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 / 1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is another incredibly insightful question from my colleague. He happens to be a builder, and he knows what he is talking about. He has actually built homes, and he understands these changes and what they have done.

The real problem with the building codes process federally is, of course, the process itself. There is a whole process that they go through where they make recommendations to make changes to the code. Then provinces may or may not adopt that. The interesting thing about these code review bodies is that they are populated, mostly, not by electricians or plumbers or carpenters, but by lobbyists and salespeople for the people who manufacture these products. In fact, they do not ever consider what the cost implications are of the changes they are making.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that over the last 10 years, changes made to the building codes have added over $100,000 to the cost of a home. Not all of those things are common-sense, energy efficiency-type things. They have just added more cost, and there has been no consideration by the national building codes or the National Research Council of what that means for the cost of a new home.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, giving a farewell speech in Parliament feels a little like delivering a eulogy at one's own funeral, so if I leave members with anything, let it be my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve and to make a difference, and the unending importance of doing politics differently.

Politics is like pushing a boulder up a hill. All of us feel that at times, I think. It is rewarding and frustrating. It is meaningful progress in one moment and unfinished work at the same time. There are three things that I think matter as we are pushing that boulder uphill. Sometimes it rolls back down on us, obviously, and sometimes we get it to the top or think we have gotten it to the top. We need ambition, and I do not mean ambition in personal title; I mean ambition in ideas. We also need a team. No one accomplishes anything alone, and I would not have accomplished anything over the years without my team.

There is a quote I am reminded of. It says that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, and “Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” I think that in politics, one needs almost unreasonable persistence at times. It does sometimes pay off. I have been lucky to be a part of efforts to deliver progress at times.

There has been stronger climate action and accountability, for my kids and hopefully for our economy, and action to reduce poverty. There have been, with the Canada child benefit, hundreds of kids lifted out of poverty. The guaranteed income supplement is incredibly important for seniors. The Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit, has increased in a significant way, and tens of thousands of workers have been lifted out of poverty. I am lucky to have been part of that advocacy. There is also a new disability benefit that needs to be improved and strengthened, of course.

When I look back over 10 years, this is part of the work we have been able to do together. If we have the courage to reform old age security, we could actually end seniors' poverty without spending a single dollar. I hope future Parliaments get that done.

There has been action to defend competition and protect consumers. Of the many things I have been proud of, one is that CEOs of oligopolies do not like to come to committee when I am there, whether they are CEOs from Rogers, Bell, Stellantis, Facebook, Apple, Google or grocery oligopolies.

There is a story here, because it is incredibly important to work together, where we can, across party lines at committee. I am turning 42 years old next week, but on my birthday a number of years ago, I was so incredibly furious because grocery store CEOs had all been communicating with one another to cut pandemic hero pay at the same time for low-income workers. I tapped out a motion on my phone. We brought the industry committee together, brought the grocery store CEOs to that committee and worked across party lines to deliver recommendations that the government acted on to make sure we criminalized wage-fixing so that what took place cannot take place again.

We have built more housing. I have been part of those efforts and part of advocating. We have gotten to a place where, across party lines, we all understand the need to end restrictive zoning and to get out of the way so the private market can deliver. I think more work still needs to be done to deliver non-market housing and to really and truly treat housing as a home first.

There has been action to protect animals: to end the captivity of whales and dolphins; to ban shark finning and testing on animals, especially cosmetic testing; and to strengthen the Criminal Code against animal abuse. If someone had told me before I was elected that I would be at a press conference beside Jane Goodall and Murray Sinclair, advocating for treating animals humanely, I would not have believed them.

We are treating addiction as a health issue and Canadians as responsible adults. For example, we have legalized cannabis. No, the sky did not fall, and now I am no longer a criminal. Overwhelmingly, we still need to follow through on following the evidence to save lives and truly treat substance use as the health issue that it is, the same way we treat eating disorders, gambling addictions or alcohol addictions.

I have been there for my community. All of us who have served through and since the pandemic have had the frustration and the exhaustion, but also the good fortune, to be there for our communities, delivering for thousands of people and making sure that they are able to access benefits and supports in the most critical time and moments of their life.

