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

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

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

Madam Speaker, the Build Canada Homes act would establish Canada as an affordable housing builder. The Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation that would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a mandate to deliver affordable housing at scale. The work Build Canada Homes would do is essential to the federal government's ability to build the affordable homes Canadians need and would initiate a new phase of transformative growth in Canada's economy.

The legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with operational independence and flexibility. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the powers, functions and new tools it needs to deliver on its mandate. Equipped with these new tools, it would be able to act nimbly as a developer, financier, convenor and innovation driver in the housing sector. As I said, with this legislation Build Canada Homes would become a Crown corporation focused on building affordable housing in communities right across the country. This is important, essential and meaningful work, and it would tackle something even bigger than just the crisis that is facing our housing sector, because investing in building the affordable housing that Canada needs would in turn help grow our country's economy and strengthen our industries.

We know that housing is not simply about having a roof over one's head. The stability that a home provides builds the foundation for mental and physical health, for community involvement and for personal success. Everyone in Canada deserves a safe home, a place where stability takes root so opportunity can blossom.

I will put the housing crisis in context.

Even though some progress has been made, many Canadians still struggle to find affordable housing. The pandemic complicated things by disrupting the supply chain, and tensions with the United States have added further challenges.

This pressure is being felt across the country, in big cities and small communities alike. Canadians are experiencing rising prices, a lack of supply, and greater inequality. That is why our new government is working to make housing more affordable, to offer more options and to help every Canadian have a place to call home.

Budget 2025 includes generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing. This strategic investment will build homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead.

Solving Canada's housing crisis requires immediate action to build homes that meet Canadians' needs: homes they can afford, built as soon as possible. That is why, in September 2025, our government launched Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency within the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, with an initial investment of $13 billion. Build Canada Homes is part of a broader set of measures by our government to accelerate housing construction, restore housing affordability and reduce homelessness.

As a lean, purpose-built entity, Build Canada Homes would leverage public lands, deploy flexible financial tools and promote modern methods of construction, like factory-built housing components. These new approaches would allow us to accelerate construction timelines, improve productivity and support a more productive homebuilding sector.

Build Canada Homes would fund multi-year agreements, providing increased certainty for housing providers, builders and manufacturers. In the immediate term, Build Canada Homes is prioritizing shovel-ready projects. Over time, Build Canada Homes would shift to funding large-scale, portfolio-based projects, delivering measurable impacts to Canada's supply of affordable housing, which brings us here today.

This legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to deploy capital at scale, partner in greater capacity and make investments in new and more productive approaches to housing construction. This is how we would expedite the delivery of more affordable homes on public lands and in communities across Canada.

As a special operating agency, Build Canada Homes has already launched the initial phase of work to build thousands of homes on federal lands in six communities across Canada, and we are getting shovels in the ground this year on those projects. In Ottawa, we would build approximately 1,100 homes just 20 minutes from the downtown core. We would deploy the same rapid approach across the country, in Dartmouth, Edmonton, Longueuil, Toronto and Winnipeg, to get homes built for Canadians as quickly as possible on these lands.

The bill authorizes the transfer of just over $1.5 billion from the Canada Lands Company to Build Canada Homes, once the agency is established, to ensure that this capital is ready to unlock construction on these sites. This is just the beginning. The Build Canada Homes act represents a major step forward in strengthening the federal government's ability to respond to Canada's housing crisis.

This legislation makes it clear that Build Canada Homes would be Canada's affordable housing builder going forward. As such, as a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes' mandate would be to build affordable housing across Canada while modernizing the homebuilding sector.

By focusing on modern construction methods like prefabricated housing and the use of lumber, Build Canada Homes will stimulate a homebuilding industry that is more innovative, resilient and productive. Off-site construction will extend the construction season year-round, creating a steady supply of factory-produced housing components and quality year-round jobs. Over time, this will speed up project delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability.

With manufactured panels and prefabricated components produced off-site, construction teams can work faster while minimizing waste, noise and required labour.

With the trade tensions hitting our industries such as steel and softwood, we have to be our own best customer. Mass timber, as an example, has tremendous potential for supporting greater densification. Mass-timber designs, especially those incorporating prefabrication and modular components, can accelerate the construction of multi-unit residential structures. The wood construction also provides natural insulation that reduces heat loss, increasing energy efficiency.

The carbon capture by mass timber can also be significant, especially in taller wood buildings. When used as a substitute for or complement to concrete and steel, mass timber delivers significant climate benefits, cutting embodied emissions in buildings by as much as 25%.

Canada has the third-most extensive forested area on earth. If we manage our forests sustainably, our country has a significant supply of timber available to meet the growing demand for building with wood and mass timber. Greater demand can strengthen Canada's softwood lumber industry while helping to reduce reliance on our southern neighbour and reducing the climate pollution caused by the embodied carbon and building materials.

I want to talk about core partnerships next. Build Canada Homes has already formed key partnerships with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and local governments. Notably, we are forging commitments to ensure that supportive and transitional housing is matched with the wraparound services residents need.

For example, these partnerships would support the creation of 30 supportive and transitional homes announced in Nova Scotia and 54 at Dunn House phase 2 in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding in Toronto, with further negotiations under way to ensure critical services to the most vulnerable Canadians. Just last week, we announced a partnership with the B.C. government in Victoria to build 700 supportive and transitional homes, setting a new bar for the scale of the supportive and transitional homes that are needed to tackle homelessness.

Build Canada Homes is also committed to building indigenous partnerships that further self-determination and contribute meaningfully to meeting the needs of indigenous communities. Through Build Canada Homes, the governments of Canada, Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reached an agreement in principle to support the development of 750 homes for non-market housing in Nunavut. These homes will be designed and delivered in collaboration with Inuit, for Inuit.

The Build Canada Homes act would establish a Crown corporation with a legislative mandate to engage with partners and deliver on projects that meet the needs of the communities they serve. As with Inuit, we look forward to strong partnerships with first nations and with Métis as well. The act would unlock the tools for Build Canada Homes to forge these new strategic relationships that would drive coordinated action and establish modern development models that could scale affordable housing like never before. This is how we move from the incremental progress we have seen in recent years to transformative progress.

By changing how Canada builds, Build Canada Homes would be delivering speed, scale and innovation. Communities across Canada are ready to work with us. Since releasing our investment policy framework and launching our national submission portal in late November, we have seen very strong interest nationwide. Proposals have come in from every province and territory. Many are under review, and hundreds more are in progress right now, building a robust pipeline of projects ready to break ground this year. These partnerships are central to Build Canada Homes' strategy to grow community housing and ensure long-term affordability. We will do this while growing our economy and making it more resilient and stronger.

Build Canada Homes would implement the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy by prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials, strengthen our domestic supply chains and create good jobs. From softwood lumber in B.C. and New Brunswick to steel in Ontario and aluminum in Quebec, homebuilding connects Canadian materials to Canadian jobs. This is exactly why the government's approach to buy Canadian is exactly what it is about: becoming our own best customer.

It is also about shockproofing our economy. Buying and building domestically strengthens Canadian industries, supports Canadian workers and creates a stronger and more dynamic economy. The buy Canadian policy announced in December 2025 fundamentally changes how the federal government purchases goods and services. It prioritizes Canadian suppliers and requires the use of Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood in large federal projects so the dollars we invest drive demand here at home, strengthen our supply chains and support our workers and communities. That is how we move from reliance to resilience in a world where trade uncertainty is real.

This bill is about more than just building more housing. It focuses on something even more important. It is a key element of how we are retooling Canada's economy. When we invest in Canada, we are not just creating jobs. We are also strengthening domestic supply chains, reducing our dependence on foreign markets and ensuring that Canada remains competitive in a global economy where instability in international trade has become the new normal.

For workers, this would mean increasing economic security and opportunity. For businesses, it would mean demand and predictability. For our country, it would be another step in a nation-building strategy that invests in Canadian industries and communities. We are prioritizing Canadian content in major procurements, building with Canadian materials and partnering across the country to strengthen our supply chains and keep people working.

Build Canada Homes would finance and build housing, which would drive demand for Canadian lumber and steel, encourage innovation in the construction sector and make investments that directly support Canadian workers and businesses. It is a model for how we build homes, infrastructure and prosperity using Canadian materials, creating jobs today and laying down the foundation for long-term economic growth.

As for measurable results, since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. I identified public lands that are being converted into housing right now. We have partnered with local governments to cut red tape, waive fees and fast-track approvals as well. This means up to 3,000 new homes right here in Ottawa and up to 1,430 homes in Nova Scotia, and recently we signed a partnership with Quebec to accelerate approvals and identify even more housing projects in the province. In total, nine Build Canada Homes deals are now in place and are expected to deliver nearly 9,000 new homes. There are many more projects coming in the months ahead. With private, public and government partners all showing up, we are ready to build.

There is lots more work to do, but the progress we have seen in just a few short months gives me confidence that we are moving in the right direction. Build Canada Homes has already demonstrated what is possible when we combine speed, innovation and collaboration to get homes built for Canadians. With the passage of the Build Canada Homes act, we would have the flexibility, autonomy and accountability we need to deliver more affordable homes. We would have the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to scale our progress even further, move faster, partner more effectively and deliver more affordable homes on federal lands and in communities across the country. This is a pivotal step that would transform our early momentum into long-term capacity.

That is exactly what the Build Canada Homes act is designed to deliver. The act is a major milestone in the government's plan to build more homes faster and help ensure that every Canadian has an affordable place to live. It is about building more homes now, but it is also about reshaping the future for Canadians, making sure the next generation can make choices about the communities they want to live in. It is about giving families stability and supporting Canadian manufacturers and supply chains to grow Canada's economy strong. It is about creating new careers and giving communities the tools to grow sustainably.

In conclusion, with this legislation, we are marking a new chapter in Canada's history. We are transforming the housing system with intent. We are building the right partnerships and innovative financing models by design. We are shaping Canada's future to create communities that are stronger, fairer and leave no one behind. Much like the Major Projects Office, Build Canada Homes would enable nation-building housing projects that would help make our country's economy the fastest-growing in the G7. We are investing in Canadian workers, Canadian jobs and Canadian industries.

The Build Canada Homes act is a milestone step that would strengthen Canada's self-reliance and resilience. It would empower Canadians with more opportunities to get ahead and build the life they want, where they want, in a home they can afford.

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

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that housing affordability is a major concern for young people. I have spent a lot of time over the last eight months speaking to young people on university campuses, many of whom fear that their life will be worse than that of their parents, owing largely to concerns about accessing homes and jobs.

One of the big issues, we know, in housing construction over the last 10 years under the Liberals, when housing prices have more than doubled, has been the proliferation of bureaucracy. The high cost of government is getting in the way of the construction that needs to happen in order to keep up with the needs of Canadians. The approach of the government is to create more bureaucracy: to add another arm to the federal government, yet another Crown corporation. It is proposing to continually expand bureaucracy, when actually we need a plan to reduce bureaucracy.

I wonder if the member can explain why, under 10 years of Liberal government, there has been such dramatic growth in the price of housing and why, rather than address the problem of out-of-control bureaucracy preventing housing construction, the Liberals are proposing to add to housing bureaucracy rather than reduce it.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his concerns. First and foremost, to speak to the challenge that young Canadians face with housing, that is clearly a focus of Build Canada Homes: to ensure we are building affordable homes for the next generation. Many of us who sit in the House have children or grandchildren and have great concerns about the escalation of homebuilding costs and the price of housing across Canada.

We have seen the focus of the investments over the last few years into housing and affordable housing starting to bear fruit as the market pressures are easing. We have seen prices come down for several quarters in a row. We have seen rents come down. That does not mean we slow down. In fact, it means we need to step up efforts. The Build Canada Homes act is all about stepping up those efforts to build more affordable housing and to make sure housing is suitable for the next generation, including student housing and housing for young people who are looking for their first homes. It is complementary to the tax break for first-time homebuyers that the House is bringing forward.

We need to have a number of tools. Build Canada Homes is streamlining the process of moving affordable housing forward for Canada with a lean and nimble agency that will deliver that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for laying out exactly what Canadians have been talking about for quite some time. He talked about the wraparound services and cities like London, Ontario, where we have benefited from funding through the national housing strategy. I was recently at a location where we had funded wraparound services. I want to share with the minister the dignity I saw in the people who lived there. An event had been created and I was invited to speak to them. I am thinking about where they were five years ago and where they are today, with the dignity and the humanity to now be able to think past their problems.

I think about cities like Vancouver and London, where we see a lot of homelessness and people experiencing addiction because they do not have wraparound services. Could the minister talk a bit more about the wraparound services in the Build Canada Homes act?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her concern for those most vulnerable. The importance of supportive and transitional housing cannot be understated. It is a best practice, as part of a housing-first initiative, to make sure that people who are at risk of homelessness or are currently homeless have an opportunity to get into housing that has wraparound health and social supports so they can find stability in their lives and then transition to other housing opportunities successfully.

We have seen great examples of this. I mentioned that Dunn House, in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding, is really a social medicine example that is proving to save taxpayer dollars. We had people who were spending a lot of time in hospitals and emergency rooms or in jail within the justice system. The cost of all that has been reduced. Those people are rebuilding their lives with great success. We have seen that success in B.C. with the supportive housing I was involved with when I was the mayor of Vancouver.

It is a best practice. We have a billion dollars dedicated toward that. We are looking for the operating funding from the provinces and territories to go forward and build thousands of supportive transitional homes. We will need that support from the leadership at the provincial level in particular. We have had early examples of that in Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C. We need to scale that up. It is a big part of our work.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for introducing the bill. I really appreciate it.

I have spent a lot of time since I came to Parliament visiting my riding and speaking with constituents about their circumstances. The cost of living is palpable across the country, and not just in my home province. A big part of the cost of living crisis is related to the affordability of homes. I do not hear much in the bill's introduction related to affordability, except for the title. There is little substance, other than maybe the monopolization of entry-level housing construction across the country.

I understand this is transformation with intent, as the member has spoken to directly. I wonder if he could comment on how the government intends to eliminate or bring down the cost of housing with respect to municipal fees, taxes, delays, the time it takes to acquire a permit and all the stuff related to building new construction. I do not see any of those benefits in this legislation. I just see additional bureaucracy.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke briefly to the impact we have already had in terms of reducing approval times, red tape and the costs related to both of those with the City of Ottawa. We have an agreement in place with the City of Ottawa to build about 3,000 homes. The homes will be expedited through the city's system and that is a good example of how Build Canada Homes, by bringing new tools to the table, which this act would enable, has the opportunity to leverage that acceleration with city governments, which are responsible for those approvals and for reducing those costs.

There will be other approaches with infrastructure investments that reduce development cost charges, which we will be bringing forward in the weeks and months ahead. With Build Canada Homes in particular, we have that leverage point. What will be really critical for us going forward is also having the tools to crank up the supply of more affordable housing. We can invest, at Build Canada Homes, in affordable housing projects that leverage a range of deeper affordability right to the middle market, like housing for young people that is lower rent. There are opportunities for attainable home ownership as well.

We look forward, at Build Canada Homes, to being able to focus on scaling those opportunities.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, one that I often hear when I travel around my riding. There is concern that some smaller communities, which do not have the resources of cities like Toronto or Longueuil, may not be able to access the opportunities provided by this program. Not every town needs 400 housing units. Some communities may need only four or six. The mayors and reeves in my riding are concerned about this.

I would like to hear the minister tell us whether all communities, regardless of size, will have access to the program. They do not have the same resources as larger cities. At the press conference announcing the agreement with Quebec City, there was some talk of competition. It feels a bit like David versus Goliath, so I hope they will also have access to it.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

We are focused on communities of all shapes and sizes. That is part of Build Canada Homes. The act would enable this new, lean, efficient agency to deliver both large-scale projects with larger communities and cities, and smaller projects in smaller and rural communities. We anticipate it being a measure of the impact within the community. In a small community, a small project would have a significant impact. We need to be able to fund and advance those projects in all sizes of communities.

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

Madam Speaker, just before my formal remarks, I would like to take one moment to mention that two weeks ago today, I was able to stand in the House and congratulate Megan Oldham from Parry Sound on a bronze medal win at the Olympics in Milan.

I am excited to report that, a week ago today, I had the immense privilege of standing at the bottom of the hill and watching her win gold in the big air event. I had never been to the Olympics before, and I have to say that watching a constituent and family friend win gold is a pretty exciting experience. I just want to report that we are obviously immensely proud of Megan in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across Canada. The town of Parry Sound is actually planning a fairly large community celebration this Saturday, and I will be there. Singing O Canada as a constituent wins gold at the Olympics is something I will never forget.

I will move on to the debate today:

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

The warning President John F. Kennedy delivered at the Yale commencement in 1962 is the warning that we need to hear today. President Kennedy knew that nations could drift because of the comfort of assumptions, systems and myths.

Today, Canada is living a myth. The myth is that we can solve a housing crisis by expanding bureaucracy, that another agency will compensate for a system that is designed to delay, and that process is the same as decision. The truth is much harder. The problem in this country is not a shortage of process. It is a shortage of permission. Until we confront that truth honestly, housing affordability will not return.

Canada's housing crisis did not appear suddenly overnight. It was constructed, layer by layer, over years, over decades, with one additional approval, one new study, one longer consultation, one more appeal mechanism and one more condition layered onto an already complex process. Each individual decision seemed reasonable and each safeguard seemed maybe defensible, yet layered together they produced delay.

Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision and it has a cost. When approvals stretch from months into years, capital sits idle, risk increases and projects that once made economic sense no longer do. As time expands, costs explode, and either those costs are embedded into the final price or the homes are just simply never built. That is not ideological rhetoric. It is simple math. This paralysis by process is measurable in months, in dollars and in lost opportunity.

The CMHC estimates that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for a sustained period to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that pace. In recent years, housing starts have fallen well below that level. Meanwhile, population growth accelerated. Between 2019 and 2024, for every 100-person increase in the adult population, only a small fraction of ownership housing was added. That imbalance compounds annually. Home ownership among Canadians aged 30 to 34 has declined sharply, rents have risen and carrying costs have increased dramatically. Now, nearly nine in 10 Canadians express concern about housing affordability. This is not some cyclical downturn that will just reset itself. It is structural and it is pervasive.

That is not just my diagnosis. I am not just griping as a partisan here. The warnings are everywhere. The OECD has repeatedly identified restrictive zoning, prolonged permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as principal constraints on housing supply in Canada. It has called for as-of-right zoning, predictable and shortened approval timelines, reduced regulatory overlap and alignment between infrastructure funding and housing approvals. Its conclusion is clear: Canada's housing challenge is not primarily a financing issue; it is a supply and regulatory issue.

The International Monetary Fund has gone even further. In its article IV consultation, it has warned that housing supply constraints in Canada now represent a macroeconomic risk. They are not simply a social issue, but a macroeconomic risk.

Housing shortages fuel inflation, restrict labour mobility, suppress productivity growth and elevate financial vulnerability. When workers cannot move to opportunity, productivity declines. When productivity declines, growth slows, and when growth slows, fiscal capacity weakens. This paralysis by process in housing becomes paralysis in economic growth, so when international institutions flag housing supply as a growth constraint, it is wise for us to listen. Canada does not lack capital, talent or expertise; what Canada lacks is permission.

Prime Minister Lester Pearson believed that governments reveal their priorities not through their rhetoric but through what they make it easy to do and what they make it hard to do. In Canada today, it is easier to create a new program than to reform a process, it is easier to announce than to approve, and it is easier to expand bureaucracy than to shorten timelines. That imbalance is not limited to housing, although housing is where its consequences are most visible, which brings us to Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 would create the Build Canada Homes corporation, the fourth federal housing bureaucracy and another governance framework and layer of administration. Let us apply the Pearson test. Would it shorten municipal timelines or eliminate duplication or endless review? Would it impose service standards or reduce the tax burden on housing? The answer is quite simply no, it would not. It would reorganize, but it would not reform, and that matters because the crisis we face is not a shortage of institutions; it is an accumulation of delay.

Build Canada Homes would not change zoning law, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development or remove environmental duplication charges. It would add a new entity; it would not remove a barrier. If we do not fix time, we do not fix cost; if we do not fix cost, we do not fix affordability.

The minister said that we do not need to predict how this new agency is going to work; we already have some evidence. Those first six housing projects on federal lands announced by Build Canada Homes were presented as proof of momentum. They were proof that the new Crown corporation was hitting the ground running and already delivering, yet we know that those lands were already well under development through the Canada Lands Company, an existing federal Crown corporation. The sites had already been identified, transferred and prepared; planning work was already under way; municipal engagement had already begun, and in some cases, approvals were already advancing. Build Canada Homes did not unlock those sites; it inherited them.

We all know that rebranding does not increase supply, shorten approvals or break the chains of our process. If greater authority was required, it could have granted that to Canada Lands Company. Instead, the government has layered on another structure, while the underlying approvals system, with all its delays and costs, remains unchanged.

We have seen this pattern before from the Liberal government. The housing accelerator fund was introduced with similar language, such as urgency, speed and transformation. Billions were allocated, planning studies were funded, consultants were hired and zoning frameworks were reviewed, but did it eliminate discretionary rezonings, impose binding approval timelines or remove duplication? In many cases, it simply funded more planning. It did not remove process. Money was layered on top of delay and actually subsidized the paralysis.

Even the CMHC is not immune. Developers across the country report prolonged underwriting reviews, repeated revisions and changing requirements mid-process. The financing designed to accelerate housing is slowed by administration.

With every new agency or program, the signal from the government is very clear: The system is not optimized for speed; it is optimized for review. Review without discipline becomes delay, and delay without reform feeds the paralysis.

I find it interesting that when the government seeks to assist the auto sector, as an example, it works directly with the producers. It tries to strengthen their competitiveness; it secures investment for them and works to improve their supply chains. When the government wants to support farmers, it does not create some federal body that plants crops and raises cows. It backs producers, reduces risk and tries to expand markets. However, in housing, instead of empowering builders by reducing delays and costs, the government has created a new bureaucracy. Homes are built by builders, not by boards.

At the end of the Second World War, Canada faced a severe housing emergency as well. Nearly one million veterans returned home. Ten years of depression and six years of war had nearly halted construction. By 1946, the country was short more than 200,000 homes. Families were living in temporary huts and converted barracks. The crisis was immediate, yet Canada mobilized. Financing expanded, land was serviced, approvals were streamlined and authority was clear. Housing production increased dramatically through the late 1940s and early 1050s, and within a decade, that shortage was largely overcome. That is not nostalgia; it is a very clear example of urgency a time when the government treated time as the enemy.

It is easy for us today to frame this housing crisis as only about young Canadians. It is about young Canadians, but it is important to point out that scarcity affects every generation, because housing supply affects retirement security. When young families cannot afford homes, household formation slows. When household formation slows, economic growth slows. When that growth slows, pension sustainability weakens. When housing markets become distorted by undersupply, volatility increases, and volatility affects home equity. Home equity affects retirement planning. Reduced labour mobility reduces productivity, and that reduced productivity affects tax revenues, those same tax revenues that fund health care and pensions.

Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue; it is an issue of national stability. Boomers should care, mid-career Canadians should care and young Canadians already do care. Housing supply is tied to our nation's fiscal health. It is tied to productivity, and that scarcity harms us all. We know this is true because residential construction represents roughly 7% of Canada's GDP. With related industries included, nearly one-fifth of economic activity is connected to housing. When housing slows, construction employment declines, material production declines, mortgage lending slows, and retail contracts and government revenues shrink. Housing anchors fiscal health at every level, so when supply fails, the economic ripple is national.

We know that real reform is not about announcing new funds or new agencies. It is about removing friction: expanding as-of-right zoning, imposing building review timelines, aligning infrastructure funding with housing results, reducing the onerous tax burden, coordination across jurisdictions and holding departments accountable for time. None of that requires yet another Crown corporation. It requires government reforming itself at all levels. Following the same playbook of the last 10 years simply will not work.

President Kennedy warned about myths: the myth that comfort can replace courage, that process can replace decision and that more administration equals more results. Canada is living that myth right now. As we are trapped in that myth, prices rise, supply continues to fall, opportunity continues to narrow, growth continues to weaken and confidence continues to erode.

Prime Minister Pearson believed governments are judged by what they make easy and what they make hard. By that measure, we are failing. It is easy to announce, reorganize and create new agencies, yet it remains hard to approve housing, shorten timelines and remove duplication. It is hard to say “yes”, and Canadians are paying the price for that imbalance.

They see it in the cost of every home, the rent paid each month, delayed family plans and slower growth that affects retirement security and public finances alike. That is not abstract. It is absolutely measurable and absolutely reversible. We have built at scale before. We have mobilized nationally before. We have delivered transformative projects before, but the question before this House is not whether Canada can build; it is whether we are prepared to do it again, because when government makes it too hard to build homes, it weakens economic security across all generations for all Canadians. Canada does not lack builders, Canada does not lack capital and Canada does not lack the skill. Canada lacks permission.

We must restore urgency. We must restore accountability for time and restore clarity of purpose, and then supply will follow. Canada can build again, but not if we continue pretending that more bureaucracy is actual reform, and not if we continue layering announcements on top of delay.

For 10 years, Canadians have been promised strategies, funds, frameworks and agencies, and for 10 long years, affordability has moved further and further out of reach for every Canadian. Home ownership has fallen, rents have risen and starts have slowed. The crisis has deepened. This is not a failure of messaging or announcements; it is a failure of government. Repeating the same formula, another agency, another announcement, another layer, will not produce a different result; it will produce more of the same.

If we are serious about restoring affordability, then we must confront the truth. The obstacle is not a lack of government; it is too much government standing in the way. The answer is not a fourth housing bureaucracy; it is the courage to reform the system that created the delays in the first place.

Let us choose reform over reorganization. Let us choose timelines over talking points. Let us choose permission over paralysis. Canada can build again, but only if we stop repeating the costly errors of the past and start removing the barriers that caused this crisis and continue to make it worse.

Canadians deserve this level of urgency, this level of honesty. This nation has done it before, and we can do it again, but Canadians are running out of time. We must do it now.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need better timelines. I agree that we need reform, but the way to do that is through partnership, including with municipalities. As a former municipal leader, I think that our colleague across the floor would believe in that as well.

The statement from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes the federal government's Build Canada Homes initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis. This announcement shows a clear commitment to working in partnership with municipalities as well as provinces, territories, indigenous governments, housing providers, non-profits and developers to deliver practical, results-driven solutions that meet the urgent housing needs of Canadians.

I truly believe in partnership. I believe in partnership with municipal and provincial governments. I wonder how the member feels we should move forward in that spirit of partnership, because many of his comments were really talking about overriding the powers and responsibilities of municipal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose the FCM can be forgiven for thinking that there may be some results coming from this government after 10 years, but the fact of the matter remains that the Liberals have created a fourth federal housing bureaucracy. There is the department; there is CMHC, a Crown corporation that has existed since just after the war; there is the Canada Lands Company, which is already developing these projects they announced; and now we have Build Canada Homes, which, by the way, is now responsible for one of the other Crown corporations.

My question for the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: How many bureaucracies will we need to solve this crisis? Is it maybe one more? What if this one does not achieve what we want it to do? Will we build another one?

The solution is not more bureaucracy; it is about getting the bureaucracy out of the way. I wish this government would simply understand that and help us get the bureaucracy out of the way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, we completely agree that this just adds more bureaucracy, that it adds a new structure. They already had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but now they are adding Build Canada Homes instead of optimizing what is already in place.

I would like to know if we can agree that this is another attempt by the federal government to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, including in housing. In Quebec, we already have the Société d'habitation du Québec.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that Quebec should ask for the right to opt out with full compensation for anything having to do with federal housing projects.

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

Madam Speaker, I will tell the member right now that, in fact, Quebec is one of the provinces that actually has done fairly well on housing.

There is no question that partnerships between the federal level and the provincial level are important. I would simply argue that those partnerships should focus on getting provinces to reduce the burden of endless reviews and consultants' reports. We have to speed up the process required to get things approved in this country. All that time adds cost, and until we reduce that time, we are not going to reduce the cost. This government could do that in partnership with Quebec, as with every other province.

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

Madam Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have heard in my time here. Another piece to this conversation is home ownership, and I wonder if the member would like to expand on the Conservative approach to home ownership versus the piece of legislation in front of us and how it would not really address or further expand the dream of home ownership for Canadians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can my colleague provide more clarity for Quebeckers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for her question. This is an ongoing issue. We have seen it. In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. What will the delays be? The government must take quick action, in collaboration with Quebec through a memorandum of understanding, so that every dollar voted in the budget gets out the door as quickly as possible.

We know that the cost of building housing is skyrocketing. A one-year delay represents a very significant percentage increase, and it is even worse for a two- or three-year delay. What we have seen in recent years is that, for Quebec, federal programs administered through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation take years to make an impact. A dollar voted in year one could end up only getting out the door in year three, four or even five.

However, the same dollar that was invested in year one will buy much less lumber and fewer doors and windows in years three, four or five. That money will therefore build far fewer homes, all because an agreement had to be reached, details needed to be negotiated and so on. Plus, there is the issue of red tape. That is why the Bloc Québécois has always said that areas of jurisdiction must be respected. When a dollar is earmarked for something, it must be sent directly to the provinces so that it can be put to use as quickly as possible.

The need is there. With prices rising sharply due to inflation, the faster the dollar is spent, the more we get for our money. I would like to thank my colleague once again for her insightful remarks highlighting the needs of the FQM and the UMQ.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask colleagues to look at what, essentially, this bill is doing. It would create a fourth housing bureaucracy. We already have a ministry of housing, the CMHC and the Canada Lands Company, which is based in the great riding of York Centre. Now the Liberal government is saying that we need another layer, a fourth layer of bureaucracy, to build homes in Canada, which is the primary purpose of the legislation we are debating.

I am wondering where the Bloc stands on that. Will the Bloc support the Conservative suggestion that we do not need a fourth housing bureaucracy to build homes?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful comments. The government's intention is to create a new structure to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and to consolidate services that were scattered across various departments and agencies. Like my colleague, I am cautious. Will the government really succeed in simplifying the process and reducing bureaucracy? That remains to be seen.

