome the Conservatives' comments at committee to make sure that Build Canada Homes does that.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. As we are here to discuss third reading of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, I have been sort of reflecting a bit. Of course, I have spoken on this issue a few times. I have spoken on housing many times in the House of Commons, in committee and certainly around the country. I guess it is no secret that I spent most of my adult life in local government, in municipal politics. I have sat in municipal council chambers and planning committee meetings, and I have also worked with a lot of local builders and understand the process they have to go through to get things approved.

During my time as a mayor, I devoted an awful lot of time trying to speed up processes, and when things got stalled about 10 years ago, I was part of the charge at our district council to cut development charges by 50%. We were thinking ahead back then. Now, of course, here we are still talking about the development charges in this country. I guess if there is one thing I would regret from my time there, it is that I did not change the systems well enough. I worked within them to keep things moving, but after I left, things slowed down again a bit, I think. It would have been good if I had done things to change the process.

If we fast-forward, we are now here in this place. I thought that, in a time of crisis, this place might work in such a way that we would see what the problems that created the crisis were and that we would work together to find a way to clear the bottlenecks that make it harder and more expensive to build homes.

However, if we look at Bill C-20 today, I have to say I find my patience is a little worn. We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is actively compounding. It is getting worse every single month for young families and young professionals. Interestingly enough, I think it is also getting worse for seniors. We probably do not talk enough about seniors and how the housing crisis affects them. If people cannot afford to buy, that means they cannot afford to get into the market, which means the market is not healthy. This means, for the people who were planning to use the equity built up in their home to help fund their retirement, if they cannot afford to sell, they are kind of trapped there. We need movement in this system. This is something that affects all generations, not just young people, but that is mostly who we talk about.

After all the debates and the discussion in this place, it is really frustrating that the government's response to this crisis of bureaucracy, pace, process and fees is the creation of a brand new, multi-billion-dollar federal bureaucracy called the Build Canada Homes corporation. For the record, I just want to make sure all Canadians know that I am not talking about a new agency. I am talking about the fourth federal housing agency. We are all familiar with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the work it does. It was created right after the Second World War, and it did miraculous things by getting things out of the way and just getting things built. We solved that housing crisis then in about 10 years. We also have, of course, the Canada Lands Company, which was created and actually does development. It uses federal lands to develop. I hear the members opposite talking about how this Build Canada Homes agency is going to build on federal lands, even though there already is one doing that.

We are at a point of real crisis in our country on the housing file. I think people maybe thought that, when they elected this new Prime Minister, there was going to be some kind of shift from the past. They were promised this technocratic competence, a sort of practical delivery. We were told that we were going to get this economic mastermind. He has been the governor of a couple of banks, such as the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We thought we were going to get this leader who would move past the superficial politics of the past and bring this cold, hard managerial excellence to federal operations.

Instead, though, it has actually been a bit of a disappointment, a bit of an illusion, I would say. What we see now is the style over substance that we had with the previous government. I can give examples. The first one would be that, like clockwork, on Monday mornings, the Prime Minister puts on a nice, new, clean hard hat, puts on a fancy, brand new, high-visibility vest, and he goes out into the suburbs of Ottawa and stands in front of a housing construction project for a nice photo op.

I have to say that the Prime Minister looks like he is straight out of central casting. He looks really good in that get-up. It looks really exciting, because the image says that the Liberals are getting things done, that they are building. The staging is really immaculate. If members have not seen it, I encourage them to take a look. It is really good stuff. He holds these press conferences, but the interesting thing about press conferences, photo ops, talking points and bureaucracy is that they do not get homes built. They do not pour concrete. As it turns out, posing with a golden shovel does not get a roof over a family's head.

The hard truth is that, while the Prime Minister is out there modelling safety gear for his communications team, actual housing starts in this country, which we are studying at the human resources committee, are declining. They are declining at a time when the first federal housing Crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does more research than anybody else on housing in this country, has reported that Canada needs to build between 430,000 and 480,000 homes per year just to reach affordability for all homes. We cannot even build 250,000 homes a year, and starts are declining. It is getting worse. This is what I find so incredibly frustrating. I think Canadians find it incredibly frustrating as well.