I have also been there for my community in probably its most difficult time over 10 years: I was there with the Danforth families, including the Fallon family in the wake of the Danforth shooting. Then I was part of efforts supporting those same families and advocating for sensible gun control.

I can point to my standing up for constituents. I consider myself a pretty good advocate, but an expert in nothing. Constituents who are experts in something or have lived experience have come to me with ideas. I can point to a range of examples, but I would hold up childhood cancer survivor Helena Kirk. I worked hand in hand with her and other advocates, and we were able to deliver tens of millions of dollars for pediatric cancer research and support.

We have been defending human rights and civil liberties, and dying with dignity, of course. Being elected, we were dealing with that issue for the very first time. One of the first moments when I disagreed with the government was to say that I did not think this law was constitutional and that we should fix it. On the Emergencies Act, there was calling out its invocation in an overbroad manner. There was fixing overbroad anti-terrorism legislation from a past Conservative government, and defending international human rights in, hopefully, a consistent way and with a sense of conscience for Rohingya refugees, Uyghurs, Hong Kong democracy activists, Palestinians and others.

To make politics about ideas, in the pandemic, we transitioned from hosting regular town halls to hosting a podcast. I have been lucky to have many colleagues in this place join me for conversations across the aisle to really make politics about ideas. When I think back, it was a promise I made when I was running in the nomination in 2013 and 2014.

I leave with, yes, a sense of accomplishment in some ways but also a sense of unfinished business. I do hope that future Parliaments will take wealth inequality and generational fairness more seriously. I hope they take action to ensure that, in a wealthy country like ours, people will not live in poverty, and all people will live with a core sense of dignity.

I hope there is transformational action to deliver competition. We are a country of oligopolies, but we should not be. I hope that we do see a wartime effort to build housing, transit and clean energy infrastructure, and that we take international peace assistance and co-operation more seriously. We could use more Pearson in this moment.

We all know that this is a job that comes with little job description. It is what we put into it. It is what we make it. I have had some roles, not an unending number, over the years. On the anti-poverty caucus, I had the co-chair role alongside Senator Pate where we advocated for basic income supports and strengthening the social safety net. There was the animal welfare caucus, which I helped found with other Liberal colleagues. I was the 416 caucus chair, and we helped deliver transit and housing for our city. I was chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the team on the Canadian side.

I was also minister of housing, where I was lucky to deliver, for colleagues on all sides of the aisle, housing and building housing faster. It was one of the busiest times of my life, and my wife can attest to this. It was four months, although I will say that I did serve under two prime ministers.

The role I have lived the most, the one I have worked hardest to make a reality, is simply to be a principled voice in Parliament, one who takes ideas seriously, is willing to work across the aisle, acts with integrity, and more than anything, is honest, which is the most important value in this place.

I wrote this a while back, and I believe it to be true. I think we can all agree that no political party represents our views perfectly. We find the party that best represents our views and values, and we engage, debate, and organize to bring our party and country closer to those goals. We push, and in my case, I have seen my role as being to push the government to be the best version of itself. Yes, we disagreed at times but made that disagreement about ideas, and more often than not, with the benefit of time and persistence, there was change.

I will comment on the importance of independence. I was just telling my wife this. In the leadership race in 2023 for the Ontario Liberal leadership, I was in Norfolk County at an event. A woman rolled up in front of the café that I was about to go into for the event. She had all the “F Trudeau” stickers one can imagine. Her pickup truck was decked out. I went in to the event and saw that she had a thick binder of articles about me. I was not really sure how it would end.

I gave my speech, including the ideas I cared about but also the approach to politics I cared about. Afterwards, as I was working table to table, I came to her table. She quickly shut the binder and said, “You know what? I really appreciate what you said about independence. We need more of that in politics.” It strikes me that, when we take a step back, not only do we agree on more than we disagree on, but overwhelmingly across the aisle, we do care about the same approach to politics when we step outside of this place.