Given that housing and affordable housing are provincial responsibilities, what we are asking is that the funds be transferred directly to the provincial governments so that the money gets out the door faster and more housing can be built more quickly, as I have said several times.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to speak in support of the Build Canada Homes act. This landmark legislation would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building and expanding access to more affordable homes in Canada.

Over time, Canada's housing needs have evolved. While federal efforts have been delivered through a range of departments, agencies and programs, there is an opportunity to strengthen coordination and impact. Traditional construction and funding approaches alone are not meeting the scale and speed Canadians need, which is why we are moving forward with a new and innovative approach. All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need and growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action.

Build Canada Homes was created to act quickly and efficiently. This legislation would give Build Canada Homes the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate. It would streamline federal housing efforts by bringing these roles under one umbrella. At the same time, it would maintain a clear accountability framework to government and would strengthen collaboration across the housing sector to deliver the affordable housing at a scale and pace that Canadians need. Build Canada Homes would act as a developer, a financier, a coordinator and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector.

I would like to use my time today to speak about the importance of partnerships. Build Canada Homes has a central position in forging strong partnerships across all levels of government and with indigenous communities. It works with non-profit agencies, as well as key stakeholders in the housing industry, to drive the development of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations.

Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its achievements lies in its partnerships. Stronger collaboration across all levels of government and with key partners is essential to tackling the housing challenges facing Canadians.

Build Canada Homes streamlines and accelerates the launch of affordable housing projects. The agency attracts public, private and philanthropic investment, maximizing impact. The Build Canada Homes act would make it easier to develop partnerships across the entire housing ecosystem to bring together the right financing and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. It would accelerate the delivery of affordable housing, working with non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government. This approach would reduce risk, address barriers and guide projects through the development process.

Build Canada Homes would also work in close partnership with developers, investors and manufacturers to get housing financed and built. It would work directly with builders and housing providers who are focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers or organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships would create homes that are affordable for a range of households across the income spectrum.

Build Canada Homes would be well equipped to collaborate with all levels of government and community partners through agreements, financial support, joint ventures and shared development initiatives. It would look for strong collaboration and coordination with provinces and territories who would help advance priority projects. This could include providing land, accelerating the approval process and waiving applicable fees.

Indigenous peoples face unique housing challenges. Build Canada Homes would collaborate on proposals that would deliver shared housing outcomes with first nations, Inuit and Métis governments, indigenous housing providers, and urban indigenous organizations. The housing needs of indigenous communities would be met in the spirit of collaboration. The Government of Canada respects indigenous sovereignty and supports self-determined housing solutions that are designed and delivered with an indigenous-led perspective. Our indigenous partners know how to incorporate indigenous knowledge and culture and adopt housing solutions in a way that enables their communities to thrive. Build Canada Homes is committed to building in full partnership with indigenous peoples and advancing indigenous housing priorities.

We are also working very closely with our provincial partners. Since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. The Government of Canada has identified public lands that can be converted into housing. We have partnered with local governments to cut the red tape and to fast-track approvals.

In January alone, we moved forward with two major points of progress through Build Canada Homes. The Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated have signed an agreement in principle. It would deliver up to 750 much-needed homes across the territory, including public, affordable and supportive housing. Through the agreement, Build Canada Homes would provide up to $250 million towards this investment.

Importantly, as part of this new partnership, up to 30% of units would be built using innovative, factory-built components. Using off-site, factory-built components would help reduce delays and deliver homes faster. The first units are expected to be completed in the very near future.

As well, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have signed a memorandum of agreement to guide their collaboration on Build Canada Homes projects. This partnership would accelerate approvals and help to identify additional housing projects across Quebec. It would also be critical for unlocking funding for affordable housing to be invested in communities across the province.

Through Build Canada Homes, all levels of government are coming together to address the housing crisis. We would increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce the barriers to construction through a structured and collaborative approach. With private, public and government partners showing up at the table, we would get housing built. Growing and strengthening partnerships is an integral aspect of building homes for Canadians. By combining resources and finding innovative solutions alongside its partners, Build Canada Homes is laying the groundwork for lasting solutions.

The Build Canada Homes act would formally establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a clear mandate. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the operational independence, governance and flexibility needed to deliver affordable housing at scale. The legislation would allow Build Canada Homes to operate at arm's length from government, manage assets and innovative financial tools, and make long-term investment decisions more efficiently. This structure would also enable Build Canada Homes to enter into partnerships that would expand housing supply. This would include partnerships with non-profits, private developers and all orders of government, including indigenous communities.

It would reinforce Build Canada Homes's role as a permanent, delivery-focused institution rather than a time-limited program. The Build Canada Homes act would strengthen Build Canada Homes' ability to establish and maintain strong relationships across the housing ecosystem. This is the power of partnership: implementing lasting change. We are working together to build a strong and more unified approach to housing across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of commitment, realizing that the federal government does have a role to play. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts and the government's perspective in terms of the importance of working with other levels of government. I think of Winnipeg's mayor and the Province of Manitoba's premier, all of whom seem to be very supportive of our Prime Minister and the federal government's approach to dealing with the housing situation.

Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is that the federal government work with our partners?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, importantly, we realize that municipalities are our partners and that we need to work together to advance housing in municipalities from coast to coast to coast. We have exciting partnerships under way, including right here in Ottawa. Canada's new government has secured a new partnership with the City of Ottawa to build 3,000 mixed income and affordable housing units across the city beginning this year. We have innovative partnerships under way with Nova Scotia and with Quebec.

We are working from coast to coast to coast to find those partners that are committed to building housing at a pace and scale that has never been seen before. I will give an example of how it can be done. For supportive housing, municipal partners can bring forward the land, we can bring forward the capital and the provinces can bring forward that important operational funding.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a former deputy mayor of the city of Toronto, which is one of the most expensive cities in the country to build a home in. I am sure she is quite familiar with how much cost the local government and the city add to the cost of every new home. I am wondering if she might be able to speak to the cost of government, particularly at the local level, and if she sees a way for the government to do things like reducing the cost of government on the cost of a new home.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to my previous role as deputy mayor in the city of Toronto. Working alongside partners, we passed an ambitious plan for affordable housing in the city of Toronto. We also passed rules to allow multiplexes across the city and multitenant homes. We cut down on red tape. We improved zoning so that it made it easier to build. We also transformed the way we do processes so permits and approvals can be done faster.

We have shown what can be possible. We are rolling that out in agreements from municipality to municipality from coast to coast to coast, and I look forward to working with all our municipal partners in that regard.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are experiencing the worst housing crisis in decades, and the government is boasting that it is going to create a new entity called Build Canada Homes.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that Build Canada Homes will create a mere 26,000 new homes, when 690,000 are needed. Does anyone on that side of the House know how to count? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be a financial expert.

The government is not even addressing 5% of the crisis. Is there any plan to even pretend that the government is working on the crisis, or is the plan more to manipulate public opinion into believing that the Liberals are really good?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation provides the legal and operational flexibility and autonomy needed to deliver on its mandate while maintaining a clear accountability framework to government. It allows Build Canada Homes to hold assets independently, to invest and to engage in complex financial transactions.

Build Canada Homes is designed to do more than just fund individual projects; it is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with the market to identify and develop high-impact housing solutions.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Liberal government is talking about Build Canada Homes, but one of the problems with the program is that there is actually no allocation for funding reserved for housing that has rent geared to income. On one hand the Liberals complain about encampments, but then they leave the most marginalized people, the ones who are in the most need of housing and who are the most housing-insecure, out of the program.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can explain why the government made that omission.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are very much committed to transitional and supportive housing. There is a $1-billion allocation through Build Canada Homes in that regard. We look forward to partners bringing forward land. We will bring forward capital, and we need to rely on the provinces for that much-needed operational support.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on behalf of and in support of the bill, which is already delivering results in my riding of Taiaiko'n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to speak specifically about the Parkdale neighbourhood in my riding, an area that has welcomed newcomers, including people fleeing persecution and violence, and people who have mental health challenges, for decades. It is a place that used to host the more wealthy residents of downtown Toronto when it was a country retreat, and then it became a place to welcome people from around the world. Parkdale is a little corner of the community, bordered by Dufferin Street, Roncesvalles, Queen Street and King Street.

The population of the Parkdale neighbourhood of our community actually went down between 2016 and 2021. This is because we had areas of the neighbourhood in particular, such as larger mansions that had been multiresident residences, that were being turned into single-family homes. That, combined with the health needs, the needs of immigrants and refugees, and the needs of artists in our community, really created a challenge for the people in our riding, including the people in Parkdale. Government working side by side with the social sector in the kind of partnership my colleague mentioned has delivered and is delivering results.

I just want to mention a few projects that are happening right now and are funded right now thanks to Build Canada Homes and the other programs that are in place thanks to the current government. Dunn House, which my colleague, the Minister of Housing, already mentioned, has 51 rent-geared-to-income units; there is $14 million through the rapid housing initiative, with Fred Victor and University Health Network as partners. It is changing the lives of 51 residents who have health needs and complex needs, delivering wraparound housing supports and health care supports.

We are already building another project right around the corner at 11 Brock Avenue, which has 42 rent-geared-to-income units and $21.6 million with the Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre as the delivery partner through federal government funding. There is Green Phoenix II, also in Parkdale, with 92 new affordable units, with $14.6 million and Parkdale United Church Foundation as a partner. I announced just last month with my colleagues the second edition of Dunn House in the same neighbourhood in Parkdale as Dunn House phase one, with 54 rent-geared-to-income units focused on seniors who have complex health needs, at $21.6 million, with the University Health Network.

These are projects that are happening through a multiplicity of funds and a number of initiatives. Dunn House phase two is a project of Build Canada Homes. When I hear from the other side that there is too much bureaucracy, I say come to Parkdale and see the progress we are making right now with these institutions and with these different kinds of funds. When I hear from the other side that we are not going fast enough, I say come to Parkdale and see the housing that is being built now, is under construction, as well as the housing that is being promised.

When I hear that this kind of format is about bureaucracy, I say come to Parkdale. Come and learn from the residents of Dunn House, who have experienced a 52% reduction in emergency department visits and a 79% drop in hospital bed days. There is $2.1 million in projected annual cost savings. Come to Parkdale; come and meet the residents of these facilities, of these dignified housing opportunities, which bring housing, health care and food, with the whole community in support.

Build Canada Homes is building Parkdale strong. Parkdale is an integral part of our community. I am very much looking forward to the new projects that are being proposed within my community all along Queen West and the Queensway, such as the Parkdale People's Place project, the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre project and the Swansea Mews project. All these housing projects are being developed right now to provide the kind of housing we need in our community, in Parkdale, to bring a dignified life, economic opportunity and jobs.

When I hear that there is something wrong about this approach of a new institution, I say come to Parkdale; come see how the funds are flowing right now in our community and are building housing, bringing jobs, bringing dignity and connecting people to the services they need. Come see how the whole community, inspired by and being able to access these funds, is using the funds and the opportunities to build housing, to help people build new lives for each other, and to bring the kind of safety and security that all of us in our neighbourhoods and communities need.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government is saying that it wants to solve crises. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the crisis will not be solved because the government's actions are inadequate.

The government wants to build 26,000 new housing units although we need 690,000. Allow me to explain it to my colleagues who are good at math on the other side. This means that it is addressing only 5% of the crisis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will be modest.

Is my colleague really interested in solving the crisis, or is he just doing PR?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, this will change lives. For instance, there will be 51 homes that are part of the Dunn House project, 42 homes at 11 Brock Avenue and 92 homes that are part of the Green Phoenix II project. That is not a story. It is not PR. Lives are being changed.

I think that every member of the House has a duty to stand up for their community and to ensure that the funds allocated to Build Canada Homes in the budget go to their community.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could speak to the importance of partnership. Dunn House is a beautiful example of partnership, with different governments and agencies coming together. We heard comments earlier from the opposition that talked about overriding the rights and responsibilities of municipalities.

I am wondering if the member can speak to the importance of partnership.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work in setting up the partnership that we have with the City of Toronto. Because we had Dunn House, the second edition of Dunn House, which had Build Canada Homes funding announced in our community just nine months after the election, has been able to attract provincial government funding for the health care supports we need.

A last piece of partnership that is really important, which we sometimes take a bit for granted, is the partnership of the community, of the neighbours. We build housing in a context of neighbourhoods, histories and people who have different connections to the neighbourhood, sometimes long-established and sometimes as newcomers. The community came together with the residents of Dunn House and its partners, the University Health Network, Fred Victor Centre, West Neighbourhood House, United Way and others, which is the kind of thing that allows this housing to successfully land in communities. It is really the partnership of those institutions and neighbours working together with health care workers and residents that makes these institutions and these housing opportunities possible.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that if we want to see how it is working, we should go to his riding. I would like him to come to my riding of Winnipeg Centre on Selkirk Avenue, ground zero for missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, where we are trying to get support for the North End Women's Centre. Funding this would save lives. The Liberal government has not committed to funding this. What does it mean? It means it will continue to be ground zero, where indigenous women will continue to go missing and be murdered.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell me if he is really serious about his housing plan, if the Liberals will do anything to change the fact that their government put zero dollars toward addressing the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and if they will get serious and fund the North End Women's Centre.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the Winnipeg members on this side of the House are very active in their support of projects, especially housing projects in Winnipeg. The next time I am in the area, I would be delighted to have a conversation with my colleague and the Winnipeg MPs on this side of the aisle about some of the needs that exist.

I know that in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, in particular, in the Parkdale neighbourhood, the kinds of needs that the hon. member mentioned are being attended to, in part, through the housing projects I described.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have been here for almost nine months now, and this is at least the third time I have risen in the chamber to speak about housing.

I cannot believe how much hot air the Liberals put up in this place. It is almost enough to launch the Remax hot air balloon, yet availability and affordability of housing are going down across the country. The talking points are endless. The press conferences are polished. The announcements are flashy movie sets that are quickly deconstructed afterwards.

Back home in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tents are real, the wait-lists are real and homelessness is real. Hundreds of men, women and even children are experiencing homelessness in my province. Hundreds of youth are on the waiting list for emergency shelters, and the emergency shelters are full. That is not just a statistic. That is a failure, and that failure belongs to this government. After eight years, after billions announced, after strategy upon strategy, housing is less affordable, less attainable and less available than when the Liberals took office.

In my province, young families are not asking for luxury condos. They are asking for a modest starter home, a place to raise their kids and a place to build a life. Instead, they are competing against inflation, bureaucracy, gatekeeping and federal policies that drive up the cost of living and the cost of building at every single stage. The Liberals say they are investing, but if we invest billions and the homelessness rises, it is not investment. It is incompetence.

I have learned in my last nine months here in Ottawa that the Liberals love picking winners and losers. Their favourite movie must be Pinocchio, because all they want to do is to pull the strings in almost every aspect of Canadians' daily lives.

In my riding, we have business owners applying for federal funding to build low-income housing. That may sound great, but it creates so much bureaucracy, red tape and inequality. For example, two businessmen in neighbouring communities both apply for funding for, say, 10 units at nearly $50,000 a unit. Talk about an awesome gift from the feds. I am starting to think the Liberals like the colour red, because it reminds them that they can put on their coats and pretend to be Santa Claus.

However, here is the problem: One of those businessmen did not get funding, and now all 10 of those units are going to a neighbouring community, leaving none for that businessman and his community. Why did both applicants not get five units each? The transparency of these application processes is so low. Perhaps the only way to be accepted is to be a Liberal insider or a Liberal donor.

We Conservatives, time after time, have fought for transparency and fairness, one of the biggest being the Federal Accountability Act of 2006. We fight for policies and platforms that incentivize everybody equally, instead of picking winners and losers and only choosing a select few to get incentives. We want to work with provinces to reduce the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. These are policies that benefit all Canadians: no applications, no selection processes and no favouritism.

We have lots of land in Canada. We have high unemployment and a huge demand for housing. When we ask home builders what the problem is, they always say that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy. Developers spend years and thousands of dollars trying to acquire land, permits, developmental fees and approvals, oftentimes having to deal with three levels of government. They want government and the bureaucracies to simply get out of the way, but the Liberal government wants to do the opposite. Every solution it proposes adds to the problem by creating more bureaucracy.

Justin Trudeau's government implemented the national housing strategy. It did not work. Home prices continued to soar at rates much higher than our neighbouring economy, the United States. The Liberals came back to the House, after campaigning in the election that they would be a completely different government, and decided they wanted to continue to do the same. This led to the creation of private member's bill, Bill C-227, which would create more red tape.

That was not enough. Now we are here today discussing Bill C-20, which once again builds more bureaucracy. If the Liberals are going to come into the House with their smoke and mirrors and repackage the same bills over and again, I have no choice but to give the same speech, but just in a different font.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my speech, but I will be splitting my time with another member afterward.

The Liberals are introducing this new bill to give the illusion that they are directly involved in trying to put out the fire they started. In 2017, the Liberals launched the national housing strategy, administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If they already have the solution, why do they need to repackage the same old plan? They spent $150 billion to build only 170,000 homes. That works out to $676,000 per home. The money was wasted on bureaucracy. Now they want to create a new Crown corporation to physically build the homes, creating even more involvement and more strings for them to pull. Here is the kicker: They already have a Crown corporation that does this.

All the bill does is merge the failed national housing strategy and the failed Canada Lands Company into one corporation. That is Liberal math: Take two failing things, put them together and pretend it works. In reality, it is like they are trying to build a motorcycle with two flat tires. Can members imagine how many homes could have been built if the Liberals had worked with the Conservatives to remove the GST on new home builds?

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.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, imagine taking the GST off of all new homes under $1.3 million. That would instantly save 5%. With a 5% savings, that would have encouraged thousands of Canadians right across the country to build new homes. By partnering with Canadians, we could have stretched our dollar by 95%, by having that 5% incentive.

Instead of letting Canadians keep their own money, the Liberals keep taxing things like housing, things they often call a human right. They then give that money to corporations and landlords to build homes, not for young people to actually own but for them to rent. Own nothing and be happy: that is the slogan of the Liberals' plan for their new world order. Young people do not want to rent for their whole lives. They want to own a home, a place where they can paint their kids' bedroom, a place that gives them pride and hope for the future, a place where they can build a fence for their dog.

Housing is not just about shelter. It is about economic stability. It is about mental health. It is about whether young people can make a wooden box a home. In my province, we face the highest unemployment rate in the country. We add that to rising rents and rising prices and limited supply, and young people are being forced to make unfavourable choices. Some are staying with their parents. Some are even staying with their grandparents. These are young men and women, oftentimes older than myself, working full time, yet they still have to face these unfavourable choices.

Unfortunately, we are seeing even greater consequences of the lost Liberal decade. Homelessness, once unthinkable at this scale, especially in my province, is now a reality in communities right across my province and the whole country. Over the summer, I was able to have a tour of a Salvation Army homeless shelter in St. John's. I began to ask the workers at the facility what had led to people being there.

I remember one young lady looked at me and said that all those men had just hit their breaking point. The shelter sees these kinds of surges when the economy goes bad. They lose their jobs and that causes stress. They oftentimes lose their wives and their family because of that stress, and they end up there. Her statement stuck with me because of the simple fact that what we do here in Ottawa does not just affect our economy; it affects real people. It does not just affect housing stats and unemployment. It affects real people, real Canadians, people who are hurting and looking for hope.

How long will these Liberals keep hiding in their haunted house of smoke and mirrors before they admit that more bureaucracy will not build a single home? Canadians do not need another illusion. They need a real home.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is great contrast on this particular issue. On the one hand, we have a government that understands that the federal government has to play an important role in housing, by working with municipalities and provinces. That will, in fact, make a difference.

Contrast that to the Conservatives and their whole theme, which is to get out of the way, just like their leader. When he was the minister responsible, years ago, for housing, he built less than six houses. I still do not know where they are.

I wonder if the member would not recognize that the federal government does and can have a role to play, which we are playing, as the legislation clearly shows.

Will they vote for the legislation? If they are going to vote against it, will they allow it to at least go to committee?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, having a housing crisis and having Canadians forcing Liberals to step in to try to do something does not show success. It shows failure. The Conservatives have never had to build more than six homes because we were out of the way, and private industry was building homes.

In 2017, the Liberals launched a strategy, an agency. Nothing got built, and problems got worse. The more they do, and the evidence shows this, the more problems we have. They should just get out of the way. That is it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the federal government, and especially this Liberal government, sticks its nose into something that is working relatively well, usually something managed by municipalities in Quebec and in the provinces or by the provincial governments or the Quebec government, it always creates a terrible disaster involving mismanagement, cost overruns and money not getting where it needs to go.

Creating the giant beast that is Build Canada Homes may have been a great idea with the best intentions, but the fact is that mechanisms are already in place. Experts are already on the ground. The municipalities know better than anyone the needs they are facing.

Does my colleague not think that the federal government and the Liberals should get out of the way and simply transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces so that the programs can be implemented quickly?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have ever agreed with the Bloc as much as I do now.

One hundred per cent, the federal government needs to step out of the way and let people on the ground, the people who build homes and communities, do the work. Let them build the homes they want to build. The federal government needs to just get out of the way, get policies in place or get policies removed so that they can build homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment a little more on the notion of building bureaucracy.

There are now four federal housing agencies. Build Canada Homes is the third federal Crown corporation focused on housing. I wonder if the member might be able to predict how many Crown corporations it will take to build a home.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals lost my seat by 12 votes, so maybe 12 will do the trick and get it done.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the world has the free market solved an affordable housing crisis.

Let us look at the Netherlands, with 34% non-market housing; Denmark, 21%; Britain, 16%; and France, 17%. Here in Canada, we are now at 3.4% non-market housing. Nothing in this bill sets targets on non-market housing. My colleague had a good idea around removing the GST on housing. Instead, why do we not take that GST, invest it back into the communities where homes were sold and use it for building non-market housing?

We know we need a mix of market and non-market housing. They go hand in hand. Do the Conservatives support any form of non-market housing? Do they understand its critical importance for the most vulnerable, for people who are trying to make ends meet, especially housing that is geared to income?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's dedication to thinking outside the box. We definitely need to try something new rather than just repackaging the same bureaucracy.

However, what the Conservatives are very adamant on is creating policies that everyone across this country can benefit from. Removing the GST would not pick winners and losers. Anybody could go out, build a new home and benefit from that. It would be incentivizing everybody.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, a bill from the Liberal government to establish yet another federal Crown corporation, called Build Canada Homes, which would apparently finally find the solution to the economic woes in our housing sector that have stubbornly evaded solutions provided by existing federal bureaucracies. The stated 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”. I know that sounds optimistic. Let us test that claim, that aspirational statement, against reality.

For 10 years, we have had a Liberal government that thinks it is smarter than the free market. We hear it again today, that the government has all the solutions to all the problems and that with enough central planning, it can make the market behave the way it thinks it should behave. In my years in Parliament, I have observed time and again that the Liberal government's politics are performative in nature. It wants to appear to be doing something about whatever the problem is that is being debated that day. If major projects are being held up because of federal bureaucracy, well, let it create a major projects office. If military procurement is a mess, let it set up a commission to look at why all the other commissions have not been doing their job. Now, in a situation of housing unaffordability and new houses not being built to keep up with demand, we have a new bureaucracy for that too: a new Crown corporation, in fact. Build Canada Homes, it will be called.

Here is what Canadians will get out of this new corporation. First of all, it will create its own bureaucracy, a board of directors comprising eight to 10 people, a chairperson, a full-time CEO, all of whom will be on the federal payroll. Secondly, it will get into the business of building affordable homes, apparently. It is good timing, I say somewhat facetiously, just as the B.C. government is getting out of that line of business. The headline in the Vancouver Sun over the weekend, screaming on the front page, is “'A massive step back' for housing”, while David Eby is grappling with a stunning $13.8-billion operating deficit just three years after he inherited a surplus of $5 billion from the previous government. Another headline on the same topic reads, “Loss of provincial fund upends many affordable rental projects”. People are up in arms about this. They want to know what is going on. The provincial government has made all these promises, and now it is abandoning ship because it does not have the money to do it.

Thirdly, this new, highly paid bureaucracy will analyze what is wrong with the current state of affairs in the housing sector and advise government as to what to do, how to tweak things. One of the first reports coming out of this agency, this Crown corporation, no doubt, will analyze the current housing market in Canada and why it is in such a state of imbalance, despite the existence of federal government bureaucracies and best intentions that were supposed to make things better. This is the fourth bureaucracy, now. We already have the Canada Lands Company. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. I would just point this out: If creating bureaucracies could solve the problem, we would not have a problem.

Let us take a look at the track record of the current bureaucracies. According to CMHC's own recent housing market outlook for 2026, housing starts are heading in the wrong direction, despite all the announcements from the Liberals, below the target necessary to restore housing affordability. A quote from the report sums it up very nicely. It says, “New home construction is set to decline through 2028 as developers face high costs, weaker demand and more unsold homes.” Can members imagine this, in an economy where there are not enough homes? This is especially true in B.C, where, the report predicts, “Housing starts will continue to slow down in 2026, with a more significant decline...in 2027-2028.” We are headed in the wrong direction.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association had this to say in its Q4 report from last year: “Setting new record lows in builder sentiment was the unfortunate theme for the [housing market index] in 2025.” Builders are losing faith in their ability to build homes in the current sector, the environment that the Liberals have created. Ontario and British Columbia unfortunately will “lead the way in terms of broad pessimism among single- and multi-family builders.”

Yes, it is pessimistic. People want to buy or rent homes but lack the financial resources to buy. Builders are being pessimistic about their ability to meet the demand in face of high costs that drive sale prices beyond what the market can bear. There is a serious imbalance in our economy, in other words.

As I was preparing my notes, I thought of the famous economist Friedrich Hayek, the free-market economist who spoke about this in his famous 1945 essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”. I will paraphrase it. I just want to highlight that Friedrich Hayek was of the classical liberal tradition of economics, the tradition that the Liberal Party of Canada used to follow until it abandoned all that and Liberals became central planning socialists. That is what they are today.

I will go back to Friedrich Hayek, who had this to say: “The beauty of the market lies in its ability to coordinate actions without requiring omniscience.” He also said, “The fatal flaw of central planning is the assumption that someone knows enough to direct the use of resources efficiently.” Here is another quote, a third from Professor Hayek: “No single mind can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity—only a decentralized process can manage it.”

The Liberals do not believe that. They used to believe it, but they do not believe it anymore. They have now abandoned classical liberal tradition to adopt central planning socialism. Today they think they are the omniscience, the single mind that can comprehend the complexity of modern economic activity.

That is all we need to know to understand why the Liberals are always so optimistic that their next government central planning agency is finally going to solve the problem. If it does not, then the next one will, and the next one after that. They are always optimistic and always dreaming, always with wishful thinking. If Liberal wishful thinking would build homes, Canada would have the most affordable, the most successful and the most balanced housing market in the world, but that is unfortunately not the case.

People who expect that the bill would actually accelerate affordable housing construction in Canada will be disappointed. The bill is simply about setting up a new bureaucracy to keep an eye on the existing bureaucracies that have failed time and time again to solve our housing affordability crisis and our housing availability crisis. Young people particularly are paying the price for all this mismanagement.

In closing, here is some free advice for the Liberals from the free-market Conservatives. We continue to adopt and follow free-market economics because that is the solution to our economic goals: Just get out of the way. What the Liberals have been doing for the last 10 years has not been working, and the newly repackaged commission, the newly repackaged and restructured bureaucracy, would not solve the problem either. We wish the Liberals would just get out of the way and let smart Canadians build homes to meet market demand.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will take no advice from the Conservatives. Their leader built only six homes when he was in charge of this file. We have built homes for Canadians. What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question just underlines what I was saying: Governments do not build homes. People build homes. Home builders build homes. Electricians, drywallers, carpenters and land developers are the ones who build homes. The government just needs to get out of the way and create the environment that welcomes investment so people will actually build homes and so the market meets the demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think that we share his concerns about the centralist nature of the bill. Let us not forget that the Liberal government's last good idea on housing was the Canada housing infrastructure fund, which was announced in April 2024. It took almost two years before an agreement was finally reached with Quebec for the money to come through.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on a concern of mine. I come from a rural area. There are small villages where I live, and there is a significant need for housing. However, these projects often involve 12 or 24 housing units, while the federal government usually focuses on large projects in cities. Does my colleague share my concern that rural areas are once again being forgotten?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois was a thoughtful one. I live in a community that is highly urbanized, but parts of it are still rural, so I sympathize with the question.

I will revert back to what I had said earlier, which is that the market generally sorts things out. If there is a demand in smaller communities, it will be filled if the government gets out of the way.

Is there a role for government? Provincial and federal governments own a lot of land. Maybe they should put that out into the marketplace. I know there are areas in British Columbia that would benefit greatly from the release of federal lands from federal control. Put it into private enterprise and let us build.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was thoughtful. I certainly agree on the fact that choices and the free economy, not government, are what builds homes.

However, what I do not really understand about the bill is why we need a fourth bureaucracy. We already have the ministry of housing, which can do what the new agency would seek to do. We have CMHC. We have the Canada Lands Company, headquartered in the great riding of York Centre. Therefore, I do not understand, but perhaps the hon. member has an idea, why the Liberals require yet a fourth bureaucracy to do what any of the three previous bureaucracies can do.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question, but I am really the wrong person to be asking it to. Trying to get into the minds of the Liberals is hard to do, but what I have observed time and again is that the Liberal politics of the Liberal Party of the 2020s is all performative politics. It just wants it to seem that it is doing something. If there is a problem, it has a solution: another organization, photo op or ribbon cutting, and the problem is solved. That is its problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in whether the Conservatives are taking the position that they are going to oppose the legislation. They do not support Bill C-20. Having said that, will they recognize, at the very least, that we should allow it to go to committee, or does the member believe they are going to continue to filibuster the legislation too?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that every time the member for Winnipeg North stands up, he is accusing us of filibustering. This is an important topic. It is very important for Canadians, certainly in my home province of British Columbia, where housing affordability really is a crisis for young people. These are important issues. We need to be debating them in the House of Commons, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to the Build Canada Homes act, the legislation that would address one of the most urgent and deeply felt challenges facing Canadians, particularly young Canadians: housing. I would like to address the impact the legislation would have on Canada Lands Company Limited.