At committee we looked at the actual structural design of this bill and this agency. We asked housing experts to come and tell us what they thought, and they exposed the reality. Do not get me wrong. We brought in some of the sharpest minds on this. There were builders and experts. Dr. Mike Moffatt was mentioned, who is a well-known expert on this file. Of course, everyone is very polite at committee, because that is what we do. We are polite. However, when we strip away all the polite language and the niceties at committee, their collective verdict was actually kind of devastating. Maybe the Liberal members did not hear this, but I heard over and again that if it were up to them, they would never have created this fourth federal housing agency.

As it turns out, Canada does not suffer from a shortage of housing agencies. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have the Canada Lands Company, which develops on federal land. At the very time that Canada needs less government bureaucracy, costs, processes and painful work to get permission to build a house in this country, the government has responded with more bureaucracy. We saw the limits of this approach even with the launch of this thing. Everyone remembers, I am sure, when the Liberals proudly announcing the first six projects that were going to be done under the Build Canada Homes banner on federal lands. It was very exciting. It was evidence that they were hitting the ground running. Even before they turned it into a Crown corporation, it was an agency of the government. There were six new projects. It was so exciting. There was great fanfare. As it turns out, there were really good photo ops and staging. I will tell members that they really looked good. However, the truth is that those six projects they announced were already well under way by the second federal Crown corporation called the Canada Lands Company. It already had the land. It had already done a lot of the planning. Some of the units had already been built on some of these sites. They were presented as this proof that Build Canada Homes was going to develop faster on federal lands. Build Canada Homes did none of those things. What it did was adopt projects that were already years in the making and already well under way.

If the Liberals slap a new corporate logo on the side of a train that has left a station and is moving down the track and then claim they built the engine, that is ridiculous. It is rebranding. They have rebranded the Canada Lands Company projects and called them Build Canada Homes projects. We are supposed to celebrate that because apparently it is building more homes, when really all they have done is slapped a new logo on it.

If the Prime Minister really wanted to accelerate federal land development, he could expand the existing mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is an agency that has broad legislative authority. In 2017, it was handed the bulk of the government's national housing strategy to deliver programs. It was not really used to delivering direct programs anymore, but it scaled up and got things going, and for years delivered on these various different programs.

However, instead of expanding the mandate or giving new directions to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which is already actively doing development, the Prime Minister has created a whole new parallel executive suite with new corporate rules.

It has been a year. The Liberal government has built no homes, yet here we are celebrating. Not only have we created a new agency, but now we are going to jam through a piece of legislation that turns that new agency into a federal Crown corporation, as I pointed out, the third federal Crown corporation. I still do not know why we are celebrating that. The truth is the failure goes even deeper than just the administrative burden of this new thing. Experts like Mike Moffatt told the HUMA committee that they would not have done this either. At the same time, one of the problems with what the government has created is that there is a staggering lack of any concrete targets, clear definitions or binding timelines.

Everybody should think about this for a second. This is a brand new fourth federal housing agency, the third new federal Crown corporation for housing. It has been given $13 billion and there are zero targets for how many units it is supposed to get done. The government says it is going to focus on non-market housing. I asked CMHC about this just the other day. It is the leading researcher on housing. CMHC told us how many units we need to get built in this country. It pointed out that 95% of housing in this country is market housing and 5% is non-market housing.

I asked CMHC about this. It is interesting. It does not seem to have any targets. I asked whether the government had had a conversation with CMHC or its research department about maybe what their targets should be. The president and CEO of CMHC said they had not had those discussions. I asked if CMHC had done any research to send the government some targets. I realize it has taken employees from CMHC, so now maybe CMHC does different things, but it still does research. Maybe it could advise on how many non-market housing units the country actually needs. It has not done that.

Of course, I asked the minister here, just moments ago, whether he had talked to CMHC and its research department about whether it had done any analysis of just how many units needed to be built.

Interestingly enough, the CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a comment about how he did not know what their target would be, but that they had a certain amount of money. I said, “Wait a second, this is just based on how much money they have. Shouldn't this be based on the need for non-market housing?” Colleagues may be surprised, but I did not really get an answer to that question because, of course, it is Build Canada Homes. It is the Prime Minister's baby. Everyone is very excited about it and we do not ask too many questions, even though we have a situation today where a housing crisis has been getting worse. The government's response is to create a fourth federal housing agency and give it $13 billion.