When I was first running in the nomination, a 29-year-old who had no idea what I was doing, a friend of mine from law school gave me a book entitled Tragedy in the Commons. I do not know if members have read it, but it is a series of exit interviews from former parliamentarians. They all basically say the same thing. It is a series of laments. They said things such as that when they came to Ottawa, they wanted to make the biggest difference they could on behalf of their community, but when they arrived, they read the canned talking points they were given to read, delivered the prewritten speeches given to them by staffers to deliver and voted how they were told to vote. They did not make the difference they had set out to make.

When I was elected, I was determined to not give an exit interview like that. In the back of my mind, I always kept this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: “We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be.” I actually happen to think it is doubly true in politics. This is my last speech, but when I go back to my first speech, and to judge at the end, one might want to go back to the start, I said at the time that I would stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness and the importance of reasonable disagreement.

If I leave members with anything, it is this message: We should all act how we want this place to be. We need more ideas, more independent thinking and more honesty. Honesty is central to trust, and trust is at the heart of our representative democracy. Amidst the centralization, the pressure and the whips, we should act how we want the House to be.

Yes, I can hear the common reply to this: “But isn't politics a team sport?” First, I would say that we are first and foremost trustees in the public interest, even if it means, yes, the occasional visit to the whip's office. We all win elections as a team, but we should remember why we win elections. We win elections to serve ideas. We do not come up with ideas to serve elections.

The second thing to say is that we are also voices for our home communities, and those home communities are our team too. When I go back to my local grocery store and I see a friend from high school, they are my team. When I go back home and I see the volunteer who knocked doors with me in the snow in 2015, they are my team too.

I just want to say, yes, I have been a very proud member of the Liberal caucus since 2015. I have been more proud to be the representative for Beaches—East York. I want to thank Beaches—East York and everyone back home. I want to thank supporters for everything. I mostly just want to thank Amy and my family, mostly for putting up with me but also for standing beside me.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:35 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

I am going to suggest that we take all the questions and comments first and then provide the hon. member with an opportunity to respond to them all at once.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, in tribute to my colleague, I will share with folks a couple of lessons I have learned in my time. The first is that the power and responsibility granted to a member of Parliament from the centre of a political party are never greater than the power and responsibility granted by our constituents, and the first and foremost role of an MP is to hold the government to account. On that point, I have watched our colleague do that even while sitting in the governing party's caucus, and that takes a spine.

Our colleague has introduced bold private member's legislation that started national conversations and that pushed his party in Parliament to take clear positions on critical issues. Parliament works only when each of us remembers who sent us here. In that, Parliament needs much more envelope pushing and much less quiet complacency. My hope, as our colleague takes his leave of the House, is that the spirit he demonstrated over his decade of service here takes root, with a caveat.

Here is one other lesson I have learned in Parliament. In order to get anything done for our constituents, we have to build consensus. Oftentimes in Parliament, lesson number one and lesson number two are in direct conflict with each other. How do we advance a policy on behalf of our constituency if our party does not want to embrace it, and how do we convince colleagues that our solution or our leadership is in their best interest?

The answer to all these questions is humility, patience, persistence and self-discipline. Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague. I know that my colleague has always had his heart with the people who elected him, and as he leaves the House, colleague to colleague, I wish him this blessing: continuing the journey to find balance with those lessons, which admittedly is something I have to remind myself to fixate on every day.

I also want to thank him for taking risks, pushing himself and earning the right to say that he has walked that path, which frankly few people in this place actually do. In his future endeavours, may he be known as a consensus-building maverick. For that matter, for the sake of our nation, I wish that for all of us.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is sad for me to have to say this to my colleague from Beaches—East York, whom I knew and particularly appreciated at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for several years.

First, if his wife is in the gallery, I would like to take the liberty of telling her that she and my colleague have a lovely kitchen, which we have had the pleasure of seeing many times in committee, and that they also have very beautiful children.

What I will take away from my colleague is his spirit of independence. Independence obviously resonates with me very much. That is one of my motivations for being in politics. I actually wanted to ask him about that, and he talked about it in his speech. Indeed, for me, and just like the member for Calgary Nose Hill or the former NDP member for Windsor West, when we were on the Standing Committee on Industry, we knew that we had truly independent members.

As for my colleague's legacy in the House, I would like to ask him the following question: If we were to create the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith index to measure MPs' degree of independence from their party line, how would that index look right now?