As we know, Canada is in a housing crisis. The cost of housing is up, supply is not keeping pace with demand, and productivity in the construction sector is low. We need to build more homes, and we need to build them fast. This is exactly what we ran on in April 2025. It is what Canadians wanted us to do.

Consistently for the last couple of years, we have heard from Canadians that they need more homes. The dream of being a homeowner for young Canadians has not died; it is still alive and well. It is the onus of every single level of government to make sure we can meet that dream.

The legislation would define the mandate, governance structure, powers and funding of Build Canada Homes. It would also provide the transitional provisions necessary to move it from an existing special operating agency to a Crown corporation. I want to clarify that this is something we ran on, and Canadians, on April 28, 2025, gave this side of the House the mandate to meet their most important and most dire needs across the country.

We are not doing something that we were hiding from Canadians; we have talked about it. We talked about Build Canada Homes, and now we finally see the life of Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation. Once Build Canada Homes becomes a Crown corporation, it would also have access to a broader set of authorities and to greater operational flexibility. This would also allow it to move faster and more effectively in delivering housing at scale.

Housing insecurity is rarely a stand-alone issue. We know that for many Canadians, it intersects with mental health, health care access, income stability and community supports. This is the reality that underscores the importance of wraparound services, an approach that recognizes that stable housing and personal well-being are deeply interconnected.

The Build Canada Homes act would allow us to think about housing in a more holistic way. Yes, Canada must build more homes, must accelerate approvals and remove barriers, and it must also ensure that housing systems promote long-term stability, particularly with people who have complex needs.

If I may, let me reflect briefly on the experiences of London, Ontario, which offers a compelling example of how federal partnerships and wraparound thinking can produce meaningful outcomes. London has been a national leader in leveraging federal housing dollars and investments, thanks to the many partners in the sector, along with the leadership of the City of London and the many builders across the city who have come together and are responding to the need for housing for every single person in our community.

We are, one day at a time, curving homelessness across the city of London. Our community has received among the highest levels of housing funding in the country, reflecting both scale of local need and the city's readiness to respond to that need. London was the first municipality to secure the housing accelerator fund, and through demonstrated performance and ambition, it has received additional funding to further accelerate progress.

These investments have translated into tangible results. London has significantly expanded its housing supply, including a substantial increase in supportive housing projects that combine stable accommodation with integrated health and social services that continue to address homelessness and housing vulnerability in a durable and more sustainable way because it is done at a community level.

I would like to share a story. This past week in my riding, I visited an Indwell housing project, a partnership with many partners in the city of London, including the City of London, where residents celebrated Black History Month with the support of staff.

I was invited as the speaker by one of the residents who has been there for, I think, about a year, named Este. I saw the joy it brought her to invite me to speak at this Black History Month event. I enjoyed having a conversation with her and getting to know a little about her story, where she started, where she is at today and how far she has come, as well as about the dignity with which Indwell treats its residents.

This is a project we funded. I was there for the groundbreaking. I was there for the opening. I was there when the first person moved in, and I returned to have a conversation with a resident who was excited to celebrate Black History Month. It really brought warmth to my heart to see that behind all the jargon that politicians use, behind all the numbers we talk about and behind the dollars, there are real people.

I was talking about wraparound services and what Build Canada Homes would do to provide more of these opportunities. The minister shared a story earlier about the Dunn project, which is in Toronto, and I am sharing the story about Thompson Road and many others in the city of London, where we see partners come together and get federal dollars to provide units for people who need them the most, the most vulnerable people in our community.

I had an opportunity to chat with a couple of residents there, but more importantly with Ese, who invited me to be the keynote speaker, engaging on Black History Month. The joy she had and the life in the room really brought life to me as well. I was actually not feeling well that day, but it brought so much light and joy to see that, to see the advocacy that went into it, all the partners that went into it and all the hard work of people who want to see the most vulnerable people in our community housed. That is exactly her success and what Ese embodies. As the staff on site said, she has come so far from where she was to where she is now. I am so glad to see that there are tangible people behind these dollars.

The work that Build Canada Homes wants to do and will continue to build on is like the project on Thompson Road. This progress matters, not only for those directly served, but for the broader housing ecosystem. Expanding supply across the housing continuum, including supportive and affordable housing, has a system-wide effect. We already know that when more housing units come online, pressure on rental markets begin to ease. When rental pressures ease, affordability improves across the board. The hope is that Build Canada Homes will do that, so we can see a spike in home builds across the city and across Canada.

The reality is that young Canadians, as I said earlier, desire to own a home, and that desire has not wavered, which is why we are going to continue to do everything in our power. We are going to work with the provinces, we are going to work with municipalities, we are going to work with everyone to make sure we can provide homes for Canadians across the board.

Being able to afford a home is a human right; it is not a luxury. It is what all Canadians need and deserve, and that is what we are going to continue to do. For young families, for first-time homebuyers, for those seeking to put down roots, housing supply becomes the difference between aspiration and reality. Every home built expands the possibility.

Strategic federal investments paired with local leadership and wraparound approaches produce compounding benefits. They will address immediate needs while strengthening long-term market stability. They support the most vulnerable population while improving affordability dynamics for the broader community.

The global economy has recently undergone a shift that has profoundly transformed the traditional world order. Canada can no longer count on its most important trading relationship. Because of that, we are building our capacity here at home. We are going to build stronger relationships across all levels of government, including municipal, provincial and territorial governments and with our indigenous partners. We are making strategic investments to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. We are working to cut red tape, eliminate internal trade barriers and sign new agreements that will stimulate the local economy. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by the initial $13‑billion envelope announced in budget 2025.

The Build Canada Homes act proposes to establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation. The legislation would provide the transitional provisions necessary to move from the existing special operating agency to a Crown corporation. This will allow it to move faster and more efficiently in providing and delivering housing across the board, whether it be in the province of Ontario or across Canada.

We would also streamline and strengthen federal efforts and help scale up the supply of affordable housing across the country. The transfer of key elements from Canada Lands Company Limited to Build Canada Homes is an important step in developing and building housing on public lands.

This means Build Canada Homes would be equipped with the tools and the authorities to take a leading role in the planning, development and construction of housing on public lands. This would also include the land holdings of Canada Lands Company Limited. It would position Build Canada Homes to streamline construction on public lands.

Budget 2025 already announced an initial investment of $13 billion over five years. Of this amount, there is a capital contribution of $1.5 billion to Canada Lands Company Limited. This funding will support the direct construction of up to 4,000 new homes that will remain publicly owned over the long term. This marks a strategic shift in how public lands and development expertise are mobilized to accelerate the supply of affordable housing across the country.

Build Canada Homes will develop parcels at six Canada Lands Company Limited sites in Dartmouth, Longueuil, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. A direct build approach will be used for the construction of these affordable, mixed-income communities. This is one example of how Build Canada Homes will work to improve the availability of affordable housing for those who have been priced out of the market.

Build Canada Homes will also look for ways to maximize affordability as much as possible. We will leverage a mixed-market approach. Build Canada Homes will also help unlock new sources of private capital and create more housing supply across the board. It will ensure that housing remains financially viable and affordable for the long term. The homes will enable long-term affordability through continued public ownership, and the newbuilds will leverage modern methods of construction. This includes prefabrication, modular building and mass timber to speed up construction and take advantage of Canadian technology and materials.

Earlier, the minister also talked about how construction will go on all year long. Last year, during the summer, my colleagues and I had our caucus retreat in Edmonton. We were able to visit many start-ups that are doing modular work using AI. They are working with people who are in the sector, in apprenticeships, and they are using AI as a tool that can also build homes in a very fast way.

We are doing work around removing barriers across Canada. If we think about a modular home that has to move from one area to another, maybe more start-ups will be interested in modular work. Also, with the barriers that we are removing, there is the possibility of much money to be made across the board and much expertise to be shared among the different provinces.

I also had a chance to visit one of these companies in my backyard of southwestern Ontario, near Windsor. I saw how the technology is already there, and it is prepared. As the minister said, we want to build all year long. This is some of the technology and innovation that we could be using to make sure that Canadians are still employed and are able to build homes and get the homes they need, at scale and fast.

The Build Canada Homes act would be a major milestone in the government's plan to build more homes in a fast way and to help ensure that every Canadian can have a place to call home that they can afford. Build Canada Homes is becoming a Crown corporation to give it the operational independence, the governance and the flexibility needed to deliver affordable housing while remaining accountable to Parliament.

The legislation would also enable Build Canada Homes to leverage Canada Lands Company Limited's land holdings and development expertise, along with its own flexible financial tools. It would provide a streamlined approach to building on public lands. The Build Canada Homes act and the transfer of the land holdings and development experience from Canada Lands Company Limited to Build Canada Homes would accelerate the delivery of affordable housing across the country, contrary to what many colleagues have been commenting here.

Moving forward with this legislation means that the Government of Canada would be better positioned to use all the tools that it has at its disposal to ensure that Canadians can have the homes they need. The federal government would implement new ideas and take an innovative approach to building housing across the country.

Through this act, the federal government would put public lands to good use by building thousands of new affordable homes. Supportive housing, in particular, reflects this dual benefit. It provides stability and dignity for individuals facing complex challenges, reduces strain on emergency systems, improves community outcomes and contributes to the overall housing supply, which helps moderate market pressures.

The Build Canada Homes act would build precisely on this model of coordinated, enabling leadership. By strengthening financing tools, it would allow more projects to proceed with certainty. Every Canadian deserves a place to call home, and the Build Canada Homes act would help to build a strong Canada. It would do exactly what we promised on the campaign trail in April 2025.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted that my hon. colleague mentioned some great things going on in the city of London. It is important for us to congratulate Mayor Morgan and his council for some of the things they have done to get housing built faster in that city. What they have focused on is streamlining the process, speeding up approvals and zoning as of right, so people do not have to go through the rezoning process. Interestingly enough, the Liberals did not need Build Canada Homes to do that. They did it already and are getting the job done.

I am wondering if the member can explain to the House specifically why Build Canada Homes is required and why the things that they wanted to do could not have been done by the Canada Lands Company, which is a federal Crown corporation; the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which was the first Crown corporation; or maybe even the department. What specifically about the fourth federal housing agency is so crucially important, if London can get it right?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not think the member is aware that I sat on council with Mayor Morgan. In 2018, when the City of London, for the first time, had the opportunity to partner with the federal government to work through the national housing strategy, we worked directly with the federal government. As a member of Parliament, I have had the chance to work directly with the municipality of London to ensure that housing can be built fast.

Yes, the City of London has leveraged many federal dollars to be able to provide affordable housing across the board, and it will continue to do so. I do not think the member has had a conversation with Mayor Morgan about this, because he would not have made the same comments he made today.

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

I know him very well. I talk to him all the time.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would not have made the same comments, because the mayor was here last week, talking about the needs in London and the need for us to continue to invest, especially in wraparound services that are needed in our city and that leaders across the board have identified as an issue that they want to work together with all levels of government to address. I am not sure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Mr. Speaker, housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. Local governments, like the Quebec National Assembly or the municipalities, are in the best position to know the housing needs of their population.

Now, the government is going to create a new, centralizing entity that will complicate new agreements. This was apparent in the last one that we received in January. There were delays of two to three years. In the end, Quebec received less than its share, a situation that was condemned by the municipalities.

Would my colleague be willing to allow at least one exemption for Quebec, to respect its jurisdictions, such as a right to opt out with full compensation?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question to some extent in my speech. We are drawing on federal leadership to build houses as quickly as possible and remove all these obstacles. I did mention that we are working with municipalities and provinces. No province will be excluded from our discussions or our work.

We campaigned on this issue and Canadians gave us a mandate to implement this program. The program we are implementing will help increase construction, not only across the country, but also in Quebec.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as with my colleague's riding, Moncton—Dieppe continues to see the issue of housing affordability and availability as a top priority.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate on the importance of ensuring that the Build Canada Homes program provides very affordable housing for people who are less well off.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question was well put.

As I said before, with Build Canada Homes, we will be able to build like never before. In his speech earlier, the minister said that we would even be able to build year-round. The only way to do that in a country like Canada, where it is winter half the year, is to innovate and use the tools at our disposal to build homes like never before.

To answer her question, yes, absolutely, I do think it is important. Both of our communities need this housing, as do all communities across Canada. It is important to say that we are going to use all the tools at our disposal, including Canadian innovation.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did a bit of a deep dive on Build Canada Homes. It seems like a noble idea to build homes. The people across the way say they are going to build at a speed that we have never seen before.

Build Canada Homes was launched in September of 2025. Six months later, according to Build Canada Homes, not one home has been completed. Why is that?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Conservatives truly believe in building homes for Canadians. One minute they are blaming the Government of Canada for homes that are not being built, and in another minute, they are blaming the Government of Canada for helping Canadians to build homes.

Earlier, we talked about the number of homes that are already on the go. Shovels are in the ground. I am not sure if the member has been able to see how homes are built and what the procedures are. I would invite him to come to my riding to see some of the shovels that are in the ground and how the process goes, to the point where people can actually move in.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to have heard my colleague's speech clearly explaining why she supports Build Canada Homes. Can my colleague tell us specifically how Build Canada Homes will improve access to housing for families? What impact will that have on our communities?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

Earlier, I shared an example of a project that I have seen first-hand, from the start, from the time the first shovels hit the ground. I was recently invited by the residents who live in that building to their Black History Month celebration. When I saw the dignity that long-term housing gave these people, it really made me forget about all the discussions and arguments that we have in the House. It made me forget all the numbers we discuss, whether we are talking about dollars or using other jargon to talk about people who need a home. That is what Build Canada Homes aims to do, and that is what Build Canada Homes will continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say something in connection with Build Canada Homes.

The program's implementation was somewhat chaotic. The government wanted to simply sweep away what was there, but in my home region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that could have had serious consequences. A women's shelter with confirmed funding was put on hold for months. The very survival of this project was hanging in the balance. What is more, when it was approved, we had to fight for it, I had to call on my colleagues, and we had to push for it.

There were so many contradictory responses from the minister's office and various other sources. Is all this confusion normal, considering women's safety could be jeopardized while we try to secure political will for Build Canada Homes? I have a lot of questions. Where are we headed with this?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I am not very familiar with the issue he is talking about. If that is the case and they went through all that, it is absolutely unacceptable, of course. I would ask my colleague to send us more information about this case so that we can help him and put him in touch with our teams so that they can resolve this issue.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when our Prime Minister was its chair, Brookfield Asset Management acquired a company called Modulaire.

I am curious if the member across the way could commit to whether the Liberal government plans on using Modulaire or will pledge to not use Modulaire to avoid a conflict of interest.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am left with the same feeling as I am not sure if Conservatives want to build homes for Canadians. We are putting legislation forward.

Instead of constantly focusing on character assassination, maybe Conservatives could just vote for the legislation so we can build homes for Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Yellowhead, The Economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for London—Fanshawe.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

Before entering the House, I worked in real estate as a sales agent, a broker and a coach to other brokers across the country. In those roles, I worked directly with builders, real estate developers and municipalities, while also working with first-time homebuyers, seniors who are downsizing, families living through different stages of life, buyers and sellers navigating changing and challenging market conditions, and agents and brokers working in changing markets. I have studied markets, watched trends, analyzed statistics and translated that information for real estate professionals as they have practised in their professions. As a result, I intimately understand how the supply of housing, regulatory costs and policy decisions shape the market in very tangible ways.

Housing policy at all levels of government is extremely important, and the results of these policies determine the success of our communities, whether families can build stability and grow net worth and whether young people can see a future in the areas where they live.

Let me start by saying that Conservatives support building more homes, and we support increasing supply because, most importantly, we support helping Canadians achieve home ownership and restoring their hope for home ownership. We know that home ownership lays a foundation for long-term stability and growth. Building equity through home ownership increases people's net worth while gaining a tangible asset that can appreciate over time. Beyond the financial benefits, owning a home also creates a sense of security, pride, freedom and control over one's future.

While we support building more homes as currently drafted, we cannot support Bill C-20. Canadians want urgency and ambition in housing policy. We share that urgency, but it must be matched with measurable outcomes. It must also reduce barriers to construction while also increasing more supply that is attached to ownership. In addition, builders across the country are asking for less government in the building process, not more, and we recognize that the only way we can build affordable housing to scale in this country is by limiting the role of government in the homebuilding process, not adding more. Canadians, rightfully, have a strong desire for home ownership, but that dream is slipping further out of reach.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors states, “Homeownership is the cornerstone of community stability, economic prosperity, and personal security. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this aspiration has long been within reach, with our province consistently reporting some of the highest rates of homeownership in Canada. It’s a reflection of our deep-rooted values: self-reliance, pride of place, and long-term investment in our families and neighbourhoods. But today, that dream is under growing threat. Challenges around housing supply, rising costs, and affordability are eroding access to ownership for many hardworking residents. If we wish to preserve this legacy and ensure future generations can share in the security and opportunity of owning a home, decisive action is needed from all levels of government.”

Across the country, 88% of Canadians under 45 say they would like to own a home one day, yet only 29% believe that they will be able to, while 66% of Canadians say that affordability in their community has worsened, and 62% of Canadians believe current plans will have little or no impact. When people lose confidence that their country can solve basic affordability, they lose hope for their future.

To restore that hope and to bring balance to housing supply, we know that housing starts must increase substantially, and current projections suggest housing starts could fall to roughly 212,000 annually within the next few years, far below what CMHC says is required to restore affordability. Most important, CMHC has also indicated that approximately 75% of the additional housing needed over the next decade must be intended for ownership, and if policy tools do not address that reality, the gap will persist.

Across Newfoundland and Labrador, we are experiencing record low inventory levels, which we have not witnessed since the post-World War II era. The supply of housing on NLAR's MLS system has been chronically low for four years. NLAR states that supply and demand are completely out of balance and, as a result, housing values have climbed by over 45%. In January 2020, the MLS home price index benchmark single-family home price in St. John's was $276,000. That has risen to $411,000 today, an increase of 48.9%, and the cost of new construction continues to grow. Inventory levels are at multidecade lows, and active listings have declined sharply. In many cases they are the lowest we have seen in more than 15 to 20 years, leaving far fewer homes available relative to demand.

In 2025, active listings in the province fell by nearly 22% compared to the previous year, and months-of-inventory figures remain well below long-term averages, signalling an exceptionally tight market. This lack of supply not only fuels upward price pressures, but also makes it harder for first-time homebuyers and young families in the province to put down roots and stay in the province. Addressing this supply imbalance must be a priority.

This is why the federal government's focus matters. CREA points out that governments must use existing levers to unlock supply where it is blocked. That means aligning infrastructure funding and federal housing programs with zoning modernization, reducing development charges, having faster permitting and measurable delivery expectations, and focusing on the barriers that stop builders from building and families from buying. That is not another housing bureaucracy. It is also a collaborative approach because it respects the roles of provinces and municipalities while insisting that federal dollars deliver real results.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, residential construction is closely tied to our economy, which is vital to the survival of our communities. According to the Canadian Home Builders Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, residential construction supports nearly 9,700 jobs in our province and generates approximately $712 million in wages each year. It represents roughly $1.9 billion in total investment.

In Corner Brook and surrounding areas, residential construction supports 481 jobs and represents approximately $93 million in total investment. Housing is one of the most important economic drivers in our region. When homebuilding slows, the impact is not confined to one sector; it affects trades people, suppliers, transport, small businesses and local communities.

Vacancy rates remain tight in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and rental costs have risen significantly since 2020. Employers in western Newfoundland tell me that housing shortages are limiting recruitment.

Rent is directly tied to housing costs. When development charges and construction costs rise, rents follow. Even in Newfoundland and Labrador, families are being priced out of rental housing, and that pressure spreads into every part of daily life.

This is why Conservatives are so focused on outcomes and accountability. Instead of a plan to build homes, Build Canada Homes would be a fourth housing bureaucracy delivering paycheques to bureaucrats. It is far from building at generational speeds, as it took nearly a year to introduce legislation that would still build no homes.

Let us not soon forget that the government promised 500,000 homes per year and to double the pace of home construction. Those are their words, not ours. The latest Statistics Canada numbers show that we are not just building fewer homes; we are permitting fewer too. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this program will deliver roughly 5,000 homes, which is about 1% of the promise. There are no binding build targets written into the law, no enforceable timelines and no accountability if these targets are missed. Bill C-20 would expand administration without guaranteeing delivery.

When Canadians are struggling to afford a home, they cannot afford more layers of process. The Build Canada Homes plan to build social housing on federal lands is fine and important, but it will only create a fraction of the supply Canada needs, and it would not meaningfully address ownership supply. If the ownership market remains constrained, prices will remain high, and the pressure will push down on renters and first-time homebuyers alike. That is why policy focused on the ownership share of new supply matters and why results matter.

In Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada, home ownership remains the primary wealth-building tool for most families. It represents stability, opportunity and intergenerational security. Canadians deserve housing policy that is focused on results and prices that they can afford to restore the hope of home ownership and the promise of a bright future. This is why Conservatives are serious about restoring affordability.

We must focus on meaningful measures to increase the supply of homes for ownership. We can do that by tying infrastructure funding to measurable housing completion, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs that add thousands of dollars to the price of a home and ending the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada to unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector.

Conservatives are opposed to introducing further bureaucratic red tape in the housing sector, as it would further block development, increase the cost of government and not help solve the slow approval process. Builders across the country are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more, and we need more overall supply, which will bring prices down and make homes affordable for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative approach, which has been consistent since the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, and he did virtually nothing. The record would likely show that he was the biggest disaster when it comes to housing in Canada. It may even be part of why we are in this situation today, and nothing has changed. The far right of the Conservative Party says, “Get out of the way. The Government of Canada has no role to play in housing.”

Does the member not recognize that provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and many other stakeholders want the national government to be more proactive on housing? Why is the Conservative Party so far to the right in ignoring the needs of Canadians?

[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!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Someone said, “Why are you bringing up filibuster?” Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that significant legislation has been held up by the Conservative Party because its members just do not want legislation to pass, even legislation they support. We passed bail reform legislation just a week ago, and they apparently supported that legislation. Bill C-20 is now before us, the Build Canada Homes act, and we are getting a very clear indication that the Conservatives are not going to support it. If they are not going to support it, I will pose this question to members opposite: Does that mean we can anticipate that they are going to filibuster this legislation too?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member across the way said, “apparently”. We will have to wait and see. Hopefully the Conservatives will recognize and allow legislation of this nature to, at the very least, get to the committee stage.

I am very interested in what my colleagues in the Bloc have to say about the legislation. With the legislation and some of the basic debate that has taken place already on it, the Bloc appears to at least be somewhat open to it, recognizing that the best way we can deliver the type of results that Canadians need today is to have the different levels of government and stakeholders working together in order to advance and deliver in a stronger and healthier way.

I would argue that provinces play an absolutely critical role, in many ways a leading role. We would no doubt see this through the creation of the new corporation. I suspect there is going to be a great deal of dialogue on the new corporation. I would like to think that organizations that are really strong on missions will say that they want to establish, for example, a housing co-op and look at how the Build Canada Homes corporation would actually be able to assist in facilitating, making dreams come true for some of the non-profit organizations that want to deliver affordable housing. I have always been a strong advocate of housing co-ops, because a housing co-op in a non-profit setting makes housing affordable, and one is not a tenant but a resident.

It is interesting that the Conservatives say, “Well, we already have CMHC, so just allow CMHC to do it.” However, I do not think they fully understand what CMHC does. There is a focus, in regard to the free-market system, on providing insurance for backup. Most people who are homeowners or are going to be homeowners need to get that insurance, which CMHC provides. There are other areas in which CMHC has done quite well over the years, such as providing stats and monitoring the industry as a whole.

Saying that we can just add something that is being proposed within the legislation tells me that the Conservatives do not necessarily want to see the type of success that the Prime Minister and the government are talking about when we talk about increasing the number of homes being built.

Taking a look at Canadian technology, how often do we hear about supporting modern manufacturing, factory-built homes, prefabrication and the potential growth within that industry? I think of it in terms of Canadian technology, as was mentioned in the throne speech. I think in terms of the workers who are working at plants rather than on site, building prefabricated homes.

These are the types of things that can make a tangible difference. These are the types of things that Build Canada Homes would be there to support and encourage, and they would turn dreams into reality. That would have a positive impact in terms of the issue of affordability, even in the open market system.

Build Canada Homes has an important role in terms of low-income housing and affordable housing; in providing supports for municipalities, provinces and indigenous communities; in looking at ways in which we have literally hundreds of non-profit organizations that have a key concern in regard to housing; and in bringing it all together and working so that Canada can continue to build on our non-profit housing stock.

The lead on this, from the nation's perspective, is going to be taken by Build Canada Homes, the corporation that would be created by this legislation. Where do members think it is going to take place, if not there? If we really and truly believe that we need to look at ways we can dramatically increase the housing supply in certain sectors, encourage further growth, see more jobs created, take advantage of the Canadian technology that is there and use Canadian lumber and Canadian steel, these are all the types of things that are best handled through an arm's-length corporation, which this legislation would provide.

It is not just talk. A substantial amount of money has been allocated from the 2025 budget. A newly elected Prime Minister, a cabinet, a throne speech and 170 Liberal members of Parliament have recognized that this is a commitment that we have to make good on. Part of that infrastructure, in terms of the corporation, is already in place to a certain degree in different ways, so we will be able to make things happen quickly.

Someone might ask the question, “How many houses?” There have been thousands of homes, and that is in a relatively short period of time. I can encourage the Conservatives on the other side who are maybe a little more progressive than the far right, and maybe some of those red Tories, to think that the government can have good social public policy that would make a positive difference for all Canadians. Bill C-20 is one of those policies that would be good for Canada, and I would encourage the Conservatives to consider allowing it to pass into committee, so we can get it to the next stage as soon as possible.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. There are so many elements to what the hon. member across the way has discussed. I would like to just begin with the preamble that he recognizes again that I am right, and in fact probably far right, and more right than him.

I would ask the member opposite, if the government is so interested in collaborating and so interested in collaborative results and progress at speed, that its members actually consider talking to us ahead of time, before they start the drafting process, to get prior approval. They are fully in charge of the legislative agenda and the calendar. If they wanted to get more done, they could have had more sitting days.

I implore them to recognize that they are the guardians of the public purse. With the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimating that $5.4 billion more is needed, where is the money going to come from?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my far right friend. I would go back to May 27. It was no secret. It was a throne speech. Every one of us heard what the government had to say. I quote right from the throne speech. They are talking about Bill C-20 here, but we did not know the bill number then. It reads, “The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes.”

What is the name of the legislation? If we look on the screen, it says Bill C-20, second reading, Build Canada Homes act. All we are doing is that we are fulfilling it. The member has had lots of time since the last federal election, almost a year, to provide all the input he wanted in terms of what he would have liked to see in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me in what way this is not going to be a new entity that centralizes power and overrides Quebec's jurisdictions. It is always the same old story. Whenever a federal entity is involved, the government always tries to impose its requirements, which only draws out the process. Instead of speeding up housing construction, the government announces it.

We saw this before with the Canada housing infrastructure fund. An agreement was reached last January, after a two-year delay. Even the Fédération québécoise des municipalités called out the federal government for its determination to interfere and impose its will.

Quebec and the municipalities are the levels of government that know the population's real needs. The government had a different vision. Quebec is much more inclined toward the collective. There is nothing in this bill about social housing or co-operatives. At the very least, I think that warrants a “Quebec clause” so that Quebec—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must interrupt the member to give the parliamentary secretary a chance to answer the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do believe that as a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be not only something on paper as a resource tool, but it will have the financial means, and it will have individuals who make up the corporation with just the type of experience that is necessary in order to ensure that we are building more affordable homes.

Among many other things, I mentioned the issue of technology. There are stakeholders in literally every region of the country, whether it is Manitoba, Quebec, B.C. or wherever. I believe that, as a whole, those regional interests will see this Crown corporation as a valuable asset. I would not look at it as competing interests; I would see it as complementary, whether it is provinces, federal government or municipalities. All three levels of government play some role.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague often waxes lyrical on this iteration of the Conservative Party of Canada. The current Conservative Party of Canada seems to always want to be able to fit something on a bumper sticker. It is not big on nuance or depth. We saw an example of that not long ago, when the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston put forward a bill to develop a national strategy for housing for young Canadians and the Conservatives voted against it.

What does that say about the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada in making housing more affordable for young people through something that does not fit on a bumper sticker?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague brings up a wonderful point, and it reinforces what I said about how far the Conservatives have gone. Their bumper-sticker answer is to get out of the way, but look at the cost of that. I will stay away from the bill we are talking about today, but rather look at the bill that was brought forward to the House for a vote. It was on a national strategy for housing for young people, and the Conservatives voted against it.

It is hard to imagine how far right the Conservatives have become that they are using “get out of the way” as a bumper sticker. I genuinely believe there are a lot of progressive-minded individuals within that caucus, red Tories or whatever it is we want to call them, who have to be feeling uncomfortable because the dominant right is winning the day.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite was commenting about the need for a new Crown corporation. I want to quote some helpful information I found on the Internet, which reads, “Helping deliver the Government of Canada's commitment to make housing more affordable”. It sounds right in the neighbourhood. This organization “supports housing programs for people whose housing needs aren't being met by the market.” This is right on the button again. Under “Housing programs”, it reads, “We deliver housing programs to increase housing supply, preserve stock and...contribute to affordable housing.” That is from the website of CMHC.

It seems to me that exactly what we are talking about here is another agency that would duplicate efforts already being made by this federal government agency. Perhaps the member could tell me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I get it that the far right Conservative Party does not support Bill C-20. I will not have a hissy fit, to quote a member from across the way. There will be no hissy fit here.