The minister stood here and said the goal is to get as many homes built as possible. Well, I do not find that very promising for Canadians, who are desperately hoping that one day maybe they might own a house. I look at all these pages down here. They are nice, bright, young people who may want to own a house one day. I worry about that.

All we get from the government is more platitudes and more billions of dollars, with no targets. How do we measure success if the government has no goals and sets no targets? It is classic. There is that vast research department there that has advised every agency, the industry, the banks and the government on housing data. The government does not want to talk to CMHC. It is not interested in that. It is not interested in setting targets.

In fact, the minister referred to a target for the Build Canada Homes corporation. He said it was just a random number. He did not like that. We got nothing. Obviously, he does not respect the work of CMHC and the research it does. I was talking about using those experts, who have done more analysis on the housing market in Canada than anybody, to help them come up with a number. Right now, we have this new agency. We are rushing through this bill because it needs to be a Crown corporation, because somehow that is going to make it better.

I have talked to private and non-profit builders across Canada who already have applications in to this Build Canada Homes apparatus. Interestingly enough, with CMHC, when they had this program, there was an apparatus where builders could follow their application online and see how they were doing. They could reach out to get information about the status of their application. Curiously, there is no such thing with Build Canada Homes, so builders are sitting there waiting and wondering what the status of their file is.

They do not know, really, what criteria will be used to adjudicate their file. They do not really know when a decision will be made. There is no way to track the progress. I have to say, as a former mayor who has dealt with this on the front lines, that this uncertainty, this lack of transparency, is a killer. It is a killer of housing development. That investment requires some level of certainty. When a builder does not know where their application stands in the process, capital sits idle. Land loans accumulate interest, because one has to borrow money for the land. Subcontractors cannot be booked.

By building an agency with no timelines, no targets and no tracking framework, the government has not just created yet another bureaucracy at a time when we need to reduce bureaucracy; it has actually fixed in place this paralysis by process. It has institutionalized the bureaucracy, and we just do not know when this process is going to be done.

Homes are built by builders, not by boards and certainly not by prime ministers and photo ops. The housing experts who came to our HUMA committee made it very clear that they would not have built this agency. The tools were there. They existed, and yet here we are. We have wasted an entire year, as the crisis gets worse, adding a fourth federal layer of bureaucracy and administration. It does not solve a crisis that is rooted in regulatory delays.

If we do not fix time, we do not fix costs. Bill C‑20 does not fix time. It simply creates an unaccountable gatekeeper and makes builders wait in the dark. I call it the illusion of competence. We do not need a government that acts like a public relations firm. We need a government that focuses on the quiet, very unglamorous work of clearing the path, eliminating regulatory friction and restoring basic administrative competence. We need to get out of the way of builders and stop subsidizing the bureaucracy.

If we stopped subsidizing and creating new agencies and new bureaucracies with billions of dollars, maybe then we would have the resources left over to invest in those important social and supportive housing needs that exist in our country. Maybe if we spent some time talking to the researchers, to get real data on what is needed in this country in terms of the number of social, supportive and non-market housing units, we could create some targets. We could have given the CMHC the tools it needed to make sure that this was happening.

Instead, we spent one year creating another bureaucracy, and here we are. The crisis is worse than ever, and the minister has the gall to stand in the House and say that the goal is to get as many built as possible. Liberals say not to worry and to just trust them, because it has only been 11 years and they have created strategies. They have another strategy they want to create for housing for young people specifically.

Canadians cannot live on strategies and proclamations and photo ops alone. They need homes. They need governments to stop getting in the way and to reduce the bureaucracy, the cost, the fees and the taxes.

This was an opportunity for the government. I thought that maybe this was a Prime Minister who understood the file and understood the issue, that we need to use federal dollars and leverage federal infrastructure investment to get results at the local level, working with provinces and working with cities to get the job done, and to get out of the way. There is absolutely none of that. All we have now is a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with $13 billion, and anyone's guess is as good as mine as to how many units are going to get built. It is a huge disappointment. It is the illusion of action, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he was a mayor before being an MP. There was a program that was very helpful for municipalities. It was the housing accelerator fund, just like the Build Canada Homes program. This is what their leader was telling them. This article says, “Conservative MPs frustrated after [their leader] bars them from promoting housing fund”. The Conservative leader “instructed Conservative MPs to stop advocating on behalf of municipalities in their ridings who want to obtain funds [for housing].”