I want to thank Nate, and I hope to see him again soon.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:40 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to say a couple of kind words about my good friend from Beaches—East York.

I will start by saying that it is disappointing. In the last few weeks, this is the third progressive member of Parliament from the government caucus who is leaving this place, especially at a time when we need progressive politics.

I cannot think of another member of Parliament in the history of this country who has fought and worked more to end animal cruelty and stand up for animal rights. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and we all know we have to carry that work forward. We will take his crusade with us.

My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about courage, and I really want to emphasize that. He stood with the NDP well before the supply and confidence agreement on pharmacare. I am disappointed that he does not get to see it exercised in his home province. I hope the government will take that to heart. He stood with my bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to tackle the toxic drug crisis. He was an outlier in his caucus and he stood with us to make sure that we had a plan to respond to the toxic drug crisis. I want to thank him for his support.

I want to highlight one thing, which is his job as a minister. He took it to heart when we asked for support for a pool upgrade in my riding. He understood the need for seniors to have a safe place to exercise and how it was community medicine. He constantly texted me, emailed me, phoned me and checked on the project. He worked so diligently. I was so taken aback by his persistence to try to get something done. It resulted in the single largest federal government investment in mid-Vancouver Island for a recreation facility. My community is grateful.

I hope he will visit my community so that we can celebrate the incredible work he put into our project. I want to thank him for his work and courage, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:45 p.m.

Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about my colleague from Beaches—East York.

I come to this place as a relatively new MP, but I had the privilege of collaborating with the member in my former life, leading a think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University. I greatly appreciated that we had the chance to engage on a number of the ideas he mentioned in his speech, particularly competition policy and responsible technology.

What I especially appreciate about our departing colleague is his ability and commitment to attach thoughtful policy to committed politics. Our colleague is a person of ideas and he is deeply committed to the underlying change that can happen with more attention to those issues.

We collaborated for a brief time on the industry committee. In fact, we had an exchange at the industry committee yesterday with a representative of one of those mega-platforms, which I think summoned the spirit of our departing member for Beaches—East York. In that time, I had the chance to understand his commitment to deep engagement on the issues and why and how it matters to get the details right, to get deep into the weeds of an issue, to call those involved in that issue to account and to be responsible, and to engage more broadly in how these big systems that are so removed from people, on the face of them, actually touch our constituents in all kinds of ways. These issues include affordability, protection online or those precious creatures that do not have their own voices in this place.

I deeply appreciate my colleague's commitment to bringing those system-level issues and questions and bringing them down to our constituents, not only in his riding but on behalf of those who care about similar issues across Canada. Our colleague represented an area east of the Don River. I represent an area west of the Don River. In the Toronto caucus and in some of the political engagements we had, I learned a lot about the way we can have committed politics and attach them to thoughtful policy.

With that, I wish my colleague the best in his new venture and new adventures. I know this place and our country have been stronger because of his service.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:45 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Beaches—East York, I will say, on behalf of this House, we wish him and his family good health and happiness.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I should not have used that line at the outset. I felt like I was speaking at my own funeral, but now I have just heard other people speak at it.

Where do I start? My wife is a chef, so that is why it is such a lovely kitchen.

I do not mind the label “maverick”. I am a shameless politician who likes getting elected, and that does not hurt, but I have actually always seen myself as being more of a reformer. I am not alone, standing here and giving this speech.

I think about the different issues I have raised over the years. When I first raised privacy issues, we worked collaboratively at committee. It was largely unanimous in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but privacy was not on the government's agenda. It then became government legislation on the government's agenda, like the digital government the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park just spoke about. We were early speaking about it, and now it is more firmly part of the government's agenda, recognizing that we live our lives online and we need laws to respect and realize that reality.

When we look at the working income tax benefit that became the Canada workers benefit, it was a caucus resolution that I put forward, which then became government policy.

I do not want to tell tales out of school, but the former prime minister called me shortly after my second son was born in December 2019. I said, “Prime Minister, thank you so much for the call. I have to be honest. You are not going to love this, but I just won the private member's bill lottery again and I am going to do something on drug policy.” There was a pause on the phone. I said, “We can collaborate. I could go alone and do drug decriminalization, but give me an adviser from your office, an adviser from Health and an adviser from Justice, and we will find consensus and get something done.” We did that and we changed the law, and now we treat substance use more as a health issue than we otherwise did.