My very first assignment, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature back in 1988, was as housing critic, and I argued even back then that housing was important. We met with individuals like Doug Martindale at the time and talked about it. We talked about how the federal government needed to play a role.

This new corporation, under this legislation, would make a positive difference in every region of our country. I would ask the Conservative Party members, even if you do not want to vote for it, to at the very least allow it to get to committee. Let us not filibuster some—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

Again, I remind members to go through the Chair.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for yet another brief, but interesting, speech.

Earlier, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île mentioned that it took the federal government two years to negotiate agreements with the Quebec government under the Canada housing infrastructure fund. By the time the agreement was finally signed, there was not enough money left in the fund to meet Quebec's needs and give it its fair share.

This time, could the government get a head start, think ahead, be proactive and agree to set aside a certain amount for Quebec and to sign agreements more quickly? All it would take is a “Quebec clause” or a formal commitment by the government to negotiate an agreement with Quebec in good faith and quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has demonstrated very well how quickly we want to move forward as a government in co-operation with and working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and the different stakeholders on this particular file.

I was saddened when there was a provincial government in the province of Manitoba that did not act quickly enough on a lot of infrastructure, and I argued that we lost out. We need to have a team Canada approach to dealing with housing too, and I think it is quite possible.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I am going to start by making sure that everybody is aware that I was a home builder in my previous life. I was a small home builder, but I still believe that I built more houses in 10 years than the government has built in 10 years.

Conservatives want to build homes. We do not want to build bureaucracy, whereas Bill C-20 would build bureaucracy and not homes. I think that is pretty clear. The government is great at building bureaucracies. I do not know how many bills have come to the House that have been all about bureaucracy, and this is just another one of them. This bill would establish a new Crown corporation on top of the existing ones. We already have the department, for one, and then there is CMHC and Canada Lands Company. Now there is this fourth organization called Build Canada Homes.

This would be an opportunity to give patronage appointments to good Liberal supporters and to funnel a lot of money into the pockets of good Liberal supporters. There would be an advisory council, and I am sure there would be lots of money funnelled to certain people through that. Of course, it would also allow a lot of money to be spent, which is the whole point of these bureaucracies. As we all know, the Liberals are very good at spending money, no matter what.

The one thing missing from this act is an actual requirement to build homes. There is nothing in here about that; it is just about establishing the bureaucracy. We need somewhere around 500,000 homes a year to be built. Unfortunately, right now we are building about half that, and that number has been coming down. It was about 300,000 in 2021, and it just keeps getting lower. In my view, this bill would only reshuffle the chairs on the Liberal housing bureaucracy Titanic. It would not achieve any good result.

Why do new homes matter so much? We get a lot of economic prosperity through building houses, the labour put into houses and all the materials that are there. The other interesting thing about building new houses is that it creates more flexibility and more housing in the country. It does not matter if someone is building a house on the smaller scale or the affordable side, where somebody can move into that house. Someone can build on the expensive side as well, and people just keep moving up. Someone will move into that house, which will free up another house. No matter where a house is built, it adds capacity, and it is another house built in our country.

I want to talk today about the federal building code because it is an alternative plan. There are a lot of reasons why we are not building as many houses as we need to be and why houses are as expensive as they are in our country. The bill before us is a possible solution, which we all know is not going to work as it is a bureaucratic solution. I want to raise a real, practical solution, which is the building codes.

Right now, the codes update every five years, and they dictate how housing has to be built in our country. There is one consistency in building codes, which is that they always get more complicated, and with complexity comes cost. Every time a new building code rolls around, costs go up. That is just the reality of building codes. Some things are good, but many things are not, and it creates uncertainty for builders and consumers.

There is a government agency called the National Research Council that controls building codes. Once it creates a building code, the provinces have to adopt and use it. Cities also have the ability to modify codes and add things to them, which they are notoriously known for doing, and this creates even more complexity. It also creates a discontinuous set of rules across the country, even within a province. Even cities that are side by side can have different building requirements, making it extremely complicated for builders, and these add costs.

Right now we are working on the 2025 code. It has not yet been adopted, to my knowledge, anywhere in Canada, but it is being worked on. Codes used to be done based on common sense, but now activists have gotten involved. Whether it is somebody who is an activist for energy, weather or health, there are all kinds of activists getting involved in building codes, and the changes being made are not necessarily based on common sense anymore. Right now there is a fight between cities, provinces and the federal NRC on adopting the new building code because there are some issues.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association put out a policy position recently, and I want to read a bit from it:

When a code system becomes overloaded or unbalanced, it can however reduce sector productivity, undermine housing affordability, increase risk for builders and limit the ability of builders and renovators to deliver needed housing.

CHBA has observed that Canada's recently renewed building code development system is showing significant gaps and is advocating for a pause on all building code changes (as has been done in Australia for the same reasons) to restore the system, resolve outstanding issues, and ensure future code development supports safe homes, climate goals, affordability and housing objectives.

It goes on to say:

The high volume of new compliance areas and the high pace at which these significant subjects are being developed without national training or industry capacity support is not only impeding the federal priority to build 500,000 homes per year, it also leaves unfinished and often unclear provisions to builders and officials to solve in the field further reducing current levels of productivity.

It also makes a very important point that “building code changes have been driven by political mandates rather than technical evidence.” It goes on, stating, “Examples include operational [greenhouse gas] requirements, which were approved without any stated benefits and without recognition of known zero-emission technologies such as rooftop solar.”

CHBA is calling for a pause on implementing these building code changes until these unresolved issues are dealt with. That is pretty significant because it represents the ones who actually have to implement the housing we are trying to do in Canada, and they are the ones calling for a pause.

I will give members a couple of examples of this.

We all understand air conditioning. It is mandatory in the new building code. That means one cannot build a house in Canada if it does not have air conditioning at some level in a house. I can understand the reason for that, because we do not want to live in hot houses, but that is going to add $3,000 to $5,000 to the cost of every house. There are places in my province where one does not really need air conditioning. One can survive quite well without it.

That brings up the imbalance across our country. Trying to have a uniform set of standards across the country is difficult. Mandating this is not a good idea, in my opinion. A lot of of customers will pay for it if they want it, and that is great. That is the way it should be. If one does not want air conditioning, one should not be forced to have it because some activists said we need to have it.

Another one is something that is a little more complicated. It is lateral load. When the wind blows on a house, it needs to stand up. The requirements are getting very complicated and difficult, to the point where one has to, for any house, get it engineered so that the engineer says it is good enough. If not, one needs to add more lumber to make it stronger, which, again, we do not need in lots of places in our country.

As for windows, this is a good one. The codes do not want too much sunlight coming into the house, which make the house hotter inside, and this makes sense on a hot summer day. Once again, in a place like Saskatchewan, what is the opposite of a hot summer day? It is a cold January day. On a cold January day, I want the sun to come in through my windows.

Here we have a conflict, again, where it does not really make sense to mandate this. It would be good to have the information and have standards that people can work to, but having it mandated does not make a lot of sense.

The other issue I want to speak briefly to is accessibility, for example, wheelchair accessibility. It is a good thing to have accessibility in houses that need it, but to mandate it into all houses, which is what the 2025 codes are moving toward, where all houses will need accessible washrooms, wide hallways and wide doorways, does not make sense for 100% of the houses. It does make sense for some houses, but it does not make sense for 100% of the houses.

These are the kinds of changes that are being forced onto home builders through the activist methods being used today.

Of course, energy efficiency is something we need to focus on, but I think we are seeing the conflict between what we truly need for energy efficiency and the Trudeau-era activism that has been going on. These things are colliding in our building codes. Building codes are based on electricity, of course, and that does not help a province such as Saskatchewan, which relies on natural gas to create electricity. Again, there are inconsistencies across our land.

Finally, I just want to say what Conservatives want to do. We would like to recognize that builders are frustrated and that bureaucracy is not the solution to the problem we face.

We need to work on things like building codes, as I talked about, as well as municipal government development charges and delays. This is another huge issue. There has been 10 years of inaction from our federal government with regard to municipalities. We could take the money that we would put into this bureaucracy and instead use it to find a way to help local governments reduce their development charges and reduce the cost of new houses.

The bill is just adding more bureaucracy, and that is what we do not need to do. Conservatives will reduce costs. We will get Ottawa out of the way, and we will allow housing to be built.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk about the contrast between the government and the official opposition, or the Conservative far right. I have found that it is a good example to show that contrast. The leader of the Conservative Party, when he was the minister responsible for housing, did not actually do anything as a minister of housing.

This is consistent with what the Conservative Party is espousing today, which is that we do not need to do anything, that we need to just get out of the way and leave it up to the private sector, whereas the government, today's government, and today's Prime Minister are working with premiers, mayors of municipalities of all sizes and indigenous communities, all of which are saying that there is room for us to be doing things in that field.

Would the member not agree that we should be listening to what others, beyond the leader of the Conservative Party, are saying?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not a very good student of history. The Conservatives built lots of houses. That is clear.

The member also was not listening to what I was saying. What I said, especially right at the end of my speech, and he could have recalled that, is that is exactly what we need to do. We need to go to municipalities. We need to go directly to them with the bureaucracies that we have, with the minister's department, CMHC and Canada Lands Company. These all exist today.

Instead of spending billions of dollars more on a new bureaucracy, we could take that money, talk to municipalities and provinces, find out what needs to be done and get it done. Building a new bureaucracy does nothing. It does nothing for the real problem, which is creating more houses in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for his intervention and for understanding the power that should be exercised at the level closest to the people, that is to say, at the municipal level. Municipalities are the ones that know the reality in our regions.

I would like to point out that back home in Rouyn‑Noranda, the housing shortage has been going on for more than 20 years, and the situation is critical. Federal programs were never implemented in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and it is a catastrophe. Nothing has improved in 20 or so years. When agreements were signed in 2017, we expected them to produce results in Quebec. Three or four years later, the COVID‑19 pandemic hit and costs soared. In the end, more housing was not built. That was the Liberal government's fault.

Now, the government has come up with a new gimmick, under the misnomer “Build Canada Homes”. The government thinks that will solve everything. However, it is just another layer of bureaucracy. Should we place unquestioning trust in Build Canada Homes?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course we should not trust Build Canada Homes. It is like anything else with the Liberals. The bureaucracies that they create are inefficient. They do not work, and ultimately, there are no results.

My colleague is right to talk about working together with municipalities, and he mentioned an example where there has not been a lot of progress. I also want to caution that this is not just a federal government issue. It is a provincial issue and a municipal issue. Sometimes our municipalities need a little help. They need a little kick in the pants, if I might say that. We need to make sure that we are relying on all of our partners to work together.

Sometimes the federal government needs to provide some carrots. I think that is something that we could be doing with the billions of dollars that would be spent on this bureaucracy. We need to be doing some things and working with the municipalities to help them get pointed in the right direction so that we can actually make a difference for Canadians.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Cassidy deVeer and Krista Paine from the Central Okanagan Canadian Home Builder's Association expressed many of the same concerns to me when they visited about the national building code and increased costs. I give the member that point.

In the bill, it talks about developing land and constructing housing in Canada. That is better than what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done with funding Chinese vessels outside of Canada. It is nice to see that the Liberals have actually put some limitations in the bill.

As I read through the entire bill, there is no designation to say that it must use Canadian products, such as wood. I would simply ask if this member believes the government has made a mistake. It says it is going to use Canadian wood, but that is not in the bill.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will give credit where credit is due. The Liberals finally figured out that they should restrict this to building in Canada. I congratulate them for realizing that.

Now the Liberals need to move on to the inputs, as my colleague identified. Of course, we should be focusing on Canadian inputs where we can, and there are many opportunities for that. This industry is great for creating jobs, and great for creating business and value in Canada. Let us get on it. Let us get houses built.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, legislation that would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation and expand yet another layer of federal bureaucracy in the housing file.

At a time when Canadians are facing the worst housing affordability crisis in a generation, what they need is action that lowers costs and unleashes supply. What this bill offers instead is more bureaucracy expanding its administrative authority, and $13 billion in new spending without a credible plan to actually build the homes that Canada was promised. That could not have been more evident than in the speech from the member across, in which he spent 10 minutes calling us “far right” and slandering us. I am a little more dumbfounded now than I was before I walked in, but hopefully we will get some answers.

Let us be clear that what Bill C-20 does is that it converts Build Canada Homes, which exists as a special operating agency, into a full Crown corporation. It establishes a corporate structure, a board and expanded powers, and folds the Canada Lands Company into its portfolio. It grants this new entity the power to provide advice to ministers, departments, agencies and other Crown corporations. However, Canadians are not short on advice; they are short on homes.

During the 2025 election campaign, the Liberal government promised that Build Canada Homes would fulfill three core functions: first, building affordable housing at scale; second, catalyzing a new housing industry; and third, providing financing to affordable home builders. Those are lofty promises, and we must measure legislation not by theory but by its results and evidence.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reviewed this initiative. What did the PBO conclude? The Liberals promised 500,000 homes per year, half a million homes annually, yet the PBO reported that there is no plan to achieve that goal and that Build Canada Homes would build approximately 5,200 homes per year. These 5,000 homes will not restore affordability in this country, which needs hundreds of thousands more units annually just to keep pace with demand.

What will this cost Canadians? Bill C-20 represents $13 billion over five years, $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for the Canada Lands Company transfer, yet after spending $219 million just on bureaucrats to run the new office, the PBO stated that Build Canada Homes will fund the same types of projects that were already funded under CMHC's affordable housing fund, with the same unit costs and the same distribution and affordability. In other words, we are spending billions of dollars to duplicate what already exists. This would be the government's third housing agency and fourth housing bureaucracy.

Builders across this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, from rural communities to our largest cities, are pleading for less government in the building process, not more. They are asking for streamlined approvals, predictable permitting, reduced developmental charges, lower taxes and faster timelines. The Liberal government believes that if something is not working, the solution is to create another agency. However, housing is not built by bureaucrats; it is built by builders.

In order to build, we need prices to be cut. For prices to be cut, we need to build. Bill C-20 does not meaningfully cut the costs that builders face. It does not eliminate the GST on new homes. It does not mandate municipalities to increase supply. It does not cut developmental charges. It does not address capital flows leaving Canada due to punitive tax policies. Bill C-20 is not what future homeowners need.

Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, who had this to say:

The Ontario Home Builders' Association...is deeply disappointed with the lack of support for Ontario’s home builders and buyers in the 2025 Federal Budget....

The budget presented no new measures to unlock supply and restore affordability....

The government’s continued inaction has put [100,000] jobs...at risk—from architects and engineers, to trades and sub trades across the residential construction sector.

They also said that the budget remains “vague regarding the Liberal platform’s commitment to work with municipalities to reduce development charges...by 50 percent.”

If our own home builders do not support the Liberal platform's housing plan, how can we expect the rest of Canada, who are paying this enormous price tag, to support it?

Now let us address the supposed affordability claims. The Prime Minister has suggested that Canadians could expect affordable rents in a range of $600 to $800 per month under this initiative, yet the PBO found that so-called affordable rents under Build Canada Homes could actually exceed current market rents. Applying the government's own affordability criteria, a two-bedroom unit would cost about $2,168 per month for the median household. That is nearly double the $1,100 national median for market rent.

[An hon. member]

Liberal math.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes it is. Conservatives believe that the only way to restore the dream of home ownership in stable rental markets is to unleash supply at scale.

Our approach is clear. First, we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. That would save families up to $65,000 and immediately stimulate construction activity across the country. Second, we would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding performance. Municipalities must permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year in order to receive full federal funding. If cities want transit dollars, they would have to approve homes near transit. If they want infrastructure dollars, they would have to permit growth.

Third, we would cut development charges by 50%. These charges can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home before a shovel has even hit the ground. The Liberals promised to address development charges during the last election campaign, but they have failed to deliver. Last, we would end the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada. This would unlock billions of dollars in private capital, directing investments into Canada homebuilding instead of watching it flee to foreign markets like America.

These are measures that would address the underlying economics of supply. Bill C-20 would not; instead, it would grow the footprint of government in a sector that is already burdened by regulation, taxation and delay. It would further centralize authority in Ottawa, when what we need is to cut red tape and accelerate approvals.

Every year of delay means higher rents, higher mortgages and fewer opportunities for young Canadians to own a home. Every new layer of bureaucracy adds time. Time adds cost, cost adds price, and price erodes affordability. Throwing billions more dollars at redundant bureaucracies would not fix our supply crisis.

The government argues that converting Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation would provide flexibility and independence, but independence without a plan is meaningless. Governance reform without cost reform does not lower prices. The central question is simple: Would the bill dramatically increase the number of homes built at a lower cost? The PBO says it would not; it would duplicate existing CMHC programs, produce a fraction of the promised homes and spend millions of dollars to underachieve. That is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians when he took office.

Conservatives recognize that housing affordability is not merely a line item in a budget. It is about generational equity and whether young Canadians can start families, seniors can downsize with dignity, workers can live near their jobs, and communities can grow sustainably. When the private sector is ready and willing to build, the government's rule should be to remove obstacles, not to create them. Canadians deserve results, not rebranding. They deserve homes, not headlines.

Bill C-20 would expand bureaucracy, duplicate existing programs and fall dramatically short of the government's own promises. Instead, I ask for support of our Conservative plan for homebuilding: to focus on letting builders build, on cutting costs and on restoring the dream of home ownership for the next generation of Canadians.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Conservative colleagues talk about this bill and other bills many times, and quite often they bring up issues of young Canadians. That is fair, because we know that young Canadians have had the most trouble dealing with the housing crisis. To help solve that problem, I put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-227, that will be going towards committee report stage soon. When that bill came before the House, every member of the Conservative Party voted against it. It is not bureaucracy. It is not addition. It is actually a plan.

[An hon. member]

A study.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is a plan. If someone were to go to any successful private sector company in this country and ask them to show their strategic plan, they would do it, because it is a road map for how to succeed.

My question for my colleague is, why did his party vote against Bill C-227?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, Canadians want action. I knocked on 120,000 doors and I met a lot of young adults who lived in basements. While the government wants to do more research on what is happening, on this side of the aisle, we actually talk to young Canadians. We actually hear their wants and needs. We actually listen to Canadians. We formulate our thoughts and we try to execute.

Some members on that side will call us obstructionists. I beg to differ. I believe the cornerstone to our democracy is a very good and reliable opposition, and we cannot discount that. When they trample all over us and call us obstructionists, I call that freedom and I call that democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that Build Canada Homes will create a new point of federal-provincial friction and make things more complicated. I agree with my colleague on that.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. What does he think of our proposal, which is simply for the federal government to redistribute the billions of dollars to the provinces so that the provinces can manage the construction of new homes themselves?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to possibly explore it and we could talk about it. I have not seen anything cross my desk, but we on this side are open to many different decisions and collaborations. Maybe we could talk about that further.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we already have three bureaucracies for housing in this country, and now the Liberals are wanting to add another one. We had my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill point out very clearly what exactly was on the CMHC website, which is exactly what the Liberals are trying to do with this new bill.

Is it not an admission of failure when they have three bureaucracies already in place to do a job but cannot do the job, and now they are trying to create another one? I was just wondering if my hon. colleague could comment further on that.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been more examples of admissions of failure. We have heard them in the House. I have heard many 10-minute speeches that do not actually speak to Bill C-20. It is much like when I hold stakeholder meetings back in Hamilton, which I do regularly with the housing sector. I ask them whether they understand Build Canada Homes, and not one of our experts in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara region can actually say what Build Canada Homes does.

We heard it about 20 minutes ago when the member across the way did not talk about Bill C-20. He blamed everything on the Conservatives and the right wing. I do not even know what it was. Like I said, I am more dumbfounded now, after listening to him, than I was before. There were no solutions coming from that. They do not even understand their own bill.

The rest of Canada and Canadians watching this want to know what Build Canada Homes would do because the stakeholders have no clue what it would do or how it would better Canadians. I do know that they have hired some bureaucrats north of $700,000 to start filling it out with employees. That is what we do know. However, there are no shovels in the ground. There are no homes built, and it will fail just like all the other ones did. As someone on the public accounts committee, I cannot wait to dig my teeth into this one when it comes across our plate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the importance of the Build Canada Homes act, which is truly a holistic approach to housing. Access to safe, affordable housing is the cornerstone of healthy, growing communities and economic opportunity. It provides people with stability and a place to raise their families.

Housing costs continue to rise, which is something we heard about on all sides of the House. It is consistent with what we heard while knocking on doors.

At the same time, I think it was the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston who got up and talked about his private member's bill and having a plan for housing, and he was mocked by members of the Conservative Party: How dare he have a plan? How dare he bring something forward? He was laughed at and mocked. It was his first time being elected as a member of Parliament, and he was right at the top of the private members' list, but all he got was mockery from the Conservatives. When the Conservatives get up for their speeches, they say, “Well, there is no plan. The Liberals have no plan,” and then they mock someone who is stepping forward to lower housing prices for young people in his riding.

The Conservatives do not have a plan. All they have is obstruction. The last Conservative speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, said something to the effect that they're not obstructionists and this is freedom.

I cannot believe it. I do not know if they hear themselves. All they do is delay. They talk about the government's plans and say that what the Liberals put forward in their platform has not come forward. Well, it is not just in the bill before us, but in the budget, which was tabled in the fall and I understand has finally gone through committee. There are other bills that have been delayed, such as affordability measures. However, this bill is not the entirety of the plan.

It is great for the Conservatives to cherry-pick and say that they are on the side of freedom, but all they are doing is standing here in the House of Commons, preventing people from moving forward. They can shout and say, “This is democracy,” but there is a difference between being the opposition and just being obstructionists.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they say that we are the government, but they know how the math works. They know it is a minority government. They know they can talk out the bill, and that is what they do on all the bills.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hitting too close to home, because all they want to do is chirp.

Let us go to the actual housing experts, because they see themselves as housing experts over there, but not many of them are, as I look across. However, let us talk about the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada on Bill C-20. It said this:

Canada’s housing co-operatives welcome the federal government’s continued focus on housing in Budget 2025. As Canadians continue to face an unprecedented affordability crisis, today’s commitments are a positive signal; building more homes that people can afford is an essential part of remedying the crisis.

In particular, we are pleased to see the government recognize the value of growing non-market housing, including housing co-ops, through Build Canada Homes. With its robust pipeline of cross-country projects, the co-operative housing sector is ready and able to partner with Build Canada Homes to continue to build co-op housing at scale, as we have been doing through the Co-operative Housing Development Program and beyond.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Conservatives are just heckling me through this speech, and they laugh.

This is an organization that provides co-operative housing throughout this country. I bet the members over there have not visited a co-op in their riding. This is fundamental housing that was built, but successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, stopped building that housing.

The hon. member has a smug look on his face. He thinks it is so funny. Would the constituents back in Alberta find it amusing that he would stand up here and mock co-operative housing? It is unbelievable. I should not say that it is unbelievable, because it is truly believable. That is all we are seeing here today as legislation, again, is stalled.

The previous speaker said that there were no experts that side with this. The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association is an organization that provides affordable housing across the country. It said:

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association congratulates [the Minister] and the Government of Canada on the creation of Build Canada Homes.

This new agency is an important step toward addressing the housing crisis—building homes at speed and scale, ensuring affordability, and listening to the community housing sector.

We also congratulate Ana Bailão on her nomination as Chief Executive Officer of the BCH agency. We look forward to working with Ana and the Build Canada Homes team to deliver the homes communities need most.

Together, we can build a stronger, fairer, and more resilient housing system for all Canadians.

The organization that wants to build more affordable housing in this country, true affordable housing, is saying this legislation is a great step forward.

The Conservatives laugh. The Conservatives delay, and the Conservatives obstruct. They talk about there potentially being problems with this bill. Let us send it to committee and end the debate right now. Let us send it to committee and see what the next step is. If these experts are wrong, because the Conservatives are saying that the people who want to build affordable housing in this country are wrong, then they are right and their leader, who built six homes when he was the minister responsible, is the person we should be listening to.

At the same time as they are stalling this legislation, they are going to stall affordability measures. They are going to stall funding for these particular programs. They are going to stall the billions of dollars through budgetary measures to ensure that there is meat on these bones. This is an agency that is going to be created.

The consistency throughout the speeches today is that we have heard from our constituents. We have heard there is a housing crisis and we have a government that's willing to step up and take action. It is the opposition's job to oppose and to hold the government to account, but what we have seen, not just in this Parliament but in previous Parliaments, is the opposition knowing that in a minority Parliament, they can just talk out the clock. They can keep talking and prevent these measures from seeing the light of day and getting to committee.

The Conservatives sit there amused at the notion that it is not them, that we should not look at them as being responsible for legislation not getting through. They say, as they have heckled to me before, that it is the government's fault.

The last time I was up on my feet, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations said the government is stalling its own legislation, which is impressive. It is impressive that they could even come up with something so ridiculous, saying the government is responsible for stalling its own legislation. The government wants to see the legislation get through. I would love to see this legislation get to committee, but the opposition does not want that.

We can read the experts who have said that they would like to see the bill go to the next step, but the Conservatives do not care. They offer no plan and nothing of substance to Canadians to take that step. They say it is a housing crisis, and it is a crisis. However, there is a government that is willing to step up and act, to work with the municipalities and the provinces, but at the end of the day, all the Conservatives have are their stall tactics. All they have is their obstruction. They get mad when we say that, and I can understand why. They do not like the spotlight on that.

All Canadians deserve a place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. The Government of Canada is implementing a new and innovative solution to bring down costs, cut red tape and build homes more quickly. I just wish the Conservatives cared enough to get onside.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always amusing listening to the speeches by the member for St. Catharines.

In 2015, in the Niagara Region, the average cost of a home was about $270,000. Today, it is about $600,000. The same experts that the member referenced, and I will acknowledge they are experts and do a lot of great work in our community, also endorsed the plan in 2015 that was supposed to make housing affordable across Canada. The reality is that after 10 years of Liberal government, every viable metric on housing has only gotten worse.

Why should we give the Liberals any more confidence to address this crisis, which has hurt hundreds of thousands of young people and destroyed what their concept of Canada was because of the Liberals' bad policies?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can cherry-pick the statistics that he knows are much deeper. He talks about young people, but the hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston just talked about his bill on housing for young people, and the Conservative member voted against it.

[An hon. member]

Proudly.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that he proudly voted against housing for young people. Shame on him.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing about voting against housing for young people.

This legislation is about getting housing that is more affordable for Canadians. That is what this legislation would do.

The hon. member talked about how the experts are wrong. I guess that is his right, but at the end of the day, the Conservatives have nothing on this file and do not care about young people. It is time to put their money where their mouth is.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my entertaining friend from St. Catharines for his speech and his enthusiasm. It is always enjoyable to listen to what he has to say and to ask him questions. I look forward to hearing his answer to my question.

At the beginning of his speech he talked about the holistic approach of Build Canada Homes. However, the words “holistic” and “Liberal government” do not go together at all. This approach seems more like a kind of computer virus. It is a bit like those old computer viruses that got into the system, slowed everything down and made it take hours to download something that is less than 10 megabytes. It reminds me more of that than of a holistic approach. There are plenty of examples in Bill C-20. Earlier, we talked about the fact that the bill infringes on the jurisdictions of municipalities and provinces, including Quebec, which is particularly well equipped to deal with this crisis. Quebec just needs funding from the federal government.

There is another point that caught my attention. I look forward to hearing my colleague's thoughts on this. Build Canada Homes would be designated as an agent of the Crown. For municipalities, this could mean that they would be deprived of property tax revenues. This is a real and entirely legitimate concern. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I miss my time on the heritage committee with the hon. member for Drummond. At the same time, he is right; we do need to work with the provinces. That is part of the holistic plan. As I said, not everything is in this bill.

The member talked about municipalities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says that it “welcomes the federal government's Build Canada Homes...initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis.” I am sure the Conservatives will mock and laugh again at the experts and getting houses built. Let us not care what the mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities say.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are laughing about the mayors. They called them gatekeepers. That is why they are on the other side of the House rather than working to build homes for Canadians and young people who need them.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank my colleague from St. Catharines for the shout-outs and plugs for my private member's bill. I appreciate it very much.

I want to say that the member really distilled the essence of what the bill is about. Bill C-20 is about affordable housing.

One of our colleagues across the way mentioned earlier that he was a home builder, and I respect that. Any home builder who is building private sector housing is in it to build homes but also to make a profit. That is fine and absolutely their prerogative. However, private sector builders will not build affordable housing unless they have some level of support from some level of government in order to make it economically viable.

I wonder if my colleague could touch a bit on the importance of the federal government in providing the scale of affordable housing that we need—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for St. Catharines has the floor.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the market will build market housing. It is important for the federal government to step up. It is unfortunate the Conservatives will block it every step of the way.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a chance to speak about Build Canada Homes. To begin with, I would like to say hello to voters in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, who have probably tuned in to watch me this evening.

I think that the Build Canada Homes bill we are discussing today is an outstanding initiative. However, before I get to what we want to do with Build Canada Homes, I would like to talk about various programs that have been extremely beneficial to my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, in collaboration with the Department of Housing and Infrastructure. My colleague spoke earlier about mayors and municipalities.

Let us begin with the program known as the housing accelerator fund. It provides dedicated funds directly to municipalities. My New Brunswick riding was fortunate enough to have six such agreements. The funds go directly to the municipalities. Developers then contact them to inquire about construction projects, whether for affordable housing or for other types of housing. These municipalities far surpassed their objectives, and it shows on the ground, because there is construction going on everywhere. People can watch the housing be built from the ground up. Some of it is ready. Some people have moved in. The program has been extremely beneficial to municipalities in my region. As my colleague said earlier, the Leader of the Opposition called the mayors of some municipalities incompetent. I hope that people will remember that the mayors in my region were not incompetent. They created a tremendous amount of housing, including affordable housing, housing for young people and housing for young families. The program has been a huge boon to my region.