The member said that he was a mayor. Was he one of the members who were told not to send a letter of support for a housing project in his municipality?

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference between that member and me is that I recognize the importance of getting things done. Conservatives have proposed all along that we use federal dollars as leverage to make sure that municipalities are getting the job done. I will acknowledge that, in reality, the housing accelerator fund has been useful in some small and rural communities that are already doing really good things. However, in larger centres, where the epicentre of the crisis is, like the GTA and Toronto or the Lower Mainland and Vancouver, in those areas, they have used that money and they have given billions of dollars to cities on promises that they will be better. It has been a failure. It has been another classic Liberal situation where they give a whole bunch of money to cities, have a photo op and pretend that homes get built. It did not work.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs.

What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is a crisis, in many ways created by the current government. It has been building for years, I grant the Liberals that, but their solutions are, in fact, what the member said: They are building new bureaucracies, creating new agencies, and they give money out based on promises from cities that they will be better. As a case in point, the City of Toronto got the most money of anyone in the housing accelerator fund, $471 million. The Liberals gave it the money and made the deal, and then the City of Toronto, immediately after the ink was dry on that deal, raised its development charges by 40%.

Do the Liberals not understand that rising costs make it less affordable and harder to buy a home? They did not get it, and they still do not get it. They are creating more bureaucracy. They are handing money with photo ops, and it is not getting the job done. They are completely ignoring that they are now a big part of the problem.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”.

CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always has incredibly insightful questions. That is a very good point.

In fact, what has happened with respect to development charges is that the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges, but not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program. A local municipality can say, “Yes, we are good; we like our development charges at $100,000 a lot”, and that means nothing happens. Those development charges stay high and no results happen. It is all based on whether the municipality agrees to reduce its development charges.

Conversely, the Conservative plan would be to leverage municipalities to reduce their fees, and to assist them, absolutely, with the costs of housing-enabling infrastructure, but it would be based on results, not on hopes of things getting better.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:20 p.m.

Trois-Rivières Québec

Liberal

Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on Bill C‑20 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He asked good questions. We really felt that he truly wanted to understand.

After listening to him today, however, I have to wonder whether we were on the same committee or heard from the same witnesses.

I find the premise of the member's speech a bit disingenuous. We heard the committee witnesses, including promoters and developers, talk about how BCH would help, because increasing the number of affordable homes would ease the pressure on the market. We heard, including from the head of CMHC, about how BCH and CMHC are collaborating and how their work is complementary. Most important, the CMHC CEO said that while CMHC does have the legislative mandate to do some of the work that BCH will be doing, it is not set up for it. It would take it quite some time to ramp up to get to that point. I am just wondering if my colleague can really stand here today and say that none of these things were heard at committee.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am a big fan of that member. We have done some great work together. However, I think she has been afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear.

There is no question that builders and developers said they would use Build Canada Homes and work with it, that they have to work with the cards they are dealt by this federal government and they are going to work with them. They also said they would not have created this agency if it were up to them. They did say those words. The fact is that all the member heard was that they love Build Canada Homes, they want to work with it and they want to do these things.

I also heard the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do. The interesting thing about this is that, in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy, the CMHC was not set up to deliver that either, but it scaled up and did it. This is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan. They gave the housing project to CMHC in 2017, which scaled up, but now all of a sudden it is incapable of scaling up to deliver this stuff. I do not know why we have a fourth federal housing bureaucracy.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned taxes and costs from the government. The member has already spoken about that. The government has other tools. Instead of setting up a bureaucracy to spend and waste money, the government could be doing other things. One of the things that I would like the member's comments on is building codes. It has been estimated that the latest round of building codes created by the government agencies will potentially add $115,000 to the cost of an average house in Canada.

I wonder if maybe changing the building codes or keeping in mind the cost of things that are happening in the building codes might be an even easier, simpler way to reduce the cost of housing in our country.