I think persistence is right. I think patience is right. I think working collaboratively while maintaining a sense of principled independence is also an important part of the picture.

It has been great working with the members. I look forward to swimming in that pool. They can let me know when it is ready and I will be in Vancouver.

This is the last thing. Everyone has been offering advice. I would tell the leader of the NDP, who is new, to stick to his principles. I would tell the Prime Minister to stick to his values. I would tell the Conservative leader to find his sincere and serious side, and the picture might improve. Otherwise, I thank everyone.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my very best to my friend and colleague in his future endeavours, whatever they might be, and I want to acknowledge his family, staff and friends, who I am sure are very sorry to see him go. Others will get a bit more time with a loved one.

Having said that, I want to get right into the discussions and talk about some of the things I heard coming from the Conservative Party today. I often talk about how the Conservatives like to mislead Canadians. Today, again, we are getting a good sample of that.

I believe the Conservative critic for housing is a former mayor. He can correct me if I am wrong. He stood in his place and said, in essence, that municipalities do not require, need or want any sort of assistance in dealing with bureaucracy and reducing the cost of planning. The individual should go and visit some municipalities, and I would really encourage members opposite to do likewise. Some of them have. I can recall a letter campaign that went around among a number of the Conservative MPs, in which they were asking for financial support.

If we take a look at it, the city of Winnipeg has benefited immensely from national policies dealing with housing. I am thinking about the accelerator fund. If we talk to the mayor and the city councillors, we will find that there was wide support for that program, and as a direct result, hundreds of homes have been built. To say, as the Conservative Party consistently does, that the national government should just get out of the way and it does not have a role to play in housing, is misguided at best. Ultimately, it is potentially threatening, if we think about how the Conservatives might ever again take the reins of power, especially the far-right Conservatives we see day in and day out here on the floor of the House of Commons.

Today's Conservative Party would never have supported things like the CMHC, which has been around for generations, provided stability within our mortgage regime and enabled millions of Canadians to acquire the finances that are necessary in order to be a homeowner. I question where the Conservative right and its policies are today. Its members have made it very clear that they do not support Bill C‑20. Imagine my shock. I am not shocked.

I can tell the House that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party is once again making a mistake by not realizing the difference between, let us say, the CMHC and Canada Lands and what we are proposing within the Build Canada Homes legislation.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:50 p.m.

Arnold Viersen

We know the difference.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, no, they do not really know the difference. At least, they have not demonstrated that they do, because they constantly stand up and ask what the difference is. They do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand it, but the Conservative Party does not understand it. At least, the candidates who have stood up obviously do not understand it, because if they did, they would see the value in having this legislation passed. Build Canada Homes has the potential to do a wide variety of things, which the Conservative Party should recognize, given the time. The fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue is that we, the vast majority of Canadians and all provinces and territories, because they participate in the federal programs, recognize that the national government has a role to play in housing. This should be indisputable.

We would think the Conservatives would understand and appreciate it. I am not surprised, because if we take a look at it, when the Leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, he built six houses. I do not know where they are, but apparently he built six homes; not him personally, but apparently, his department. Is that any shock? I do not think so, given what the Conservatives are saying today.

If they were to listen to what their communities are saying and wanted to add value to the housing stock, or if they were to take a look at what this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, said as a part of our election platform to deal with the issues of affordability, which includes housing, they would see results. One year later, housing and rental prices have gone down. We have a government that is aggressively pushing the expansion of our housing market. Meanwhile, we see the Conservatives saying, “Get out of the way.” I do not understand how they believe that affordable housing is going to appear out of nowhere.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:55 p.m.

An hon. member

That is a solution.

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, no, that is not a solution; it is a dumb idea being promoted by Conservative members.

At the end of the day, a vast majority of Canadians recognize—

Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2026 / 1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. I believe the member was referring to Conservatives and our ideas and he called us a bad word, an unparliamentary word. I would like him to retract that word.