The other program I want to talk about is the Canada housing infrastructure fund. This fund still exists, and the federal government has signed agreements through it with the provinces, including my province, New Brunswick. Once again, we had great programs to ensure that municipalities could move forward with water and sewer projects, for example, to connect new housing developments to that infrastructure.

I recently had the opportunity to make an announcement with my colleague, the member for the provincial riding of Bathurst West-Beresford and New Brunswick's finance minister. To develop the former site of a mill that had been closed since the 2000s, we managed to secure funding through the Canada housing infrastructure fund, which enabled us to build more than 300 housing units there. Just recently, an announcement was made about housing for homeless people that has begun to be built on that land. This shows that these programs are working. There are also several other programs for which we want to partner with New Brunswick. In the coming weeks or months, we hope to increase our collaboration with New Brunswick to be able to build more housing.

Regarding Build Canada Homes, as members are aware, we want to make sure that we build affordable housing. I know opposition members often say that we create more bureaucracy. I disagree. We are going to make things easier for developers, whether they are private developers, community associations or housing co-ops. There are many of them in our regions, especially in rural areas. Every stakeholder I have talked to about what Build Canada Homes will look like is very excited. They hope that this will spark interest among developers.

In addition, we often forget about modular home developers and companies. There are two such companies in my riding: Supreme Homes and Trusko Inc. They are currently building modular housing and, once again, this type of housing is affordable. We see these homes going up day after day. People can feel it in the air, it is tangible. People are waiting for these units. Some of them have already been able to get into a home.

However, as we know, too many Canadians are still having a hard time finding affordable housing. Housing costs are rising, and unfortunately, supply is not keeping up with demand. By consolidating functions that were previously scattered across several departments, agencies and programs, we will strengthen the government's ability to deliver meaningful results. As my colleagues said earlier, traditional approaches need to be reviewed. We must accelerate housing construction. For example, under other programs, municipalities have amended their zoning bylaws to speed up housing construction. That will continue.

Build Canada Homes will be a developer, a funder, a facilitator and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. Canadians need more housing, and Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, will make it possible to build faster and more efficiently at scale.

The global economy has recently undergone a shift that has profoundly transformed the traditional world order. Canada can no longer count on its most important trading relationship. Because of that, we are building our capacity here at home by building stronger relationships across all levels of government, including municipal, territorial and provincial governments, as well as with our indigenous partners.

We are making strategic investments to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. We are working to cut red tape, eliminate internal trade barriers and sign new agreements that will stimulate local economies.

In these uncertain times, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our nation and make it more resilient so that it can shift from reliance to resilience. The goal is to make Canada one of the fastest-growing and most competitive economies in the world and to usher in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians.

The Government of Canada will achieve its goals by building on the strength of our industries and by implementing measures such as Build Canada Homes and the buy Canadian policy, which will enable it to invest in the future and stimulate economic growth.

The buy Canadian policy will have an impact on our softwood lumber industry, for example. There are several companies in my region, including two major plants, that process softwood lumber. They are delighted with the amounts being invested in Build Canada Homes. It will help them diversify their markets a bit if their wood is used to build the homes we need in Canada. During my meetings with these companies, it was very clear that they were about to go through a period of uncertainty because of what is happening with the markets, mainly in the United States. If we help them through Build Canada Homes, they will be able to sell their wood, and we will be able to build homes faster in Canada.

As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by an initial $13-billion envelope announced in budget 2025. Build Canada Homes was created to centralize federal support for affordable housing in coordination with other departments and agencies. It will act quickly and leverage federal land, support innovative construction approaches and form partnerships across all sectors to build more housing.

Build Canada Homes is a key part of Canada's new industrial strategy. It will stimulate the residential construction sector and make it more productive. Build Canada Homes will revitalize the housing industry by enabling the construction of thousands of new homes. As construction ramps up, we will ensure the growth, training and support of Canada's skilled workforce, while creating well-paying jobs. In addition to building new homes, we will also support the development of essential housing infrastructure such as water and sewer systems.

With existing programs and with the creation of Build Canada Homes, I think Canadians will see that we believe in them. Canadians will see that we understand their concerns and that we understand that they need affordable housing. That is exactly why we are moving forward with a bill like this one while maintaining our existing programs. We are moving forward to build as many homes as possible for Canadians.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the Niagara Home Builders' Association, and its members indicated to us that bureaucracy will not build homes.

One builder has laid off 60% of their staff. They used to build 300 homes but are now building only 30. Their one solution to the housing crisis, and they told us this, was to adopt the Conservative plan of removing the GST on all new homes, not just for first-time homebuyers.

Can the member explain to us why the Liberal government will not simply adopt that idea?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the Conservatives' plan, we would probably end up with six housing units, which is what was built when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for housing.

The Conservatives like to talk about bureaucracy. We like to talk about building homes, and building homes by the thousands. The current programs we put in place are already getting it done, but with Build Canada Homes, we will do even more.

The Conservatives like to talk about bureaucracy but fail to see what is good about this strategy. Their strategy is always to delay the process and delay the construction of these homes. We see things differently.

We want to move forward to ensure that there are more affordable housing units for Canadians, and that is what we are going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think things would move faster if the government acted like a minority government instead of always trying to impose its solutions.

I would like to know something. All of this is going to result in a very centralized entity that impedes on Quebec's area of jurisdiction. However, not everyone shares the same vision.

Quebec and the municipalities are the ones who are most up to speed on housing needs. The federal government's idea of affordability differs wildly from Quebec's. I went to a building inauguration a few years ago. I was very pleased because we need more housing. However, it was deemed affordable housing when it was not affordable at all. Members can imagine the reactions I got when I posted it on social media.

Why not create a program that would allow Quebec to, first of all, have an envelope allocated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will give the member the opportunity to respond.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague knows that we have always been able to collaborate with Quebec on plenty of files, including housing.

Ultimately, what we want to do is build as much affordable housing as possible for as many Canadians as possible. I think that residents of the province of Quebec will continue to benefit from these programs. It will always be a pleasure for us to work with the Government of Quebec. I even think that some discussions have led to agreements with the Government of Quebec. We look forward to continuing in this vein.

Our goal is to build as much housing as possible for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, this was a very important issue for our new Prime Minister and the government as a whole. In fact, it was incorporated into the throne speech that was delivered back in May of last year. It is good to see the legislation before us.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to how important this issue is for the government of the day, in particular the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think my colleague is well aware that it is very important to our government to ensure that we build as much affordable housing as possible for as many Canadians as possible.

As we all know, young families and young people want access to housing. With programs like Build Canada Homes and other existing programs, we will provide families and young Canadians with the housing they need.

I think the Prime Minister has been clear. We want to see massive housing construction. That is what Build Canada Homes is all about.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. When I get the chance to talk about housing, as a former mayor for the township of North Dundas and warden in SDG, it is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and not only because of my previous municipal experience. As we go out and talk to residents in our ridings, and I know it is the same for each and every member in this House, housing is probably one of the top national concerns in every single part of this country.

I am going to be splitting my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill South, and I know he will have some comments as well about the latest piece of Liberal legislation before us.

What is important, as we begin this conversation on the latest Liberal attempts to address affordable housing, is that we look at where we are after 10 years. After 10 years of the Liberals in office, not just in Cornwall and SDG with the data from the Cornwall and District Real Estate Board, but right across this country, housing prices and rent have doubled. At a time when we need to build more homes and get more shovels in the ground, we are actually seeing red tape and taxes as a key part of the burden. We are actually seeing housing starts projected to fall in the coming years, which is going to make affordability and demand that much more challenging.

When we look at this, according to the government's own data, we need to build about 450,000 to 480,000 homes per year, just to meet demand and keep up with affordability, every year until 2035. Right now we build about half of that.

The Liberals have put this piece of legislation before us. Their solution is that one bureaucracy for housing was not enough, a second bureaucracy did not solve the problem, and neither did a third, so, as I guess they say in Liberal land, the fourth time will be the charm. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canada Lands Company and the department of infrastructure and housing, and now we would have Build Canada Homes, which would apparently be the bureaucratic solution to the problems we face in this country.

When I went door-knocking in the last election, and when I go out and about and talk in our community, whether it is in the united counties, Cornwall or Akwesasne, and people talk about housing, not a single person suggests to me that the thing that would make the difference, make housing more affordable and get more shovels in the ground would be one more new housing agency or bureaucracy in this country. I did not hear that anywhere, but we did hear the stories of young people living in their parents' basements, wanting to have the dream of home ownership like their parents and grandparents did.

It was the common consensus for young people in this country for decades that if they worked hard and saved up, home ownership would be achievable. They cannot even save now, because rent is so high and the cost of living is so high, but that dream of home ownership has eroded bit by bit, and here we are now with the government claiming that it is going to come in with billions of new dollars to try to address the problem.

Here is the thing with this piece of legislation that we have before us with Build Canada Homes: The Liberals claim that it is going to help bridge the gap and get more shovels in the ground and homes built. However, their own data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation show that after this plan is taken into calculation, we are not going to see that. The government said it is going to build 5,200 homes per year. That was from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but the CMHC numbers say that housing starts are actually going to go down.

The Liberals spend billions and billions on bureaucracy, programs, photo-ops, announcements and claims that it is going to get better, but we are actually going to see a decrease in the number of homes being built. I would say it is surprising, but it is not surprising, because the Liberals just do not learn after 10 years. They are relying on the same failed approaches to get us out of this crisis in housing that we face.

There is a way that we can do better on this. I am often asked what we do as a Conservative opposition. We are a loyal opposition. We look at the legislation, we scrutinize it, we support it where we can, we amend it where we can, and we vote either for or against it. That is what a loyal opposition does. We highlight the shortcomings of the government and propose our own solutions. I am often asked what Conservatives would do that could change the game when it comes to housing and getting more homes built in this country.

There are four things I want to highlight. The first is that we could cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. That is something that the industry says would spark an extra 35,000 to 40,000 new homes in this country every year. The most expensive part of buying a new home is not the labour and not the materials; it is actually government taxes and fees. Therefore, if we could take the GST off and work with provinces to take the HST off, in the province of Ontario that is 13% on a million-dollar home or on a home that is half a million dollars. It is hard to build one for half a million dollars today, but people could be looking at savings anywhere from $65,000 to $130,000 if we were able to take all the HST off.

There is also the ripple effect. If, on a $1.3-million home, GST alone comes off, that is a $65,000 savings up front, but it also would save on the mortgage. There would be less to be mortgaged, less to be made in payments and less to be paid in interest. That would make home ownership instantly more affordable for Canadians, whether they are a first-time homebuyer or someone who is looking to build their dream home for which they have saved and worked so hard their entire life.

The second thing we could do is tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. We would say to municipalities that they need to permit 15% more houses year over year, each and every year, so we can get the tide going in the right direction. We could tie federal funding, the billions of dollars from the federal government to support infrastructure, to actual results. We could say to municipalities that it would not be when they have a plan or an aspiration, or have done a study and intend to do something, but rather when building permits are actually permitted that the municipalities get paid. That is a huge incentive for municipalities.

Further, if municipalities exceed that goal, Conservatives have said that we would bonus them. We could tie it to homebuilding, tie it to results and get municipalities on the right track, leading by example and permitting more homes that we need, to actually go up, in the right direction.

The third thing is what the Conservatives have said and what the Liberals promised in the last election, but they have broken their promise. They said they would be cutting development charges by 50%. We said the same thing. The reality is that they have not done that. They have had a budget and a Speech from the Throne, and now they have this legislation, Bill C-20, before us which would mandate municipalities to do so. The Liberals have refused to take that step.

Again, not only is it the GST and the HST on a new home build; there are development charges as well. These add up to the biggest cost: taxes and fees. Conservatives are saying to the Liberals, “Just keep the promise made during the election campaign. Agree with us, and let us cut development charges by 50%.” They have refused multiple times, at every opportunity in the last year, to keep their word and their promise with respect to housing. If this is a signature, cornerstone piece of legislation that they claim is part of their backbone to housing, that promise should have been in there, but it is not.

The fourth thing we could do is end the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada, which would unlock billions of dollars in investment in our country's homebuilding sector. Here is an example of what we could do. If somebody builds a 10-unit apartment building and sells that building, as opposed to paying capital gains taxes on it, if they reinvest that money in another apartment building, reinvestment could happen, and the federal government could defer that tax. We would have more units, and more building would take place. We would get more results. It would be a rocket ship of an opportunity to get our housing and our homebuilding sector fired up and going in the right direction.

We have before us another piece of Liberal legislation for a fourth bureaucracy: more bureaucracy, more plans, more studies, more photo ops and more good-intention announcements. It would lead to the same result we have had for the last year.

The Conservatives will stand with the action plan I presented, and that would be the true way we could make homes more affordable in this country. After 10 years, the Liberals are recycling the same old ideas. It is time for a new approach under the Conservative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no surprise in the member's comments. That is what we have been hearing all day from the Conservative Party. The Conservatives do not support Bill C-20. They do not support the federal government's having a stronger, healthier role in working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and the many different stakeholders. They want to just get out of the way, as they always like to say.

We know you are voting against the legislation. It was in the throne speech. It was a commitment by the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament. Will you at the very least not filibuster the legislation so we can actually see it proceed through the process?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary to speak to the member through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for that member. He does not get up and speak too much in the House too often. He needs to be reminded of the rules a little bit.

The comment was interesting that the legislation would be giving the federal government and the Liberals a stronger, healthier relationship with provinces and municipalities. I am pretty sure they said the same thing regarding the national housing strategy that they had 10 years ago, which saw housing prices double. We had the housing accelerator fund that was going to be stronger and healthier. What happened? We are not seeing shovels get in the ground. We are seeing fewer shovels in the ground. We are seeing housing prices that have doubled. We are seeing rent that has doubled. That is their record.

If we just give them the fourth chance in 10 years to get it right by using the same recycled approach, they say they will get a different result. That is the definition of insanity. We are not going with it.

The House resumed from February 23 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is substantial legislation designed and meant to support Canadians in all regions of the nation in regard to housing by working with different levels of government and the many stakeholders out there in an attempt to increase Canada's housing stock and make it more affordable in many different ways.

I wonder if the member opposite would not concede that it is important that the national government play a significant role in this. That is what our new Prime Minister and the government has done by bringing forward Bill C-20.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I look at is the record of the Liberals over the course of the last 10 or 10 and a half years. They brought in many pieces of major legislation and many strategies to try to make housing more affordable in this country. They had the national housing strategy and the housing accelerator fund, and now they have Bill C-20, which would add a fourth bureaucracy with Build Canada Homes.

What has happened over the course of their record every time they have added a new piece of legislation or come up with a new strategy? The cost of housing in this country has doubled. The cost of rent has doubled. At a time when we need to get more shovels in the ground and build more homes, we are actually seeing that pace slow down. Forgive me if we do not want to give credit to the Liberals, because every time they reintroduce new legislation, their record is one of failure.

On this side of the House, we are talking about doing things not legislatively, to add more bureaucracy, but by getting rid of it by taking the GST off all new home builds under $1.3 million. That is a concrete way we could lower housing prices immediately.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of promises from the other side, going back years and years. There was a housing accelerator fund, and there were promises of hundreds of thousands of new homes.

I would like to get my colleague's opinion on whether this new promise, dressed up in old trappings, is going to achieve any of the results we hope it will.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the past is any indication, we are in for higher costs when it comes to housing and rent, and more red tape and bureaucracy when it comes to the system of trying to improve housing in this country. Actually, my colleague and I both served in municipal politics at quite a young age, and this is one of the things the Liberals have broken their promise on. They could have done it in the budget, but they did not. They could have done it in this piece of legislation, and they have not. It is to address the cost of development charges by municipalities in this country. The Liberals promised during the election, as did the Conservatives, that they would cut in half the cost of development charges.

The Liberals are breaking their promise, which is adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of housing in many cities. They need to keep their promise and not just add more layers of bureaucracy. That is not going to solve the problem.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, as I have been, we would not know it, but there is a quiet but growing anxiety in the country. We can feel it in conversations around the community, with those who work in our offices, with the people one potentially goes to school with, with people on the pickleball court. We hear a pause before a young couple answers the question of when they are buying. We see the construction worker who is constantly checking the listings, the articles about litigation for those who were so close but just could not close on what they bought pre-construction.

The housing market in Canada is not just cooling. It is absolutely cracking for these people, for people who want to get into the housing market.

In Toronto, starts have fallen to 30-year lows. Last month, fewer than 300 homes and fewer than 100 condos sold in the entire city. That is nearly 90% below average, and 75% of people who do not own a home in that city believe they never will own a home.

Think about that. That is now a story in Canada. Three-quarters of people who do not own a home will have already given up on the idea that they will own a home. I repeated that because I want members to let that sink in. This is a country where the dream of home ownership has always been there and should continue to be there.

This is not a market correction. It is not a cycle. It is an entire generation losing faith in what their parents and grandparents, and those who came before them, had in this country. It is in moments like this, in a real crisis, that leadership and action actually matter.

When a person's house is on fire, they do not call the fire department for a literature review on combustion, and that is exactly what we are talking about. It is exactly what the government is doing with yet another piece of legislation on housing. The flames are obvious, the young people are locked out, the renters are squeezed, builders are stalled and jobs are disappearing. Now, imagine that, instead of water, the government arrives with a brand new set of clipboards. It announces a task force on flames. It creates an office of fire awareness. It holds a press conference about historic fire mitigation targets, but the house keeps burning.

For a while it sounded like the Liberals understood the urgency. For a while there was talk of a new government and a new plan. They promised the most ambitious housing plan in nearly a century. They used words like revolutionary, transformative and historic. Those are their words, but what did Canadians actually get? They got Bill C-20, which has nothing of what they said. It is just tinkering around the edges, more of the exact same thinking that got us to this point in the first place.

Do members want to know the headline feature of the bill? It is unbelievable. It is yet another housing bureaucracy, housing bureaucracy number four. What did the first three deliver? They doubled the price of homes. They doubled rent. They doubled mortgage costs, and they sent housing construction into an absolute tailspin. This year, we are supposed to, according to the government's own numbers, build 500,000 new homes just to keep up with demand. This new bureaucracy will add 5,000, which is a rounding error, at the cost of $13 billion, which is not a rounding error. That is $13 billion for a government that believes that if one studies a crisis long enough and writes enough reports and makes enough announcements, reality will somehow happen by press release.

Here is the truth. No one can live inside a housing accelerator. That was part of their first plan. No one raises their children in a federal task force. That was their second plan. No one calls bureaucracy home. Builders build homes. Workers build homes. Communities actually build homes. The government's job is to get out of the way rather than stand in it.

If the government is short on ideas, I will be happy to help. In fact, we are going to help it throughout this entire debate, and maybe there will be a bill that could come back to the House that would actually be supportable.

Those who get in the way cannot possibly be rewarded. Incentivize cities to actually build homes, not to do the paperwork. Sell federal land. Empty buildings, so that families can live in them. Cut the federal GST on new homes for everyone, up to $1.3 million, to get buyers buying and builders building. I know that they are thinking about that, because the plan they brought forward to cut GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes under $1 million is not working, and they know that. I invite the Liberals to go back to the drawing board. I do not really care how they do it. They just need to do it. It is not rocket science.

Clinging to ideology is a really powerful blindfold on the other side. The Liberals always just get halfway there. Sometimes we have to wonder if they are comfortable with this being the new reality, where those young people I talked about do not believe they will ever buy a home.

Maybe that is the entire plan. Maybe the plan is to give up on the dream of home ownership and have a permanent class of renters forever. The only problem is that it is not the Canadian promise. It is not how we have lived for generations. It is not how anybody wants to live. The Canadian promise was very, very simple. People work hard, they save, they play by the rules and they build a life. They do not rent that life forever.

The answer to the crisis today is that it was created by too much government interference. Certainly, we are seeing that today, but it cannot be another study or another agency. Every month that they wait with the same plan over and over again, another young person believes that the dream is not for them.

Again, maybe that is the plan. A country where people stop believing they can build a future is a country that is headed in the wrong direction. It is a country that gets hollowed out by the fact that the youngest, smartest people in our society, who really want to attain the dream that was promised to them, end up looking elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the bill that we have in front of us proves that the government still does not understand. Canadians do not need another government program that sounds good in a press release and fails in reality. The bill would not do the very things that the current government itself admitted it needed to do at the beginning of its term. A year later, we are here with yet another announcement of another federal bureaucracy run by another insider.

People need homes. We need supply. They need costs to come down. It is really not that complicated. Builders are telling the government the exact same thing regarding what is required: Get out of the way, cut taxes, cut red tape and let them build. Bill C-20, unfortunately, would do none of that.

Conservatives believe that there is a solution to the housing crisis, but it is not bigger government. It is more homes. Until the government understands that basic fact, Canadians keep paying the price. Over the course of the last 10 years and a year of the pretend new government, with all of the same ministers sitting in the front benches and all of the same people piping in on the same exact policy, we have seen housing prices double, rent double and a payment on a mortgage double, and now we see an absolute stalling of new construction in housing.

The Liberals know the problem. They have admitted the problem. In fact, the fix that they put forward before this piece of legislation was part of the problem. Now, I know they are thinking about announcing a wider GST cut, but we continue to hear about that over and over again, and it never happens. I do not know why they did not put that in this piece of legislation. At least there would be a piece of it that we could support: a full-on GST cut for homes under $1.3 million for everyone, no matter what. They would have to do a few other things, but we could at least support that measure. Hopefully, the government will revise this legislation to include some of our suggestions on lowering development charges, cutting red tape and lowering the cost of housing, so that young people one day will be able to afford a home in this country.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is really ironic to hear the Conservatives talk about ideology and pretend to defend young Canadians, when they voted against all measures to improve housing affordability for young Canadians. They voted against GST cuts for first-time homebuyers, against expanding mortgage criteria, against first home savings accounts and, most recently, against Bill C-227, which proposed a housing strategy specifically for young Canadians. Just today, the Conservatives are looking down again on home renters, so we know which side they stand for.

The only question I have for my colleague is this: Which Canadians are they standing for?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is the burden she thinks it is. We stand on the side of young people who want to afford a house in this country, and she is part of a government that has doubled housing prices, doubled rent and doubled mortgage payments. The Liberals have sat comfortably here while they have done it. Builders have asked them to lower development charges. Builders have asked them for things they want in order to get housing done, and they have done absolutely none of it, so it is not very hard to say that we are on the side of home ownership in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we, too, are concerned about Build Canada Homes. One of our concerns is that it is a large bureaucratic entity that is too far removed from the action and does not provide adequate justification for its decisions. That is what is happening already. In my riding, proponents of a housing project received a letter saying that their proposal was rejected because the program is so competitive. How would my colleague improve Build Canada Homes, if it can be improved?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what would improve the organization, there is no question that the federal government has a role to play in housing, but the role is not one of an organization or role that picks winners and losers in a market. It is one that does not distort market conditions to allow these things to be built. It is one where GST can be taken off new homes. It is one where we can incentivize municipalities based on their approval of building permits or their lowering of development charges, whether we would grant them federal infrastructure dollars or not.

This is the government's role in all of this. There is plenty we can do, but an additional bureaucracy will not do any of that. In fact, it will result in more of the exact same that we have seen over the last 10 years.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it always astounds me when members stand up in the House and have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about on the ground. The member opposite talked about past housing projects. Through the housing accelerator fund, $93.5 million went to the City of Hamilton. That was used to build nearly 3,000 additional homes and housing units and for building growth-related infrastructure. In terms of CMHC funding, nearly $200 million went to CityHousing Hamilton and affordable housing projects in the City of Hamilton. Before members stand up and speak nonsense, they should know the facts.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice that the member is actually allowed to get up outside of question period. He is not yelling from the peanut gallery.

This program is supposed to deliver 500,000 homes. It is going to deliver 5,000. It has delivered about five so far.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the creation of Build Canada Homes, I am particularly interested in the fact that the government moved fast and used something rarely used, called a special operating agency, which is under Treasury Board rules.

I wonder if the lack of transparency involved in that troubles the member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises an interesting point. There are a lot of these shadow bureaucracies being set up right outside of the bureaucracy, which has grown, by the way, in a disproportionate way. The member opposite should be interested to know that the government is actually looking to set up another $1.5-billion office to buy excess condo stock off the market. The Liberals have not told anybody about it, but that is certainly what they are dealing with here. This is yet another program outside of what is being delivered in what is going to be Build Canada Homes, unless they change it and they can get the votes in the House to support it.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

I am very proud to have this opportunity to talk about Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, and why Build Canada Homes plays an important role in supporting the Canadian economy and the federal government's buy Canadian policy.

Launched in September 2025, Build Canada Homes is a special operating agency that, thanks to its fast and effective work, has already undertaken major projects to provide more affordable housing to Canadians. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy to fulfill its mandate and clear lines of accountability to the government. This is why the Build Canada Homes act is a decisive piece of legislation.

The Government of Canada must strengthen its ability to respond to the housing crisis, increase housing supply and accelerate innovation in residential construction. Too many Canadians are still struggling to find affordable housing. The mission of Build Canada Homes is to fast-track the construction of affordable housing. Housing costs are going up and supply is not keeping up with demand. By consolidating functions that were once spread out across multiple departments, agencies and programs, we will strengthen the government's ability to deliver real results. We know that our opposition colleagues hate it when we deliver real results, but we are going to do it anyway. Traditional approaches to construction and financing are no longer enough on their own to deliver the fast, large-scale results that Canadians need. Build Canada Homes will be a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. Canadians need more homes, and the build Canada homes act will help us build faster and more efficiently at scale.

I would now like to talk a bit about the economic situation and how Build Canada Homes fits into the current economic climate across the country. Recently, the global economy experienced a change that upended the traditional world order. Canada can no longer count on its biggest trade relationship. In light of this, we have to strengthen our capacity here in Canada. We are building stronger relationships with all levels of government, be they municipal, territorial or provincial, and with our indigenous partners. We are making strategic investments to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. We are working to cut red tape, remove internal trade barriers and pursue new agreements to stimulate local economies.

In these uncertain times, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our nation and to make it more resilient, moving it from reliance to resilience. The goal is to make Canada one of the fastest-growing and most competitive economies in the world, ushering in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians. The Government of Canada is achieving this by building on the strength of our industries and implementing measures like Build Canada Homes and the buy Canadian policy in order to invest in the future and grow our economy.

As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded through the initial $13-billion envelope announced in the 2025 budget. Build Canada Homes is not a program. It is an investment agency that may seek other investment and gather other financial institutions around the table. Build Canada Homes was created to centralize federal support for affordable housing, in coordination with the other departments and agencies. It is going to move swiftly, use federal lands, support innovative building approaches and establish partnerships in all sectors to build more homes.

Build Canada Homes is a key part of Canada's new industrial strategy, and it will contribute to a more productive residential construction sector. Build Canada Homes will boost the housing industry through the construction of thousands of new homes. As more homes are built, we will ensure the growth, training and support for Canada's skilled workforce while creating good-paying jobs. In addition to building new homes, we will support the delivery of critical housing infrastructure, including water and waste water systems. Build Canada Homes will prioritize projects that use Canadian-made materials, such as mass timber, softwood lumber, steel and aluminum.

It will promote modern construction methods such as modular and prefabricated housing to reduce construction times, material waste and environmental impact.

The federal government is leveraging the key relationships it has with private developers, businesses, community organizations and non-profits, and with other government and indigenous partners. By working together, we are creating job opportunities here at home and supporting the Canadian workforce. We are doing all this by building housing more efficiently and to benefit everyone: builders, developers, investors, buyers and workers.

In December 2025, we launched the buy Canadian policy, which was created to protect and prioritize Canadian industries and workers and to strengthen Canada's economy. The policy ensures that the federal government prioritizes Canadian suppliers and local content in its procurement processes. This approach applies to all federal funding sources and Crown corporations. The buy Canadian policy also provides a road map for provinces and municipalities to implement similar standards in their own procurement processes.

We have a big challenge ahead of us, and we need to tackle it on all fronts. These changes to the procurement rules will create a strong Canadian supply chain and help Canadian industries be more self-reliant and resilient in the face of fluctuations in the global economy. This policy supports Canada's construction and defence industries and applies to projects such as buildings, bridges and much more. It requires major federal construction and defence procurement projects to use Canadian-made steel, aluminum and wood.

The policy will also protect Canada's industry from global trade disruptions and foreign tariffs. Our aim is to build and strengthen our country while creating good-paying jobs and supporting major Canadian industries, such as steel, aluminum, critical minerals and softwood lumber. With the new buy Canadian policy, we are making the government a force for nation building. We are becoming our own best customer. We are protecting Canadian businesses and giving workers access to good-paying jobs that strengthen Canada's prosperity.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada is introducing legislation like the build Canada homes act to strengthen our capacity here at home. We are investing in Canadian industries and creating good jobs for young people, the jobs of tomorrow. Build Canada Homes is part of the federal government's strategic efforts to invest in our country, protect Canadian interests and make our economy one of the strongest in the G7.

By making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation, the government will be in a better position to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable housing. Across the country, we want to build more housing quickly and efficiently using Canadian materials, Canadian labour and Canadian businesses. We want to build housing so all Canadians have a home that fits their budget and needs.

The build Canada homes act will give the federal government a bigger positive influence over Canada's housing system. Together, the investments made by Build Canada Homes, in collaboration with key partners, will help strengthen our economy and create lasting economic benefits for communities across the country.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks highly about the bill, but let us be honest, it is more bureaucracy: paying tax dollars to a bloated board of directors, all appointed by the government.

How does the member justify adding this layer of bureaucracy when Canadians are crying out for more actual homes, not more Liberal insiders with big salaries?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is real, and we have to deal with it. We really need to think outside the box. We need to try something different. Clearly, what has been done so far has not worked.

Some very good projects have been launched since 2017 under Canada's national housing strategy. Hundreds of homes have been built. Now we have to tackle the issue of affordability. That is what we are doing through Build Canada Homes. The mission of Build Canada Homes is to deliver affordable housing.

What the members opposite are proposing is to help a different class, a different type. We also want to talk about access to home ownership. Access to home ownership is important, but we need to build more affordable homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her co-operation during our work together on housing projects in my riding, in the Gaspé and on the Magdalen Islands.

I would like to ask her a question, because I think she has a good grasp of regional realities.

At the moment, construction costs are often 30% higher in the regions, but the funds provided by governments to build affordable housing make no allowance for this disparity. As a result, the same housing in the Gaspé has to cost 30% less to offset the additional costs.

What does my colleague think Build Canada Homes would have to do to ensure that regional realities will be taken into account?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an important issue. We must ensure that Build Canada Homes also responds to the realities of rural regions and remote communities. This is extremely important to me, and I often bring it up in conversations.

Right now, Build Canada Homes is exploring options to better support small municipalities, rural areas and remote communities in order to ensure that they have access to the program and that Build Canada Homes fully understands the realities of rural communities. We are continuing our efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could just reflect on how important the issue has been for the government, which is the primary reason for bringing this legislation forward.

In contrast to the Conservatives, we believe that the national government does play a strong leadership role in making housing more affordable in Canada and in working with our partners.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes has been established very quickly. Very little time passed between when we made that commitment during the election campaign and when Build Canada Homes was launched in September. In addition, shovels will be in the ground soon. The process happened exceptionally fast because we know that there is a real crisis. We absolutely must propose concrete solutions, not just unequivocal, across-the-board tax cuts. That is no way to run serious programs.

By making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation, we will get all the tools we need, all the mechanisms we need to build more housing, to bring more financial partners to the table and to create innovative partnerships. That is what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a very quick question. Housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. Why is the government still trying to centralize it? It slows the process down, and the Government of Quebec, provincial governments and local governments know more about what their people need.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to have that conversation with the Government of Quebec, which is very enthusiastic about the agreement we signed. Our collaboration with the Government of Quebec has been going very well since the agreement was signed on January 21. We have already met several times to discuss working together, and some projects are close to being approved.

I encourage the member to discuss this with the Government of Quebec, which is happy with the agreement.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-20, not only as the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, but also as a first nations woman and the first to have this portfolio.

However, this is not about me; it is about the communities of the north that really need to be the problem-solvers of the issues they are dealing with on a day-to-day basis, including housing. It is also about the communities I come from, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. When we think about the generations of northern and indigenous women who have carried their families, languages, nations and communities through hardships and hope and we think about this moment, there is real meaning and opportunity in this bill.

When we think about a house, it is more than four walls and a roof; it is the backbone of health, safety, opportunity and identity. When families sleep at night, sometimes they are concerned about overcrowding. This can be exhausting when elders do not have a place to consider home as they are aging. They want to age on the lands that raised them. They want to see that children have space to study and dream and that communities can thrive. In the north and the Arctic, people have waited far too long for basic conditions most of us in the south take for granted.

When we think about moving forward from an Inuit Nunangat perspective, more than half of Inuit live in crowded housing, and in Nunavut the rate is even higher. The realities of building in the north are unlike anywhere else in Canada. There are high construction, operation and maintenance costs; short building seasons; and supply chains that rely on sealift, winter roads and air. When timing slips in the north, it is not just a minor inconvenience; it can push a project into the next season and the cost increases significantly. The delays that this puts on families are exhausting.

This is why the Build Canada Homes act matters. This legislation would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, which would give it the independence and tools to build more homes faster and more efficiently. The bill would strengthen federal capacity to partner with northern indigenous communities, which can build faster and at scale.

We want to ensure that we use public land more effectively and use modern construction methods that fit northern realities. Build Canada Homes would help scale off-site and modular construction, which are approaches that can improve speed and predictability when weather and short seasons make on-site building difficult. It would also help bundle projects so that smaller and remote communities are not left behind. It would back Canadian lumber, Canadian steel and Canadian workers; strengthen domestic supply chains; create good jobs; and build more of what we need here at home and in the north.

We are not starting from zero. Since launching in September 2025, Build Canada Homes has already advanced six direct-build projects and secured partnerships representing more than 7,500 homes.

Last month, Canada, Nunavut and NTI signed an agreement in principle to deliver 750 new homes across the territory, including public, affordable and supportive housing. Importantly for Nunavut's short season, a portion will use factory-built components to reduce delays and deliver homes more predictably, and 25 of those homes will be delivered through an Inuit-led model, reflecting the Inuit Nunangat policy and the right of Inuit to design and deliver housing solutions that work for them and their communities.

That is the kind of partnership this bill would make possible. It is practical, community-led and rooted in indigenous leadership and northern realities. It is the kind of partnership the House should be proud of.

This bill also supports the government's broader housing agenda, which is grounded in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, so that housing reflects indigenous priorities and builds long-term capacity.

As Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, I see housing as foundational to everything else, including health, education, economic participation and community well-being. I also see it as a connection to sovereignty. Arctic sovereignty is not only about maps. It is about people: whether families can choose to stay where they grew up, workers can live where opportunities are and communities can thrive on lands for generations yet to come.

The bill is an opportunity to match urgency with capacity and to replace delay with delivery. I urge all members of this House to support the bill. The north has waited far too long. With the legislation, we could help build a future where northern and indigenous families are no longer waiting for housing, but they are helping to shape it, they are building it and they are finally calling it home.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague provided her perspective as a member of the Inuit from northern Canada. I thank her for that, but I wonder how she is not angry. How is she not seething mad that under the present government, conditions have become so bad in Canada's north? The Auditor General, several years ago, concluded the same. Nunavut's own housing agency cannot keep up with it. In fact, the wait-lists for those seeking public housing in Nunavut have increased under the government and only continue to increase.

How can the minister support this? How can she support a government that is failing so miserably for her own people?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, housing in the north is a priority for the new government. In fact, through Build Canada Homes, as I mentioned earlier, we have signed an agreement, in principle, with Nunavut and Inuit partners to deliver 750 homes, which will be Inuit-led, delivered and built, including units delivered and managed by NTI. When we think about factory-built modular construction, that will also provide the opportunity to speed up timelines and create northern jobs, so those are also added value.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen situations where the federal government decided to implement programs that are none of its business, that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government's task is simply to transfer the funds. However, the Liberals always want to add conditions. In the latest situation involving housing, it took nearly a year and a half before an agreement was finally reached. As a result, Quebec's share of the money to help municipalities with housing was no longer available.

We are seeing something similar here. Build Canada Homes is a beast of a thing that risks further complicating the principle, bogging down the system and making things even more complex for Quebec municipalities.

I would like to know whether my colleague, on behalf of her government, can commit to ensuring that Quebec's share will still be there at the end of the negotiations. That way, we will be able to move forward with the projects that are priorities for Quebec and its municipalities.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we think about the investments that we are making, we are looking all across Canada. We are not focusing on any one region. We think about the work that we have done already, and we have tripled the Canada Infrastructure Bank for indigenous investments. We look at northern Quebec and northern Labrador, for example, and we have increased investment to $3 billion, because we are treating housing as critical infrastructure that will strengthen communities for generations.

We are also looking at skilled trades apprenticeship. We are looking at training-while-building models. We are looking at certification pathways, and this applies to Canadians across Canada, including Quebec.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech quite intently, and I want to thank her for her hard work, because we certainly know that a lot of work has been done.

As opposed to what the member opposite said, the government certainly has prioritized housing for the north. During the speech, she also indicated that Build Canada Homes has established and elaborated some partnerships with people in the north. It is my understanding the partnerships are to ensure that the housing is built for the people and by the people. I am just wondering if the minister could elaborate on those partnerships.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, recently we have made some announcements, including one that I made in the Yukon on February 19, for an investment of $2.3 million. This is going to support First Kaska construction. It will ensure that this company has new equipment to upgrade manufacturing facilities. We are also investing in NGC Builders, where we will see new fabrication facilities. We are also investing in RAB Energy. This is a northern windows and doors company. It is indigenous-owned and indigenous-led. We will see the expansion of commercial aluminum operations to support northern builds. The impact here is that we are seeing support for northern and indigenous businesses like never before, because we have always taken a southern approach. This time we are ensuring that we are taking a northern approach as well.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same recycled housing approach that the Liberals have had for the last decade, but I have a very serious and concrete question for the member. We already have the ministry of housing. We already have Canada Lands. We already have CMHC. Why do the Liberals require a fourth bureaucracy to not build homes?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Crown corporation is listening to northern and indigenous peoples. The Crown corporation the member mentioned is going to ensure we are working with partners in the north and that they are also the problem-solvers of the issues they are dealing with.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak not just about a bill but about a generation that did everything right. They studied hard, they worked hard, they saved diligently and they followed the rules, and yet they cannot afford a home in the country they love and the Canada they call home.

Today we are debating the Liberals' so-called Build Canada Homes act. The Liberals are calling it bold, transformational and generational, but for the young couple staring at listings they can never afford, for the new immigrant family working two jobs and still renting a one-bedroom apartment and for the tradesperson who builds homes all day but cannot buy one at night, this Liberal bill feels less like hope and more like déjà vu of the years under the last Liberal prime minister. When we strip away the Liberal rhetoric, what do we find? It is another Liberal announcement, another Liberal acronym, another Liberal bureaucracy, another federal agency staffed by highly paid Liberal-connected Ottawa bureaucrats and another Liberal promise without a target. However, one thing is clear. The Liberals are not interested in building homes. They are simply building roadblocks and a backlog while crushing the hope of an entire generation.

In my own community, I meet young professionals, software developers, engineers and accountants, who quietly pull me aside at events and say they have given up, not because they are lazy or lack ambition, but because, even with good incomes and savings, the math simply does not work. One young couple told me that they had saved for 10 years, 10 years of discipline and counting the pennies on two full-time incomes. All they want is a modest townhouse to start a family, but they are completely priced out. They tell me they have given up on having kids and starting a family because of the housing crisis the Liberal government started. Others tell me they are moving back in their parents' basement because they want to at least have some money left at the end of the month after paying rent so they can afford food and basic necessities.

This is what the Liberal housing crisis has done. It has normalized suffering and despair. What does the latest “Housing Market Outlook” from the government's own housing agency, CMHC, tell us? It tells us that things are not improving. As a matter of fact, they are getting even worse, believe it or not. CMHC says Canada needs between 430,000 and 480,000 housing starts per year for the next decade just to restore affordability and meet projected demand. What did the Liberals get built last year? It was a meagre 259,028 homes. By 2028, housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year. That is a staggering 18% drop and 55% below what CMHC says is necessary.

The Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes per year. He said we needed to build at a pace not seen since the Second World War. Instead, we are building at half the pace he promised, and headed even lower. In Toronto, housing starts were down 31% compared to the previous year. In other major Ontario cities, they were down 13%. In January, in the entire greater Toronto area, only 269 new homes were sold. That is down 36% from last year. It is 80% below the 10-year average, making it the lowest level since the early 1990s. That is not a slowdown. It is a Liberal paralysis. Buyers cannot buy, builders cannot build and sellers cannot sell, and the Liberals' answer is to create a fourth federal housing bureaucracy under the so-called Build Canada Homes act.

The Liberals do not want to build homes. Instead, they are obstructing builders with red tape, choking the market with taxes and shattering the dreams of young buyers. Even when the homes eventually get built under the Liberal bureaucracy, the government's own parliamentary budget watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, found that the Liberal bureaucracy will add just 5,000 homes a year. That is 1% of the 500,000 homes the Liberals promise. The Liberal housing minister himself admitted there are no top-line targets set for the number of homes to build. Really, no top-line targets? Imagine telling a 35-year-old, who feels like time is slipping away, that the government has no concrete goal.

The only thing bold about the government is the speed of its failure, and the transformation Canadians are witnessing is the transformation of hope into shattered dreams. This made-by-Liberal crisis is visible in every metric. CMHC itself says many households will delay buying homes and choose to rent longer as prices continue to rise over the next three years. Let us think about that. The government's own housing agency is effectively saying young Canadians have to wait longer, but pay more. For renters, the story is just as painful. Average two-bedroom rents rose another 5% last year after more than doubling under the last Liberal prime minister. In the GTA, someone earning an average income must spend 42% of their after-tax income just to afford a one-bedroom apartment and it is two-thirds of a minimum-wage paycheque just to rent a studio.

Canadians are suffocating in the Liberal housing hell. A report showed that more than half of first-time homebuyers who intend to purchase in the next five years believe home ownership is completely out of reach. We wonder why young Canadians are delaying marriage, delaying having children and moving back home. Many are leaving their communities and the country entirely.

We also need to be honest about what caused the Liberal housing crisis. Over the last decade, municipal development charges have increased by 700%. In Toronto, buyers now pay over $130,000 per apartment just in municipal taxes, and nearly $98,000 per condo in Mississauga. For single-family homes, Toronto and Markham charged over $180,000 per home, and $135,000 in Mississauga. Those are taxes before we even pour the foundation or lay a brick.

The Liberals promised during the election to cut these development charges by 50%, and as we can expect, they have broken that promise. Instead, they sent hundreds of millions of dollars to cities without strings attached, including nearly $400 million to Metro Vancouver, even as some regions now plan to triple development charges from 2024 levels. Developers warn that this will add tens of thousands of dollars to the price of a unit and slow down construction even further. Liberals are spending taxpayer money but delivering opposite results.

At the same time, the Liberal industrial carbon tax drives up the cost of cement, steel and glass. There are Liberal taxes on materials, taxes on permits, taxes on land and Liberal taxes on investment and reinvestment. Then, the Liberals think introducing a new federal agency will somehow solve the shortage those taxes and red tape helped create. When a country run by the Liberals makes it harder to build a home, it should not be a surprise when it becomes harder for Canadians to build a life.

It already takes the federal government nine years to dispose of surplus property, yet now the Liberals are considering acquiring private land, even as they cannot effectively build on the land they already own. The PBO found that under the Liberals' own affordability formula, a two-bedroom unit would cost $2,168 per month for the median household, which is nearly double the $1,100 national median market rent. Even their so-called affordable Liberal-made housing stretches affordability beyond reason and reality.

After 10 years of Liberal strategies, funds, accelerators and announcements, the Liberal housing crisis has become a Liberal housing catastrophe. Between 2011 and 2021, home ownership among young Canadians aged 30 to 34 fell from 60% to 52%. The decline is even steeper for younger cohorts. From 2019 to 2024, for every 100-person increase in the adult population, there were only 12 housing starts intended for home ownership, less than half the rate in earlier decades. Canadians see what is happening. A staggering 87% say they are concerned about the state of housing today, including 90% of gen Z and millennials.

The Liberal housing crisis is reshaping our communities, with 69% of Canadians saying that affordability is changing who can live in their neighbourhoods, and nearly half of young Canadians have considered leaving their city or province because housing costs are simply too high. This is not a market imbalance. It is a generational warning sign. Imagine doing everything right in life but not being able to build a life. That is what the Liberal government has done to the psychology of an entire generation.

Conservatives have sounded the alarm on the lack of housing supply for years. The Liberals have finally admitted that there is a problem, but they have not yet admitted that they are the problem. It has gotten so bad that 38% of builders report that they or their subcontractors have had to lay off workers because of market conditions. In 2020, 69% of housing starts were intended for the ownership market, with 31% for primary rentals. By 2025, five years later, the share for ownership had dropped to just 49%, a dramatic shift away from homes that families can actually buy.

Even more troubling is that 86% of builders now express concern about their business surviving the next 12 months, and 27% are extremely concerned, up sharply from 16% in late 2023. When the very people who build our homes are laying off workers and fearing for their survival, it is clear that this housing crisis is not just hurting buyers but is also crippling our workers and the economy as well.

Canadians do not need another Ottawa-based housing czar spewing Liberal rhetoric and propaganda. They need results and hope. That is why Conservatives have put forward a real plan. We will cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new construction. We will tie federal infrastructure dollars to housing approvals. Municipalities must permit at least 15% more housing each year, and we will cut development charges by 50%. Finally, we will end capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing to unlock billions in private investment.

Young Canadians are not asking for another agency. They are asking for a chance: a chance to save, a chance to buy and a chance to build a life. The Canadian promise used to mean something simple: Work hard, and one day one can own a home. Under the Liberals, that promise has been broken.

Let us stop building bureaucracy and start building homes. Let builders build so young Canadians can finally build a life. Hope has not faded for Canadians yet. It is just waiting to be rebuilt.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a contrast, if I may, to when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing. He will likely go down in Canadian history as the worst minister for housing. He contributed to six homes being constructed.

Having said that, we have seen, within a year, significant progress in terms of affordable housing. We have seen stakeholders of all forms actually get on board and support the government. The only ones who seem to not recognize the value of this legislation in particular are members of the Conservative Party. Why is that?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that kind of rich coming from the Liberal member. When the Leader of the Opposition was the housing minister, rent for a one-bedroom apartment was only $900. That is less than half of what it is today. As well, the average home price was $450,000, much lower than it is today, after the 11 years of Liberal housing hell that the Liberal government has created.

Let us talk about building homes. The Liberal Prime Minister, just like the previous Liberal prime minister, making promises he cannot deliver, promised he would build at a pace not seen in generations. He is going to build 500,000 new homes. Guess what. He has built only 5,000. His own agency says he has built only 5,000. That is less than 1%.

Do members know who is even more out of touch? It is the Liberal Prime Minister, who has told young Canadians they need to make some sacrifices, they need to become content with less and they need to lower their expectations.

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

Mr. Speaker, we generally agree that the problem stems from a bureaucratic structure and that it will delay housing construction. The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should stay in its lane and stick to transferring money to Quebec and the provinces with no strings attached.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a Liberal Prime Minister who is so out of touch with Canadians, especially young Canadians, that he has told them to make more sacrifices, that they need to be content with less and to lower their expectations. Young Canadians are expecting a leader who will restore hope, not crush it. That has become the psychology of an entire generation, that they are losing hope.

The stats do not lie. Most young Canadians, 93% of gen Z and millennials, believe they need to move out of the area they grew up in because they do not believe they can ever afford a home. That is what the Liberal Prime Minister is doing.

It is time for Canada to restore hope and have a leader who will restore hope for young Canadians, not crush it.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if my colleague could maybe reflect a little bit on what he said in this speech: that a big portion of the cost of a new home for young Canadians is for permitting and bureaucracy. Could he explain to us how the Liberals think that adding another layer of bureaucracy will make housing cheaper for Canadians?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. Just to reiterate, in Toronto, buyers now pay over $130,000 per apartment in municipal taxes, and nearly $98,000 per condo in Mississauga. For single-family homes, it is up to $180,000 in Toronto and Markham, and in Mississauga, it is $135,000.

Canadians do not need a fourth Liberal bureaucracy. What the Liberal government is doing is laying the foundation for a new bureaucracy, not laying the foundation for new homes. All it has managed to build is new office space for its new highly paid, Liberal-connected bureaucrats and another Liberal bureaucracy.

What Canadians need are homes, not more Liberal press releases.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that the Conservatives would cut the HST off all new homes, cut development charges and give tax breaks, 35% of the cost of new housing being government fees.

It is easy to make those kinds of comments from the opposition benches when you have no plan, but how would you actually pay for that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Richmond Hill South.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would pay for it by not having a fourth Liberal bureaucracy.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the kids are not all right. I believe that idiom originates from an older song, perhaps known by some of our older members, by a good rock band from the 1960s, The Who. It said, “the kids are alright”.

Over time, those lyrics were inverted, and they are as relevant today and as pointed today as they were when they were inverted. The kids are simply not all right when it comes to housing. That culminated in the lyrics of a rock band of my youth, The Offspring. I know that the Speaker is probably young enough to know The Offspring. They had a song, The Kids Aren't Alright. Part of the lyrics really hit me for this presentation on housing. The song says:

When we were young, the future was so bright...
The old neighborhood was so alive...
Now the neighborhood's cracked and torn...
The kids are grown up, but their lives are worn

That is true today. The next generation has grown up. Millennials are growing up. Gen Z is growing up, and they are worn out. They are tired. They have been working, but they cannot get ahead no matter how much they save, how much they scratch or how much they plan. They cannot get into the housing market. After 10 years of being priced out of the market, they are worn out, and we see it today.

The speakers on this side of the House have been millennials, constantly pushing the message of housing. I do not hear any of the younger members on the other side speaking in this debate. To me, their silence is telling.

Let me take us through some of the brass tacks in my part of the country, Durham Region, to show what has happened to housing and to incomes over the last 10 years. In January 2015, just shortly before the government was first elected, a single-family home in my region of Durham was $399,000. The most expensive was about $448,000. Just five years later, prepandemic, in January 2020, a single-family home in Durham Region was $631,000.

Fast-forward to today, January 2026, and a single-family home in Durham Region is almost $900,000. In 10 years, the price of a single-family home, a starter home, an average home, has more than doubled in my region.

Let us look at what happened to incomes at the same time. According to the 2016 census, with 2015 numbers, the median after-tax household income in my region of Durham was $77,000. Five years later, in the next census, after-tax household income was $93,000. My math is not so good sometimes, but that is not a doubling of after-tax income.

Let us look at what that means for the household price-to-income ratio. This is an important metric that I use when I am talking to people, to explain the difference that young people are facing today. I often hear, when we talk about housing, the response that we had a hard time too, that we had to save money and that we endured high interest rates. I am not taking away from that. My parents endured that too, as did others before them, but it is simply different. It is not apples to apples.

Here is the proof. In 2015, the price-to-income ratio in Durham Region was just about five times income. By 2020, it was 6.7 times income. As of 2026, it is nearly 10 times after-tax income, 10 times what one makes in a year, to qualify for an average home. That trend, in my neck of the woods in Toronto, is very on the mark for Toronto more generally, where, many studies have noted, the average price-to-income ratio is about 10 to 11 times income.

I have two more statistics to put this into perspective. First, mortgage payments as a percentage of income shows us how expensive mortgages have become. It shows how much of someone's paycheque their mortgage payment is eating up. According to the National Bank's housing affordability monitor for the fourth quarter of 2025, the most recent numbers, it is nearly 70% of income for a mortgage payment in Toronto. CMHC says that an affordable house is 30% of one's income in payments toward housing, so we are at more than double what the government's own housing agency says is appropriate.

The second statistic is that the average household income needed to afford a representative home in the Toronto area is now $253,000. That is according to the most recent numbers in the National Bank of Canada's housing affordability monitor for Q4 of 2025. If one earns $253,000, that puts them among the highest earners in the country. Most Canadians do not earn that much, which means most Canadians in Toronto cannot afford the representative house. I repeat that the kids are not all right.

Let me give members more statistics to prove my point that the housing crisis is hitting young Canadians the hardest. The lack of affordable housing in Canada is causing Canadians, particularly young Canadians, to feel less free and less happy. That is not just my argument. I have some numbers here.

The world happiness report, which is a joint report of Oxford University and the United Nations sustainable development office, reports on the happiness measures of countries. I will let members decide if this is correlation or causation with respect to the Liberals and our declining happiness. I know where I stand on the issue. In the 10 years of the Liberals being in power, Canada has fallen from fifth place, the fifth most happy nation in the world, to 15th place. That is a pretty poor result in and of itself, but the results are even more dismal for young Canadians. This is where it gets really bad. For those below the age of 30, we rank 58th out of 134 countries. The only countries that scored worse than us in this last rating were Jordan, Venezuela, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

I do not know about other members, but that is not a bunch of countries I want to be ranked with when it comes to happiness. That means increasing proportions of the population of young Canadians are feeling hopeless about their futures and are lacking a sense of connection with their community. It is a concerning trend for future population health and our economy. There are significant studies that correlate happiness with productivity, growth and wealth. We are seeing a divergence in the next generation, who are increasingly feeling despondent, despairing and out of luck when it comes to housing.

How does Bill C-20 fit in? It is the “building no more homes in Canada” act because it is not going to build any more homes, but it will build another Crown corporation. There is nothing particularly unique about the structure of the bill. It is quite a short bill. I have seen it many times before, in fact, to create Crown corporations. One question I have for the government is this: If we want to move at speeds not seen since the Second World War, why did it take nearly a year to introduce Bill C-20? If this was the most important thing, as the government says, why are we only debating this piece of legislation now?

Let us consider what has been accomplished in that year. The new CEO of Build Canada Homes was here in Parliament giving testimony. She said that nine homes have been constructed and are move-in ready. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at Build Canada Homes and said that it might build 5,200 homes a year. Lastly, the minister—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North can laugh. I will give him another number that is not so funny. It is, in fact, sad.

The minister, in his own speech when introducing the bill, said that he maybe had agreements for 9,000 homes this year. I will remind the member for Winnipeg North what the target was. It was 500,000 new homes a year, so is the target nine, 5,200 or even, at best, 9,000? I would laugh if it were not so sad for the next generation.

Build Canada Homes does not address any of the root issues. We have a permitting and permission issue in Canada. Bill C-20 does not speed up or incentivize permitting. In fact, among the OECD, Canada ranks second to dead last in permitting approvals; it is 29 out of 30. Housing starts are projected to decline every year until 2028. Therefore, the target has been raised, but the numbers are going to decline.

A previous prime minister said that we are going to “move faster in building supply, issuing permits and developing low-income and middle-class housing, creating the supply that is so needed to take the pressure off families and communities.” That was in 2021. It sounds a lot like the Prime Minister today. Where is that promise now? Is it with so many Liberal promises, on the trash heap of history?

The next generation should have the same opportunities as the generations before them had to earn, work hard, save and buy a home.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite quoted some lyrics from The Offspring, which I really appreciated. It is also a band from my youth.

I am going to quote some lyrics from another band, a hometown band from Hamilton called the Arkells, and its song about cynical people. It goes:

If you're the kind with nothing to say,
You heard about this party,
But you're praying for rain.
Now, if you want me to boil it down,
All you cynical [people],
Get out of town now.

Will the member opposite take the advice of the Arkells?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a positive person. I believe in Canada. I believe in the next generation. I do not think this is a laughing matter. It is a serious matter for the next generation, who struggle day after day, week after week, dreaming of home ownership and having that dream ripped away from them by a Liberal government that is presiding over the worst housing crisis in a generation.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that, instead of creating a large, centralizing structure like this one, the federal government would be better off respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and transferring the money with no strings attached?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government should incentivize municipalities to speed up permitting, cut down red tape and get more shovels in the ground. I think that is the same for Quebec as it is for any province in this country. We need the same rules for everybody.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Liberal government has failed by every metric when it comes to housing, especially when it comes to young people.

Since my colleague said he is a positive person, and I know him to be one, I was wondering if he could maybe give some hope to young people and explain the Conservative vision of how we can build homes in Canada.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gladly take that opportunity. The first thing I want to say to the next generation, if they are listening, is that we are on their team. We hear their complaints, their struggle, and we will fight every day in the House to make housing affordable and accessible to them.

Some of the suggestions we have are to remove the GST on all homes, get rid of federal lands that are useless, incentivize municipalities to get shovels in the ground and cut development taxes. All of these things would help increase the supply, build it faster and get it to them so they can experience and realize the dream of home ownership in Canada, which is the right of every Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to imagine, if they will, a new Prime Minister, elected less than a year ago, and thousands and thousands of homes, from non-profit to affordable housing, being built. We have a government, a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus committed to support and care about, as much as possible, more homes being built at rates we have never witnessed before in Canada.

The Conservative Party's position is to stand back, do nothing and ultimately cross fingers in hopes that homes will be built. My confidence is in a government that understands it has an important role. That is what the Prime Minister and the government have demonstrated.

What gives the member opposite any sense that the Conservative Party has any concept of how to build affordable homes when the member's leader, when he was the minister of housing, was an absolute failure who only had six homes built?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have confidence in any government that can show results, but we do not have that. We have the CEO of Build Canada Homes saying that we built nine, the Parliamentary Budget Office saying that maybe we will build 5,200 and the minister himself, in his own speech, saying maybe we will build 9,000.

The government's target is 500,000. That is the Prime Minister's target. I believe politicians should be held to their promises, so when I see 500,000 new homes, then we will have a discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have been pointing out is that the bill is only adding a fourth bureaucracy to the government. I am wondering why the ministry cannot just fund some of these projects on its own. Why does it need a second party to do that? Is it perhaps because the government wants to distance itself from when this operation gives a whole bunch of money to Brookfield?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in short, to answer the member's question, the government does not need this. It had all the tools before it, but instead it has created a new, shiny object to put in the window to distract from its failure.

Also, the government does not even have a target. The Prime Minister says 500,000 new homes and Build Canada Homes says that it actually does not have a target, so who knows what this agency, this new Crown corporation, will achieve. I hope for the best for young Canadians, but I will plan for the worst.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

Housing affordability is one of the defining challenges that Canadians face today. Across this country and in my community of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, families are really concerned about the cost of housing and whether their children are going to be able to afford a home in their community.

Build Canada Homes is an important step forward in addressing the housing supply crisis across Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging plainly that the cost of housing is far too high. While incomes have been increasing, we are nowhere near the sustainable market that we need where the average income earner can afford an average-priced home. Young Canadians are feeling locked out while renters are feeling squeezed. Parents worry whether their children will be able to live in the communities where they grew up, and seniors cannot afford to downsize in their own community.

My kids are 17 and 19, and as a parent, I think about this often. My children are at the age when they are starting to look towards independence. They are going off to university. They are building a life of their own, just like so many kids in so many families across Hamilton. I want them to have those opportunities to be able to stay in Hamilton, get a job and be able to afford the lifestyle that they deserve. A big part of that is being able to afford a home in their community in Hamilton.

I do believe Hamilton is a city of tremendous opportunities. We have strong industries, amazing opportunities in the skilled trades and small businesses, access to nature and vibrant communities and neighbourhoods, but those opportunities only exist if housing is affordable and attainable.

Before being elected to this role, I served nearly two terms on Hamilton city council. A significant portion of that was as the chair of Hamilton's planning committee. I also worked as a licensed professional engineer in the construction industry. I have worked on construction sites and navigated the approvals process, so I understand how homes actually get built. I do acknowledge and understand how easily projects can be delayed or be made unviable through permitting and business cases.

Over the past several years, the City of Hamilton has been very proactive and has taken significant steps to enable housing development and construction. The City of Hamilton modernized zoning to allow more as-of-right development, expanded permissions for secondary dwelling units and reduced parking minimums. They set a firm urban boundary and protected the greenbelt from development, and promoted smart, sustainable infill growth throughout the city. I really believe that Hamilton is a leader across Canada when it comes to municipal housing reforms to make sure that the permitting and permissions are in place to get as much housing built as possible.

A really important part of that was the implementation of the City of Hamilton housing secretariat. This created a real housing strategy, with centralized accountability and faster approvals for housing projects across the city. That structure is making a measurable difference.

Hamilton and representatives from all levels of government have been working with the housing development industry to ensure good quality developments are approved for construction as quickly as possible. In fact, the City of Hamilton recently implemented a 20% decrease in citywide development charges, applying to both residential and non-residential development, with the goal of boosting housing construction and promoting jobs during the difficult downturn in the construction market.

The housing secretariat is currently prioritizing over 30 projects within a three-year investment plan that is expected to deliver, at minimum, 2,100 new affordable housing units, of which 511 will be supportive units and 138 attainable, low-income or geared-to-income special markets.

We are hearing from the mayor and council that Hamilton's application through the Build Canada Homes fund will be targeting 4,500 new housing units, leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in private, institutional and public funding across all levels of government. That is the plan moving forward, which this legislation would help unlock for cities such as Hamilton and municipalities across Canada.

That is what coordinated action looks like to provide more affordable homes, with the federal government taking a leadership role and stepping up to the table with the housing accelerator, agreements, relief for first-time homebuyers and historic investments in housing and housing-enabling infrastructure.

It is important that we also be honest about how we arrived at this moment, and it is not just the opposition's talking points about the last 10 years. Over the last 25 years, Canada has experienced historically low interest rates. Housing increasingly became viewed as not simply shelter but an investment asset. That happened across multiple federal governments, from Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin through Stephen Harper and into recent years. Housing markets evolved in ways that encouraged commodification. Families found themselves bidding against investors, homes sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking, and real estate became tied to global capital flows, which was then accelerated even further with unprecedented inflation during COVID and the resulting increase in the cost of construction.

The current housing affordability crisis was not created in a single year by a single government. It reflects long-term structural pressures. At the same time, many of the core legislative tools that directly shape housing supply and affordability, for both ownership and rental housing, are strictly under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Ontario Heritage Act are all provincial acts and provincial systems.

I also want to talk about supportive housing. When we talk about supportive housing, the wraparound supports that are needed include addictions treatment, mental health treatment and health care services. These are strictly within provincial jurisdiction as they are tied to provincial health care systems.

In Ontario, municipalities are often left carrying significant financial and service delivery responsibilities that have been downloaded from the province. As an example, Ontario Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, and broader provincial policy decisions downloaded about $55 million in annual expenditures to the City of Hamilton, which resulted in a 2.4% property tax increase each and every year for every single City of Hamilton property taxpayer. That is not a sustainable system. Costs cannot be continually downloaded onto municipalities.

I am optimistic that new partnerships through Build Canada Homes will come forward with the province of Ontario, and provinces across Canada, but we need all levels of government at the table to be successful, and we need to be working toward solutions that actually work. I know there is a genuine desire across the House to see more affordable housing units built, and that is something that all members share.

Build Canada Homes reflects that understanding. It is designed to streamline federal funding so that projects move faster. It seeks to scale up modular and prefabricated home construction to improve productivity. It emphasizes energy efficiency and quality, ensuring that the homes we build today are net zero and are reducing costs for families over the long term. Most importantly, it positions federal funding to be proactive, to unlock and leverage private investment, rather than simply react to market cycles.

I want to reflect on the position of the homebuilding industry in municipalities and communities as a major employer. Many of these builders are people I have worked with for years as chair of the planning committee. They provide thousands of jobs in Hamilton and drive billions of dollars in economic activity. Local homebuilders in Hamilton are our partners, and they actively deliver quality housing.

This growth drives the need for roads, transit, water and waste-water infrastructure. New housing construction enables infrastructure, and infrastructure enables more housing. When we build homes, we support thousands of direct and indirect jobs, from the skilled trades and suppliers to manufacturers and small businesses. Hamilton has the workforce and the expertise required to scale growth responsibly and efficiently.

It took nearly a quarter of a century of structural market shifts to create today's affordability challenges. They are not going to be solved overnight. With Build Canada Homes, supported by unprecedented federal housing investments and long-term infrastructure funding, we are aligning federal tools with municipal action, and we are working with provincial partners toward genuine, long-term solutions to housing affordability in Canada.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite acknowledged there is a housing crisis. For 10 years, the Liberals have said everything is fine as costs drive people, particularly young people, out of the market. We know many young people are still living with their parents, unable to find a place to rent, let alone a place to buy, and start their family, but the Liberals are still talking about this issue as if there is nothing they can do about it and they are just bystanders in the process. The solution they are now bringing forward is yet another housing bureaucracy, which has been proven to not work time and time again.

There are tangible things the Liberals can do, like cutting taxes on new homes or stopping their inflationary spending that is driving up the cost of living. Why do they not look at those solutions rather than just creating another housing bureaucracy?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Build Canada Homes Crown corporation as similar to the approach that the City of Hamilton took with its housing secretariat. It would be an oversight agency, to make sure that $13 billion of funding is flowed through to the areas across the country where it is needed most. On top of that, there is another $51 billion in infrastructure, which would offset a lot of those costs that are going into development charges, allowing municipalities to further reduce development charges with the goal of a 50% reduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from talking about delays and bureaucracy although I really want to.

However, I want to ask my colleague from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas whether he thinks this is a normal state of affairs. On January 21, 2026, the federal government finally signed an agreement with Quebec. However, this program, the Canada housing infrastructure fund, was actually announced two years earlier, on April 16, 2024. Is it normal for it to take such a long time, especially since the agreement amounts to $1 billion for Quebec out of the $6 billion set out in the fund? That represents 16.6% of the envelope, while Quebec has a demographic weight of 22%. Why the discrepancy?

I would be curious to know whether, if the situation were the same with Ontario, my colleague would be clapping his hands and saying that it is a great program and that we need to continue like this.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite brings up an interesting point in the fact that we recognize the need to build more homes faster, and the goal was to double the speed of construction across Canada. My experience is that this takes a cultural shift. This needs to have the government get to a point of yes, and that is what Build Canada Homes would do. It would build a way to get those approvals done faster and get to yes, to get those houses built.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, being an engineer and formerly the mayor of a small town, I think the more engineers we have in this place, the better off we are going to be.

I would like to have the member's comments on how Build Canada Homes would use prefab housing and modular housing to lower the costs for young families in all of the country.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, during the constituency week, I toured a prefab housing factory in my riding that is gearing up for production. People there are really excited about the federal investment in prefabricated housing, because they see it as a way, once those factories are at scale, to produce much-higher-quality housing at a lower production rate versus doing it on site.

Most countries across the world, including in Europe, have gone in that direction. It is a tremendous opportunity not only for businesses and industry but also for homebuyers, at the end of the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, they are not even hiding it anymore. The previous member was asking about modular homebuilding. It is interesting that Brookfield just acquired a modular homebuilding operation. This is going to be the green slush fund all over again.

Would the member not agree that these big institutional investors in the Canadian housing market may be a big problem?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it embarrassing that the members opposite continuously bring up conspiracy theories in the House of Commons, so I am not going to acknowledge the premise of that question. Suffice it to say, we are taking tangible action to build more housing that Canadians need.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at second reading to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

The housing crisis is hitting hard across the country. Too many families, too many young people, too many seniors are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Too many people are priced out of the market. We have a collective responsibility to take ambitious, thorough and creative action.

Bill C-20 is a strategic response. By making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation, we are giving it operational independence, the ability to take calculated risks and the governance necessary to achieve large-scale results, while remaining fully accountable to Parliament and Canadians.

Backed by an initial investment of $13 billion announced in the 2025 budget, Build Canada Homes will have the tools it needs to build more housing that is more affordable, more quickly. A clear definition of affordable housing is housing that does not exceed 30% of a household's pre-tax income, based on regional realities.

Beyond the structures and numbers, this bill is first and foremost a partnership project with the provinces and territories. Examples include the agreements reached between Quebec and Nova Scotia; the partnerships with indigenous communities, such as the agreement in principle signed between Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; and the partnerships with municipalities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has clearly welcomed this measure. Other examples include the partnerships with non-profit organizations, housing co-ops and private developers that are ready to build.

I would now like to talk about my riding of Sherbrooke. The housing crisis is very real in my community. Vacancy rates remain very low. Families, students and vulnerable people have serious needs.

Then again, Sherbrooke is also a laboratory for innovation. It is a vibrant university town, driven by the Université de Sherbrooke and the Sherbrooke CEGEP, where population growth is accompanied by a remarkable entrepreneurial spirit.

Our developers are not just builders. They are partners in social and economic development. They have been able to think up human-scale projects that are integrated into their neighbourhood, promoting diversity and architectural quality. A number of recent projects in Sherbrooke illustrate that creativity: mixed-income housing projects, which combine market-priced housing with affordable units; projects that incorporate community spaces and local services; initiatives that prioritize wood, energy efficiency and sustainable practices. That is exactly the spirit that Build Canada Homes wants to encourage.

Thanks to its new Crown corporation structure, Build Canada Homes will be able to make better use of public lands, particularly by integrating federal expertise in real estate development; deploy flexible financial tools to support complex arrangements; encourage modern construction methods, including prefabricated housing; and support non-commercial and community housing where the market alone is not enough.

In Sherbrooke, as elsewhere, we are seeing the emergence of a new generation of developers who understand that profitability and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C‑20 is creating the conditions needed to amplify that momentum.

This is not about replacing the market, but about complementing it, structuring it and stimulating it where the needs are greatest. The CMHC will continue to play its key role. Build Canada Homes will focus on persistent gaps, non-market housing, the strategic use of public lands and the structural transformation of our capacity to build.

We need a streamlined organization focused solely on delivering housing. We are already getting results. In just a few months, Build Canada Homes has launched its national portal, published its investment policy framework, issued requests for qualifications for thousands of units on federal lands and signed major memoranda of understanding. That is not theory. It is action.

The developers I meet in Sherbrooke talk about clear needs: predictability, quick decision-making and financial flexibility.

By becoming a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be able to hold assets, invest directly, enter into complex transactions and act with the agility required in a rapidly changing market. This will enable us to support more meaningful projects, such as housing for women fleeing violence, adapted housing for people with disabilities, cooperative projects led by community-based organizations and residential complexes for seniors who wish to remain in their community. We will do this with local workers and businesses.

Our buy Canadian policy aims to mobilize public funds to strengthen our economic sovereignty. In an uncertain global context, investing in housing also means investing in our industrial capacity, our materials and our expertise.

In Sherbrooke, this means supporting entrepreneurs, engineers, construction workers and the entire regional supply chain. Housing is a key economic policy. Every home built generates activity, jobs and tax revenue. Every completed project contributes to the attractiveness of our region and the vitality of our neighbourhoods.

Bill C‑20 is a bold and necessary change in the way we plan, fund and build housing. It gives Build Canada Homes the independence and means to act. It recognizes that governments, municipalities, community organizations, co-ops and private developers have to work together to succeed. It taps into the very real energy I see in Sherbrooke, that ability to turn ambitious ideas into tangible projects for the good of families, now and into the future.

By passing Bill C‑20, we are sending a clear message: We take the housing crisis seriously, we trust our partners on the ground and we choose to act ambitiously for Sherbrooke, for Quebec and for all Canadians.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering how the Liberal member opposite can square the circle. When we add more bureaucracy, we also add less productivity.

How are they expecting to get more houses built in a more efficient manner when they are increasing bureaucracy, which is the cause of the housing crisis in Canada?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by transforming Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, we are creating a specialized organization focused exclusively on housing construction. We are also giving it the full financial and legal independence it needs to act quickly, enter complex agreements and use public lands effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with workers at a factory, a sorting facility, in my riding. The first issue they raised was housing. I was asked how we could ensure that housing gets built faster in my riding. It is a very broad question, but I would like to pose it to my colleague.

How will Build Canada Homes speed up housing construction?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As I said in my speech, transforming this agency into a Crown corporation gives it all the independence it needs to speed up housing construction. We are already seeing real results. Just last Thursday, I was in Saint‑Jean‑Port‑Joli to announce the opening of a nine-unit building for women fleeing violence. Everyone was thrilled. The Coalition Avenir Québec member representing Minister Proulx was there. Everyone was of the opinion that the agreement signed with Quebec would make it easier to build housing faster in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague understands the benefits of the Province of Quebec and Ottawa working together. I just want to read from a press release, if I may. We were talking about it a little earlier. This was done in January, when we had both the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada sitting at a table. This is the press release: “In order to ensure the harmonized deployment of Build Canada Homes in Quebec, in line with its priorities and jurisdictions, the governments of Canada and Quebec have signed a memorandum of understanding to guide their collaboration.”

I am wondering if my colleague and good friend would reinforce just how important it is. Not only does the federal government have a role to play in housing, but it is absolutely critical that we work with our partners. A good example of that is the Province of Quebec.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for this important question.

When we travel elsewhere in the country, we see how important it is to work with the provinces, particularly in times of crisis. Everyone here today has mentioned how serious the housing crisis is and the many consequences it is having on the lives of Canadians. We must therefore work together with the provinces. This collaboration will really help speed up and facilitate housing starts.

I would like to add that during my visit to Saint-Jean-Port-Joli on Thursday, the Coalition Avenir Québec representative highlighted this fact and even said that we should work together more often in order to achieve tangible results more quickly.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about taking public lands, but here in paragraph 20(g), it says the government could “take any security or security interest in any property”.

This is not just the green slush fund all over again. This would be 30 by 30 going to 50 by 50. They would take more land through this, including private property.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Sherbrooke is home to a fine example of the use of public land for the construction of an apartment building, although I cannot recall the number of units. The fact is that Build Canada Homes has a clear mandate, which includes the effective use of public land, and I am confident that this mandate will be adequately fulfilled.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand very well that the best predictor of future performance is past results. That is why Canadians have every reason to be skeptical about the Liberal government's latest housing promise. For nearly a decade, Canadians have heard the same story repeated again and again: a new announcement, a new strategy, a new fund, a new target. Each time, the government assures Canadians that this time the housing crisis will finally be solved, but when we examine its record carefully, a troubling pattern emerges.

In 2017, the government introduced what it described as a historic initiative: the national housing strategy. It committed more than $115 billion in housing spending over 10 years. It promised to drastically improve affordability, reduce homelessness and expand the supply of housing across the country. Billions of dollars were allocated. Targets were announced. New programs were created, but what actually happened?

During roughly the same period that the government was rolling out these plans, housing prices in Canada nearly doubled. Young Canadians are increasingly locked out of home ownership. Families are struggling with rising rents. In many major cities, housing affordability is now among the worst in the world. The government announced another plan, then another fund and then another target.

The housing accelerator fund was introduced with the promise that it would help build hundreds of thousands of homes by cutting red tape. Then another national plan was released, claiming that Canada had the strategy to solve the housing crisis. Now, once again, Canadians are told that this time the government has found the solution. This time, we are told a new federal housing agency will fix the problem.

Canadians have heard this before. Each time a new program is announced, the government claims the housing crisis is about to turn a corner, yet each time the targets are missed, the timelines are extended and the crisis deepens. At some point, we must ask a very basic question: Why should Canadians believe that this new promise will succeed when all previous promises have failed?

Another question must also be asked. Canada already has multiple federal bodies involved in housing policy. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has long been the federal government’s primary housing agency. Infrastructure Canada funds projects tied to housing development. The Department of Finance designs housing tax policies and financial programs. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada is responsible for implementation of the national housing strategy. On top of that, the Liberal government has created additional structures over the past decade, including the federal housing advocate, the National Housing Council and multiple new program administrations.

With all of these institutions already operating in the housing space, Canadians deserve clarity. What exactly would this new agency do that cannot already be done by the existing agencies? What specific function is missing from the current system?

If this new agency is truly necessary, Canadians deserve to hear other answers as well. What existing programs will be streamlined? Which agencies will have their responsibilities reduced? Which bureaucratic processes will be eliminated to avoid duplication and more red tape? If this new agency simply adds another layer of administration, then Canadians are not getting more homes. They are getting more bureaucracy.

Housing affordability will not improve because we create more government entities. It will improve when we build more homes faster and more efficiently. That is why Canadians are skeptical when they hear the Liberal government's latest announcement.

This brings us directly to Bill C-20. Once again, the government's answer to real problems is not reform, but reorganization. Instead of fixing the delays that prevent homes from being built, the government proposed to create another federal housing body.

Let us consider the Minister of Housing's own record. He is now leading in the so-called new housing plan. When he first ran for mayor of Vancouver, he made a bold promise that street homelessness in Vancouver would be ended by 2015. It was a clear commitment that he widely publicized, but by the end of his time as mayor, the number of homeless had increased, housing prices in Vancouver had soared and Vancouver became one of the least affordable housing markets anywhere in the world. That record matters. Once again, Canadians are being told that the same leadership, ideas and approach will now help fix the national housing crisis.

To conclude, Canadians have seen a pattern for more than a decade: promises made and promises broken. Billions have been spent and bureaucracy has expanded, yet the homes Canadians need are still not being built. Canadians are told that this time it will be different. Canadians do not need another layer of bureaucracy; they need homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing, which is that Canadians would love to have hope. We have a Prime Minister who was elected less than a year ago. Take a look at the number of initiatives that this new Prime Minister, along with the government as a whole, has taken in order to provide that hope. There are number of initiatives and thousands of homes. It is a plan that is accepted by other jurisdictions across the land, including stakeholders.

Does the member opposite not agree that the government has a role to play in providing the leadership that we have seen by this government, recognizing that in order to build homes we need co-operation from the different stakeholders?

That is exactly what we have, and why I would suggest that the Conservative Party needs to revisit its policy decision and vote in favour.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how recycled ideas could be disguised as new operations. We have seen repeated announcements in the last decade promising the same thing. Recycled ideas will not bring hopes or homes. It is not even a dream; it is just a disillusion. I do not understand why these recycled ideas could be disguised as new.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

The Conservatives are known for trimming the fat, so to speak, wanting to reduce the size of government and make it more agile. However, we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Build Canada Homes and the Liberal government in general tend to encumber and complicate the system and its processes rather than simply respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

Does my colleague not agree that it would make a lot more sense to transfer the money owed to Quebec and the provinces so that they can manage these programs? Does he not think that would be more effective than getting involved in some sort of huge bureaucratic machine that will almost certainly slow down the process and complicate things, when there are such pressing needs on the ground in the regions of Quebec and Canada?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government has a role to play in providing affordable housing to Canadians. However, I have the experience of being a city councillor for the last 12 years, and my experience has been that first, the federal government always downloads everything to the local government and second, the federal government does not consult. There is a lack of consultation, and at the end, the federal government does what it wants to do, and it does not provide the means that the local community could provide in a better way.

It is better for the federal government to get out of the way and let local governments and other partners work to make things better for our communities.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has highlighted concerns about Bill C-20.

I would like to ask him what he is hearing from the grassroots constituents and the youth of his community. What are their concerns, and what are they saying to him about the current rising unaffordability?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr Speaker, what we hear, day in and day out, in our communities is how unaffordable things are, including housing. It is because all kinds of bureaucracy, taxation and added costs in building new homes have created this problem, the crisis that people are facing right now.

Again, the lack of consultation by the federal government has resulted in inappropriate solutions for the problems that people are facing. I was told that before the launching of this new agency, the Richmond City Council was not consulted. They have no role to play in giving feedback and inputs to the new agency. This is one example where the lack of consultation is a problem.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of an academic community organization in that member's province called the Balanced Supply of Housing, or BSH, and it works in tandem with the University of British Columbia.

BSH has stated that “Build Canada Homes is not a silver bullet, but it may be a turning point. By investing in non-profit, co-op, supportive housing, and by creating the financing and land pathways to make projects possible, Ottawa is reasserting itself”. It points out opportunities in achieving scale and goes on to state that, “For now, Build Canada Homes represents a step in the right direction”.

Does the member disagree with that organization's position on Build Canada Homes?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not need more bureaucracy and we do not need more reports to build more homes.

Let me give another example. Just last week, Richmond opened 84 units of affordable low-income housing, without federal funding. Cities can do it. They do not have to be told what to do. They need the opportunities, freedom and resources to build homes, not another layer of bureaucracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to show some contrast, we have the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier of Manitoba and different stakeholders in Winnipeg all recognizing the valuable contributions that the federal government is making in terms of expanding affordable housing. It is all public information.

Would the member not at least recognize that we do have a government that is working with the different stakeholders, and that the stakeholders are responding positively to the program?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my response to that question would be that we do not need the federal government to direct us on what to do. Each community would have its own priorities, needs and the best way to resolve them.

Again, using Richmond as an example, in the past 15 years, because Richmond has a good housing strategy, we were able to build thousands of homes in partnership with the building community, not with any government funding from the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Build Canada Homes does not address is the need for construction for ownership. This is a huge issue. In fact, the supply that we need should, predominantly, 75% in fact, come from home ownership.

I am wondering if this is something the member hears about when he is in his riding, and if he would just like to speak to that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, this is exactly what I hear, day in and day out.

People need homes, not allocated or dictated by the federal government on what type of housing they should have. They do not need to rent for life. They want to have the opportunity to save enough money to own their own home one day.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing our study of a new structure that the government wishes to create called Build Canada Homes. We are not against optimizing housing resources, quite the contrary. It is necessary to invest heavily in housing, and for that to happen, every tax dollar must be invested to generate maximum benefits. However, instead of opting for the simplest and most affordable solution, which is to transfer the money to the provinces, the true housing program authorities and experts, this government is opting to create a new structure. Meanwhile, many of the programs that Build Canada Homes will be responsible for were already being taken care of by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Once again, the federal government is going to set its own housing priorities rather than working with local governments. The Quebec National Assembly, regional county municipalities and cities are in the best position to understand the needs and to determine priorities, zoning, urban planning and the real needs of the people where they live. For the Bloc Québécois, there is one essential condition: There must be a “Quebec clause,” so that Quebec can opt out of Build Canada Homes with full compensation in the form of dedicated housing transfers paid to the Government of Quebec. At the very least, the government has an obligation to transfer to Quebec the funds to which it is entitled on a per capita basis, without conditions. Quebec is and remains the sole driver of its housing policy. It is up to Quebec to determine its housing priorities and to develop its own tools and programs, not Ottawa.

There is something else I am concerned about. Since Build Canada Homes is designated as an agent of the Crown, it will be able to expropriate residents and will benefit from tax exemptions. That will be good for the cities, which will be unable to collect property tax to fund this infrastructure, because that is a possibility. The same goes for land use planning, if the government can simply decide to expropriate residents to build wherever it wants to build, all while having the opportunity to acquire shares in affordable housing companies. That can open a Pandora's box. If a real estate company receives government support for a private project in which the government is a shareholder, could Build Canada Homes use these expropriation and tax exemption powers to increase the value of its investment? The answer is obvious. The question certainly seems relevant when we look at projects like Alto.

I want to bring this Parliament back down to earth because we need to identify the problems that we are now facing if we want to resolve them in the long term. Speaking of coming back down to earth, I would like to talk about rural life, a reality in a region like mine. My team, particularly my executive director Lynda Perreault, has helped many non-profit organizations work out the intricacies of housing projects. Our team can easily list the obstacles to the development of social and affordable housing in my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Given that Build Canada Homes has not been created yet, we must talk about the problems we experience almost daily with the CMHC in the hopes that, at the very least, changes will be made and that, in many cases, the promised money can be disbursed. The first key point is delays. There is no big surprise there. For 10 years, this Liberal government has made long delays one of its specialities. This has happened in many areas other than housing, but it has also happened in housing, even very recently.

On January 21, 2026, Ottawa finally signed an agreement with Quebec as part of the Canada housing infrastructure fund. However, Ottawa launched the program nearly two years before that, on April 16, 2024. The goal was to modernize and develop essential infrastructure, such as drinking water and waste water treatment infrastructure, to support new housing projects. The agreement with Quebec took two years to finalize. Things happened a lot faster in Ontario, as usual. Why? The reason is that Ottawa's programs are designed with Ontario laws in mind. They do not take Quebec's reality into account, and the government refuses to transfer the funds.

We have seen this play out before, such as in 2017, when there was the agreement with the provinces. It took three years for the money to make its way to Quebec. There was the COVID‑19 pandemic, ballooning costs and inflation, which meant that we were building a lot less than everywhere else in Canada, especially Ontario. That is not right, and it is so frustrating because the problems are just getting worse, especially in Quebec.

Two years after the program was launched, an agreement was reached for $1 billion of the $6 billion allocated to the fund. That is 16.6% of the envelope even though Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's demographic weight, so there is a huge equity issue there that needs to be addressed. Quebeckers are receiving less, and they are receiving less two years on, which means that it is much less.

It is also important to understand that with the skyrocketing construction costs, Quebec is not meeting its housing needs, all because Ottawa is incapable of respecting its jurisdictions. It is one thing for Ottawa to want to invest in housing. It needs to transfer the money to Quebec.

I discussed this with the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he was appointed recently. If Ottawa let the provinces manage their own affairs and simply transferred the money, that would save enormous amounts of money that are currently being wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy. One good example is the child care program. The government took inspiration from Quebec and transferred the money. Quebec is where the most spaces have been created. Why not repeat that pattern when it comes to building housing? It is such a simple solution, perhaps too simple.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, takes too long to make decisions and does not even meet its own deadlines. In my region, one project was approved in January 2025 with construction set to begin in April or May. The developer was waiting for CMHC's final approval before starting construction and getting on with the work. Months went by. The documents were submitted correctly, but CMHC was slow to issue its final approval. April and May passed, but nothing happened. In June, CMHC finally responded, but with a letter announcing that unless the work started in the next two weeks, the money would be allocated to another project.

Developers are waiting for the bureaucracy to act, but the bureaucracy can say that it is going to spend the money elsewhere, even though CMHC never gave its final approval. I hope that Build Canada Homes will learn from that. Although it will allegedly be much more agile, implementation issues around the transition from CMHC to Build Canada Homes are precisely what happened over the past year.

There were problems with the construction of a women's shelter for victims of domestic violence, the Maison l'émeraude, in La Sarre. The project almost never saw the light of day because of bureaucratic delays. It also almost did not happen because of repeated last-minute requests that do not apply to the Quebec reality, but are required nonetheless, such as requiring the organization to take out a mortgage. All of this can have an impact on the quality of services, the size of the building or even the quality of the fences to protect the women. There are consequences to such a lack of consistency and lack of efficiency.

This kind of delay slows down construction. These delays hold up projects, leading to increased costs for developers. The subsidy does not increase, and we know how much interest rates can fluctuate depending on the situation. However, the CMHC takes months not only to make decisions, but also to disburse funds. When we talk about non-profit organizations, or NPOs, and co-operatives, we are not talking about organizations that are rolling in money and have deep pockets.

They are being asked to pay construction costs just to wait. Wait for what? Once an organization reaches its project completion percentage, the CMHC money arrives but it arrives late. A non-profit that takes out a loan has to pay interest on the loan purely because the CMHC is not paying on time. That is a lot of money that the non-profit and the co-operative cannot reinvest in their facilities. These are additional costs that increase project costs.

That is to say nothing about the consultants that the CMHC asks for, even though the Quebec civil code already provides various options for recourse. That is completely unnecessary duplication. As a result, the Government of Canada and non-profit organizations are paying consultants to analyze something that is already covered or has already been done. There is a saying that laws are made for Ontario, not for Quebec. This is a clear example of that. Money is being flushed down the drain.

Let me go back to the definition of what a rural area is and what an urban area is. Once again, there is a clear lack of vision. The federal government and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities have a vision based on the concept of census agglomerations versus census metropolitan areas, with a scale ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 people or fewer. I am sorry, but there is a significant difference between a municipality of 45,000 residents located eight hours away from major urban centres and a municipality of 45,000 residents that is two hours away from Montreal or Toronto.

Programs need to reflect the reality of these remote regions. They need to reflect the fact that building 150 housing units in municipalities like Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Amos, La Sarre, or Notre-Dame-du-Nord is much more difficult, almost inconceivable. We would need programs tailored to six, 18, or 24 housing units to have an equally significant impact on our populations. In a rural town or census area, we must take into account the geography and the ability to create and organize these projects to also meet bureaucratic requirements.

I would also like to note an important aspect of the definition of affordability. During the committee's study of the Auditor General's report on the current and future use of federal offices, I had the opportunity to question officials from the Department of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities on this. While Canada has always been out of touch, I was pleasantly surprised by the thought process that officials had gone through. For example, income-based affordability, in the case of housing that costs less than 30% of pre-tax income, can be applied differently. Again, this calls for flexibility and an understanding that there may be income disparities in certain regions.

I will stop here. I will continue my thoughts during questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective and the way that I look at it is that it does not matter what region of the nation one is coming from. I truly believe that people want to see opposition and government members working together, not only here in Ottawa but working with other jurisdictions in order to be able to deal with the serious issues that we have to face.

The Province of Quebec has signed off with a memorandum of understanding, and the member made reference to it. The Government of Quebec is working with Ottawa, and Ottawa is working with the Government of Quebec and other stakeholders to increase affordable housing. Does the member feel any compulsion whatsoever to respect the memorandum of understanding that has been signed by the two levels of government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the fact that there is an agreement, but, once again, we need to be able to look at that agreement to see how it is applied. The reality is that we do not feel that this money is having a real impact in the regions. When we look at the public accounts, we see that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has invested zero dollars in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. That is unacceptable.

A Radio-Canada article showed that Ontario received $2 billion from the Canada public transit fund and Quebec got nothing. Does that make sense? Programs are simply not being designed for Quebec's reality. Needs are not being taken into account, particularly the issue of energy efficiency in the north. They are also causing more delays. Is that fair? It is already costing us close to 30% more.

Lumber is cut in our forests, processed in my riding and sent to Boucherville, Toronto or the United States before coming back to my region, generating a lot of transportation costs, not to mention the environmental impact. That is one of the key issues, and I hope that it will be addressed by this new bureaucratic structure.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see that the Liberals would set up another bureaucracy, the board of which they would then stack with their friends. Where have we seen this before? We saw this with the green slush fund. I know that the member was here before, when this broke, when directors of the board of the green slush fund were handing their own companies money. There were over 180 conflicts of interest in that decision-making.

Does the member not see that this would also be a place where the Liberals would be able to enrich their friends?

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

Mr. Speaker, the culture of cronyism in the Liberal Party is still a danger. What I also find dangerous is not knowing what the government is using our money for. Abitibi—Témiscamingue creates approximately 2% of Canada's GDP, notably through its mining and forestry sectors, but what does it get in return?

We have been experiencing a housing crisis for 20 years. Housing costs are just as high in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as they are elsewhere. A neighbourhood in what is known as the buffer zone has to be relocated. Yes, there are a lot of questions about the federal government. I can give a very simple example. According to current specifications, Canadian roads do not account for the fact that rectangular houses have to be shipped.

There are companies that make prefabricated houses, which could be used by workers, in particular. This would prevent them from occupying available housing, since we know that they are not going to put down roots. We want to leave that housing for people who are investing in our community and who will be able to stay there. As a result of the housing shortage, workers fly in and fly out. This is the reality because the programs have not been tailored to the situation in Abitibi-Témiscamingue over the past 20 years.

This is a huge problem, and I hope that this new initiative, Build Canada Homes, will be able to respond to it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the passion of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and his command of the file. People are indeed feeling the effects of these bureaucratic decisions or these kinds of big bureaucratic machines that come to do the work or impose conditions in the regions of Quebec, when the organizations already in place, the municipalities, the regional county municipalities, the Government of Quebec and the provinces are already well equipped to manage these investments.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about the fact that, last time, the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa took years to be implemented. Is there cause for concern now? Is there a concern that the same thing will happen again and that the regions of Quebec will once again be penalized?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously yes, because the municipalities, towns and regions are the ones with the expertise, but there is hope.

I would like to give an example: The Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP has partnered with the Regroupement innovant pour l'impression d'immeubles durables, or RI³D. I want to highlight the leadership of a high school friend, David Laliberté, who is a CEGEP teacher, in implementing this innovation that helps to build walls. Perhaps the homes of tomorrow will be built thanks to initiatives like the one at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the people of Abbotsford—South Langley and I rise on their behalf. They have real concerns with respect to the Liberal House. During the election, the Liberals promised Canadians bold, decisive action on housing. They pledged to create Build Canada Homes, claiming it would solve the very housing crisis that they helped create in the first place; they have failed over and again. It sounded like a plan for hope for the families that are struggling to buy their first home. Today, Canadians are seeing something very different. What was promised as a solution has become more bureaucracy. What was promised as action has turned into inaction. This was meant to bring more homes and hope, but neither was delivered.

Let us remember what was promised. The Liberals pledged to deliver 500,000 new homes every single year. That was a commitment made to Canadians in this country who are struggling to buy their first home. There was a promise made to youth, to the young families trying to get ahead and to the renters hoping to one day own their own home. Now we learn that housing starts have fallen to 212,000 homes per year by 2028, less than half of what was promised. This is a complete failure to achieve what was pledged to Canadians by the Liberal government.

Instead of delivering homes, Bill C-20 would effectively deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. What is most shocking about this is that there are no set targets. The housing minister confirmed during a press conference on Bill C-20 that, under the Liberals' plan, there are no top-line targets set for the number of homes to be built. It is an utter shock that there are no targets set. How are Canadians supposed to place their trust in the government? Canadians were promised 500,000 homes per year. Now they are told there are no targets at all. How can Canadians have confidence when there is no plan to measure any success? How can we solve a national housing crisis without clear benchmarks for success? It is all talk and no action.

When houses start to be built, the Parliamentary Budget Office found that Build Canada Homes would likely add only around 5,000 homes per year. That is 1% of what the Liberals promised. At the same time, construction activity is projected to decline by 18.1% to well below the 10-year historical average. Let me be clear. Prices are projected to rise, construction is projected to fall, and the Liberal government's solution to this is this bill, which only creates more bureaucracy without any set targets. It is just shameful. Build Canada Homes would not solve real problems because it creates a new agency without removing the rules and the delays that make housing more expensive for Canadians. It would not change any zoning laws, settle any case-by-case rezoning fights, set firm deadlines for approvals or cut duplicate fees or environmental charges.

If we do not fix delays, we do not fix costs. If we do not fix costs, we do not fix affordability. Real reform is about creating new programs. It is about removing roadblocks, setting clear timelines, cutting extra taxes and fees, improving coordination between governments and holding departments accountable. That means fixing the system that we currently have, not adding another layer of bureaucracy to it. Builders across the country are saying clearly that we need to see less government in homebuilding, not more. Developers are not asking for new federal agencies, which the government is delivering to them. They are asking for faster approval rates, lower taxes, fewer development charges and predictable rules outlined.

On this side of the House, we believe that Canadians should have the opportunity to own a home and have access to affordable housing. Yes, we believe that the federal government can play a role in it, but it has to be limited. It should not obstruct; it should take out the bureaucracy. Conservatives have a plan to fight and focus on results. Conservatives oppose adding more bureaucracy and red tape to housing sectors already burdened by slow approval rates and rising costs. More government layers do not solve delays, but make them worse. Developers are clear about the challenges they are facing. We are the only party offering a real plan to address them.

Under the Liberal government and this so-called new Prime Minister, Canadians are being offered the same approach we have all seen before: more programs, more announcements, more agencies and fewer real results. We have seen this all before with the housing accelerator fund, where billions were spent on studies and consultants, and many of the slow approval processes have stayed in place. Money was added, but the delays remain.

What Canada needs is more supply and less red tape with less government interference. It is that simple. Construction workers are ready to build, builders are ready to build and Canadians are ready to buy. What is standing in the way is not the lack of demand, but the lack of supply caused by excessive government interference and rising costs.

Private builders, people who construct the vast majority of homes in this country, are asking for something very simple. They are asking for the government to get out of the way. They want less red tape, fewer taxes, less bureaucracy and more building. This is a Conservative approach.

Nearly nine out of 10 Canadians are concerned about housing affordability. This is not a niche issue or a temporary challenge. It is a matter of national stability. Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue. It is an issue that affects everyone, from young Canadians to adults to seniors. That is why the government should care, because it affects everyone and all of us together. When housing becomes scarce and unaffordable, it is more than just an individual strain. It weakens our nation's fiscal health. It reduces productivity and limits economic growth. Scarcity harms us all.

For generations, home ownership has been the centre of a Canadian dream, the promise that if someone works hard, they can buy a home, raise a family and build a secure future. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Too many young Canadians believe they will never have the same opportunity as their parents did. That is just sad. We must restore the dream of home ownership for the next generation.

We must give Canadians, including families in my community of Abbotsford—South Langley and communities across this nation, a real chance to buy a home, start a family and build a future, without being held back by the government's inefficiency and soaring costs. No one in Canada should feel that they will never get a fair shot at success, yet under the current Liberal government, far too many do. It is time to address the housing supply and the urgency it demands, not as a partisan issue, but as a non-partisan issue, as a national priority that secures opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians.

Conservatives are ready to act and we are ready to work with anyone who is willing to put Canadians first. We have a clear plan that cuts costs, removes barriers, empowers builders and gets homes built. We would increase supply, lower prices and make home ownership achievable for families from coast to coast to coast. It is time for results, not red tape. It is time for action. That is why I urge the Liberal government to take a second look and cut out the bureaucracy and the layers.

This Build Canada Homes bill is not what we need right now. We need to make sure we can cut taxes and we can fight for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member in general, but I like his first comment about providing hope. We have a newly elected Prime Minister, from less than a year ago, and we have been working with different levels of government. We have been working with many different stakeholders. We have a substantial piece of legislation to support Canadians in every region of the country. It is not a duplication. It would ensure that houses are more affordable in many different ways.

I do not understand. Is there not a progressive element within the Conservatives? Are there not red Tories within the Conservative caucus who recognize there is value for the federal government to do what it is doing? I would think that members want all of us to be working together on the housing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Abbotsford—South Langley a chance to respond.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague already knows that the government has been in power for the last 10 years. We have seen unaffordability rise under the Liberal government. That is what has been happening.

My generation is not succeeding. We are being held back now more than ever. That is the last thing that we need. Another bureaucracy being put in front of us is the last thing we need.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts held a meeting on the subject of infrastructure. We realized that, according to page 298 of volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was allocated $2.1 billion in financing for housing. However, it spent only $1.3 billion. On that same page, we see that $5 million was not spent in 2025. In other words, nearly $2 billion was not spent.

Are things structured in such a way that all the lovely promises in the budget do not translate into money flowing and construction happening in the regions? Is that not a problem?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague here on this side of the House that there are many problems that the current government is bringing in front of us that it is not addressing. Yes, we do need to work together. We do need to see all stages of the policies that we need to work on to make them more efficient.

I think we would both agree that the last thing we need to do is add another layer of bureaucracy.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that great speech. I know him as someone who has a real heart for youth, the young people of this country, and he advocates for them regularly.

When we look at the housing record of the government, by every metric, the past 10 years have been a disaster. Canadians know that.

Can my colleague highlight the proud vision that the Conservatives have for housing in this country, especially when it comes to young people?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when a Conservative government was in power, many family members of mine came to this country. They were able to come here, afford a home and build a life, and they were able to succeed because they saw the Canadian vision. They saw the Canadian promise, the North American promise.

For myself today, being born in Canada, it is difficult to succeed in this current chapter, in this current year, because everything is getting more and more unaffordable. That is the same thing I hear from my peers, the same thing I hear from all the youth in my community.

The member who asked me the question is correct. We need to bring change. We need to make sure that we go back to the old ways, to the things that worked, and not add more layers of bureaucracy.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need affordable housing, but pumping billions of dollars into a new corporation is just growing the bureaucracy instead of getting homes built.

With Canadians struggling in a productivity crisis of the Liberals' making, can my colleague comment on why the government is creating another government job factory instead of getting houses built?

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question very simply. I am from British Columbia. The current housing minister apparently did an amazing job in Vancouver with the housing bureaucracy he created there. We do not see anything getting better currently with the Liberal government. If there is a problem, it is because of the Liberal government. If something is in the way, it is because of the Liberal government. We need to make sure that we bring change. That is what Canadians are fighting for. I urge the members across to stop supporting this bill.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the renters of the spacious riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-20, the build bigger bureaucracy act.

To begin with, I want to assure my biggest fan across the aisle that by the end of this speech, he will see what ancient Greece, Peru's new Prime Minister and the Soviet Union, as well as Jesus Christ, have in common with the Liberals' latest building bureaucracy bill.

To properly understand this legislation, we need to look at housing history, the present circumstances and the future potential.

Let us start with the past. As has become the style in Canadian political speeches, let me begin by quoting an ancient Greek philosopher. Xenophon wrote that the household is the source of all wealth. It is fitting that we begin with a discussion on the so-called housing bill with the ancient Greek. The word “economics” comes from the Greek words oikos, meaning household, and nomos, meaning custom or management. In effect, all economics begin at home. Four hundred years later, in the great Roman Republic, Cicero said each person should retain his own property and not seize that of another. It is clear that these men believed that home ownership was the path to prosperity. Sadly, the Liberal Party has not learned this ancient wisdom, even with an economist as a leader.

Moving from the ancient world to the modern world, we reach the year 2017, the year the Liberal government introduced the national housing strategy. It was a $115-billion plan to build housing. One program under the strategy, the affordable housing fund, received $16 billion over 10 years to build 60,000 new affordable rental units. The program launched in May 2018, and in the eight years since, it has spent 85% of its budget. The program has built only 25,428 units, which means the Liberals spent 85% of the budget to reach 42% of the goal. That is a failing grade.

Another part of the national housing strategy was the affordable housing innovation fund. Phase one was a five-year plan to spend $200 million to build 14,000 housing units, created using so-called “innovative business approaches and building techniques”. The program ran from 2017 to 2021. They built 5,319 units. The goal was 14,000, which means they built 38% of the target, another failing grade.

The apartment construction loan program was a $54-billion plan to build 131,000 rental units. This was a 15-year plan, and we are at the halfway mark. So far, we have built 18,497 rental units. Even if we are being generous and we cut the goal in half, that still means the Liberals have built only 28% of the mid-goal.

At 42%, 38% and 28%, the Liberals keep failing, and it gets worse. This is the history every Canadian should have known before the last election. This is the history every Canadian should have been reminded of when this Brookfield government staged a photo op at a fake housing construction site to announce this legislation. That is history. That is the Liberals' proven track record of housing failure.

Despite this legacy of failure, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a failed strategy, which brings us to the present and the bill before us today. Bill C-20 would not fix Canada's housing crisis, because Bill C-20 is not about building houses. It is about building bureaucracy.

My biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North, once bitterly complained about the Harper government's creativity in applying branding to the short titles for legislation. To paraphrase Denzel Washington, “King Kong ain't got nuttin” on these Liberals.

The short title for Bill C-20 is the Build Canada Homes act. The real title is “an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes”. The Liberals are clearly trying to trick Canadians into thinking they are building homes for Canadians. The real title reveals that they are building a new bureaucracy they call “Build Canada Homes”.

Aside from revealing the Liberals' love of slogans and propaganda, Bill C-20 also reveals the root of the problem and the real reason Liberals keep failing over and over again. Under section 4 of the bill, the Liberals lay out the purpose: “The purpose of the Corporation 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.” Now, attentive listeners might have noticed that this is the same purpose behind the failed affordable housing innovation fund I mentioned earlier.

I have quoted a Greek philosopher and a Roman politician, but on the issue of building houses, maybe we should heed the words of a Jewish carpenter's son, who said, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” No one can serve two masters, and no bill should have two purposes. While I could not find a quote to fit, I am sure we can all agree that Jesus would look unfavourably at a policy that treats lower-income Canadians as guinea pigs for housing construction.

Is the goal of the bill to provide affordable housing, or is the goal to provide corporate welfare to home builders? It cannot do both. We know it cannot because it has not worked in the past. Two years ago, the Liberal government announced it was seeking bids from developers to build homes on federal lands, including a plot here in Ottawa on an old air base. The government would own the land and give developers 99-year leases to build rental units. This is the model used in China. The state gives developers 99-year leases. Set aside the “own nothing and be happy” vibes of this policy and look at the results. Nothing has been built. People in Ottawa can visit the site. It is empty, because the Liberal government did not ask developers to submit bids for low-cost affordable housing. They asked for bids to build high-cost, low-rent housing. These units had to exceed energy-saving standards by 25%. The four-acre lot must accommodate 495 units. The units must exceed accessibility standards. The units must also respect the heritage and legacy of the Algonquin peoples and respect the military heritage of the site.

It is not enough for the Liberals to build affordable housing. It has to be progressive housing. It has to be the type of housing our Laurentian elite think we should live in. Mixed-use apartments with no vehicle parking are the Liberals' platonic progressive ideal. The problem is that most Canadians looking to buy a house want a single-family home to call their own. They do not want a 99-year rental agreement with a government always chasing the latest left-wing fad. This ideological housing policy was popular in the Soviet Union. It had the progressive notion that by building socialist Soviet communities, it would build better socialist citizens. They would own nothing, be happy and be socialist subjects, or so the government thought.

The problem is the owning nothing part. While the Prime Minister is burning as much CO2 as he can, flying around the world to avoid Parliament, I suggest he stop in Peru to have a conversation with its new prime minister, Hernando de Soto. Prior to becoming prime minister, de Soto was an internationally acclaimed economist. His research proved how important property rights and a legal system to protect those rights were to economic development. As the Prime Minister seeks to undermine Canada's law protecting property rights to build his high-speed white whale, he should visit de Soto's writings. De Soto proved with facts and figures what Cicero knew 2,000 years ago, that owning a home is the path to prosperity.

Conservatives and Liberals can agree that everyone deserves a home. Where we differ is on who should own that home. With Bill C-20, the Liberals continue to believe that government knows best. They believe government should be the landlord of first and last resort.

It was not always this way. In 1942, the Liberal government passed the Veterans' Land Act. Here is how the government described the law at the time:

The purpose of the Veterans' Land Act is to assist veterans toward the full ownership of rural homes

Bill C-20 would do nothing to increase home ownership. All the bill would do is create new bureaucracy to duplicate the work of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Canada Lands Company. It does not matter how many new bureaucracies the Liberals build; the Liberal record is clear. Over $1 billion was spent in the last eight years, and not a single program has even reached a passing grade after eight years of that 10-year plan. Liberals continue to fail the housing test, but Canadians pay the price.

Only Conservatives can be trusted to get the government out of the way so Canadians can build the homes they need and the homes they want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I always enjoy listening to the member opposite. I know she puts a great deal of effort into her speeches, and I suspect there are many Conservatives in the back room who take note of what she says so they can add it to the Conservative spin they put out on a daily basis.

Let us get down to the very root of the difference. I remember when I was the housing critic in Manitoba back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and there were 20,000 non-profit housing units, many houses built by government, with co-operation. That would not have happened if there had not been a federal government presence in the housing area.

We have a Prime Minister who has recognized the importance of affordable housing, including issues such as disabilities, seniors and so forth. Would the member opposite not agree that maybe, in certain situations, there is a role for government to play in housing?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when the member opposite is once again the housing critic.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always full of good quotes. I would just like to maybe tell her about a quote from Aristotle, who said a stable society begins with stable homes. We have seen that the Liberal government has done everything in its power to destabilize the housing market in the last 10 years.

I was wondering if she could maybe highlight some of the Conservatives' vision for how housing should and could be in this country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want government to get out of the way. Development fees form a big chunk of what the cost of a house is. We need to control spending so that interest rates do not keep on going up and up. Builders tell me that they are not building on spec anymore. They are tired of ending up being landlords. What they want to see is interest rates go down and the cost cut by cutting the development fees, so individual families themselves can make down payments and afford a mortgage to own the home themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives would not want to create such a centralist bureaucratic structure. Here is my question. Would they respect the fact that housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing per se does come under provincial jurisdiction, specifically municipal legislation, and Conservatives respect this position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. colleague talk. At the very opening of her speech, she talked about a very important economic concept, that of home ownership. We agree that home ownership creates a foundation for long-term stability and growth, especially for the next generation.

I am just wondering if she would like to expand on that, specifically about what the implication might be for the next generation if we do not get serious about addressing home ownership in this country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is bang on. The Liberals just keep on talking about housing. We are talking about building homes. When renters have to stay being renters and cannot set aside enough for a down payment because the rent keeps on going up, that means at the end of the day they are going to have smaller families, and their families are not going to be able to have the foundation because they are paying rent too. They will never get the amount of money to set aside and buy a home themselves, because the prices keep on going up. This affects the whole economy. A good economy begins with home ownership, and the Liberals are bereft of that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier to another hon. colleague on the Conservative benches if there was not an improvement in seeing if, now that we have Bill C-20's approach, we actually are no longer describing Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency and there may be more transparency—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will give the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke a chance to respond.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can save taxpayers a lot of money if we just vote against this bill. One less bureaucracy is going to be one less notch in every taxpayer's bill. Let us save taxpayers' money, so they can set aside enough money for a down payment to buy and own their own home.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and Canadians all across this country, the young, the old and everyone in between, who do not need to be told that there is a housing crisis. They can see the fact that there is a housing crisis clear as day. They see it in the listing prices. They see it in the rent that is consuming half their paycheques. There are young adults living in their parents' basements, unable to leave those homes. Families, young people, are seeing this in delayed family plans.

After a decade of having the Liberals in government, housing prices have doubled in this country and home ownership is increasingly out of reach. For young people in Canada, they are the first generation less likely than their parents to own a home. Eighty-eight per cent of renters say that they feel they will never own a home. It is just a dream somewhere far off in the distance. Half of millennials and two-thirds of gen Zs are delaying starting a family. Youth unemployment has reached record levels at 14.7%, and a generation has been locked out of work and housing.

However, this crisis is not just specific to the young. Slower growth, weaker retirement security, the cost of living and the cost of housing affect everyone. They put pressure on a construction industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people all across Canada. There is a dream in Canada of home ownership, and it is more than a dream. For many people, it is a rite of passage. For many people, it signifies the transition from childhood to adulthood, and that dream is eroding.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, just the other week said that there are only 269 homes that have been sold in the GTA. That is down 36% year over year, and 80% below our 10-year average. Typical January sales in 2026, for example, are 1,300 sales or more. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, has said that housing starts are down 15% in January, and it sees construction declining through 2028. It argues that 2026 might be the weakest year in decades.

Builders are hesitant to build due to the rising uncertainty in the market and the rising uncertainty with government policy. Let us take a look at what some of the building associations are saying. Kevin Lee from the Canadian Home Builders' Association says that the biggest barriers to our housing development are development charges, permitting delays and insufficient processes.

Let us look at the municipal fees. They have completely skyrocketed. They are up $27,500 on average since 2022. The average is now $82,600. Some cities cite as much as $200,000 per home. I have heard from people in the industry, as I am sure many others have, that we are now looking at approximately 33% of the list price of a home in government development fees, taxes, levies and red tape.

Approval timelines are another hurdle preventing builders from building. It is nearly one year for a permit, on average. Thirty-plus studies are being required in some municipalities. Delays equal higher borrowing costs for developers, and higher borrowing costs equal higher prices. New home sales are down roughly 90% since 2021, and as I mentioned earlier, construction jobs are at risk. That is the backdrop in which we are discussing Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 does not address any of these issues I laid out. What it would do is create a new Crown corporation that would have sweeping powers to acquire land, invest in housing ventures and provide loans and financial assistance. The government plans to spend $13 billion over five years: $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for Canada Lands Company. That is the third housing agency and fourth federal bureaucracy.

The central problem with this plan, as the minister himself admitted, is that there are no actual top-line targets. An economist at the Ivey Business School, Mike Moffatt, has said there are no key indicators in place. He has never seen this before. There is no clarity on price points or on what the target should be. The PBO said that only 26,000 units will be built over five years. That is 26,000 units in a country that needs hundreds of thousands of homes per year.

What does Bill C-20 not do? It does not cut development charges or assist municipalities with cutting development charges. It does not reduce approval timelines. It does not tie infrastructure to housing results. It does not cut the GST for all buyers on new homes. It certainly does not eliminate the capital gains tax on reinvestment or remove a single study requirement, or remove or reduce a single municipal fee.

Instead, it centralizes more authority in Ottawa and expands the federal footprint, adding yet another layer of government. The problem we are facing here is simple. It is the cost of building: the development charges, the industrial carbon tax that is impacting material costs, the endless regulatory layering, the approval delays and the lack of clarity. Builders want less government in the way, not more. What has the government's response been? It is that they have a bureaucracy that will solve that problem, which seems to be a common theme with the Liberal government.

What would we do? The Conservative approach would be tied directly to results. We would tie infrastructure funding to 15% annual increases in homebuilding. We would cut development charges by 50%, and we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. This would save families $65,000, approximately, on a purchase. We would also end capital gains on reinvestment in new housing to spur the economy.

If we look at the bigger picture, housing starts are less than half of what is needed to restore affordability. From 2022 to 2031, it is predicted we will see the fewest homes built per person since 1972. This is a crisis that is built layer by layer, with rising taxes, rising fees, rising delays and rising uncertainty. All of this creates conditions in which development will not foster and will not spur, and developers will not build. Everyone is feeling this and everyone is paying: young Canadians, families and retirees.

What we need to do is contrast this bill, which reorganizes authority, expands spending, lacks measurable targets and does not confront structural barriers, with what the Liberal government needs to do. It needs to adopt our plan and target structural reform. We see this time and time again when we are talking about various areas of policy in this country. We have structural issues facing our country, such as regulatory hurdles and the tax framework, all these things that need to be revamped significantly to get the economy moving.

We have the workers. We have the materials, and we have the capital. We need a government that is willing to work with us to remove these barriers. Canadians deserve measurable targets, lower costs and real supply growth, and they deserve a path to ownership. That is the social contract in this country: People want to own their homes. Government can partner with municipalities to make these things happen. It can partner with the provincial governments and work together to remove some of the costs impeding the growth of this sector. It is long past due that we have a change in direction.

What we do not need is more recycled policy. We do not need to see the same approach over and over again. We certainly do not need more government bureaucracy and more government spending. Housing must be restored for an entire generation of Canadians that feels left out.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line. Less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a government that made the commitment to achieve 500,000 homes being built per year within the next 10 years, to get to that goal. We are working with provinces of all political stripes, from Progressive Conservative governments to New Democratic governments. We are working together in order to be able to achieve a goal that will provide the hope that Canadians want to see, and that includes working with the many different stakeholders out there.

Bill C-20 is a critical component in dealing with affordable housing. It seems, once again, that the official opposition, the Conservative right, has made the determination that the government has no place in affordable housing. Does the member believe that the government has any place at all—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will interrupt to give the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge a chance to respond.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has been in power for 10 years now. That member himself has been here for the last 15 years, or is it 20 years at this point? Either way, we have the same problem facing this country that we have had over the last 10 years. We have house prices that have doubled. We have stakeholders and industry stakeholders who are yelling at the top of their lungs what the solutions are, which I laid out. They are to cut government taxes, facilitate the reduction or removal of DCs and of levies, and get rid of the HST on home purchases. Just work with us. Steal our ideas. Take them. Implement them. Let us solve this crisis together.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been saying it all day and since the debate began: The Bloc Québécois thinks that the government is making things a lot more complicated than they have to be and that it is preventing the municipalities and the Quebec and provincial governments from doing their work effectively in their own jurisdictions.

I want to know whether my colleague agrees with the Bloc Québécois, which is suggesting that instead of complicating the process, the government should simplify it by simply doing its job and transferring money to Quebec and the provinces. They will each be able to manage this with their municipalities in a much more efficient and targeted manner, based on their specific needs.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that the government needs to not add more layers of bureaucracy. It does not need to spend more money on another Crown corporation that would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The provinces and municipalities know what needs to be done. They need to be able to facilitate a reduction in development charges and levies. The federal government should partner with them by creating targets and transfers, so that governments at the municipal level and the provincial level can get rid of these barriers and let developers build and get shovels in the ground, so we can create the housing supply that we need in this country.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to welcome one of our newest constituents, Harper Alice Frang, born February 9 in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We wish her and her family all the best.

I listened closely both to the speech and to the member for Winnipeg North and his question. In fact, he is the only Liberal I have heard ask a single question today. We have heard Liberal plan after plan, and every time it is the greatest housing plan.

I am wondering whether my hon. colleague, also of Italian heritage, agrees with me when I say that Canadians and we, in this House on this side, have just lost hope because there is always a new Liberal housing plan and never any results.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third housing agency and the fourth government bureaucracy that has been created. At some point, we are just wondering where the fresh ideas are. Where are the new ideas? Instead, the Liberals are recycling old policy and old plans that would do nothing but add money to the debt. Right now, the PBO has said their plan would create only 26,000 homes over a five-year period.

We know what to do. Get government out of the way. Let us get the industry building.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, the Liberals' latest promise to solve a problem that they created. The bill would create a Crown corporation, their third that deals with housing, while our young people have watched the prospect of owning a home slip away. As rents have doubled over the last 10 years, the prices of those homes have also doubled. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future.

In the last election, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister promised he would build at speeds not seen in a generation and has since spent his time invoking grand speeches reminding us that for much of our proud history, Canada was able to build vital projects and the housing people needed. I say “much” of our history because over the course of the last decade of Liberal rule, businesses have been forced to shut their doors, companies have been forced to lay off their workers, and builders have been left unable to build because of an increase in costs and regulatory burdens.

After the Liberals promised to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. Rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, they have decided to build yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using a bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they created.

While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, that they are going to deliver and that all they need is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. If 10 years was not enough, just how much time do the Liberals need?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Speaking of time, I must interrupt. That is a good segue.

We will have to break here.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 7 under Government Business.

The House resumed from March 9 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.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to wish my husband, Mike, a happy 20th anniversary on St. Patrick's Day. We are on this crazy ride together, and it has really been wonderful.

As a former city councillor, I am very familiar with the development process and acutely aware of the housing crisis, so I really appreciate the opportunity not only to wish Mike a happy anniversary but also to talk about the importance of the Build Canada Homes act.

This legislation establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building truly affordable homes in communities across the country. The bill is the next major step in strengthening the federal government's capacity to address Canada's housing crisis. The need is very clear. Across the country, far too many Canadians are struggling to find homes they can afford. The phenomenon is not new, but it is urgent. In 2010, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a report entitled “Canada's Housing Bubble: An Accident Waiting to Happen”. The headline on the news release reads, “Housing bubble at precarious 30-year peak”.

That was in 2010. Here we are 16 years later, and the challenge persists, through different political leadership and through different market conditions. There are many reasons for the complex challenges we face with Canada's housing system. Over the past 30 years, the Canadian building construction price index more than doubled, the cost of land and labour is rising, and through it all, the supply of homes simply did not keep pace with the growing demand for market housing. Governments at all levels did not invest in community, affordable, social and supportive housing, believing incorrectly that the private sector would fill that gap, when that is not its mandate. Although we are beginning to see promising improvements in several cities across the country, it is clear that more needs to be done, and crucially that it be done differently. This is why we are taking a new approach.

Since it was launched in September 2025, Build Canada Homes has made progress in scaling up the supply of affordable housing across Canada. It is driving a more productive and innovative homebuilding sector and acting as a catalyst for modern methods of construction. Combining access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof, Build Canada Homes makes it simpler and faster to get big projects off the ground.

With low-interest loans, equity investments, contributions and guarantees, Build Canada Homes can fund construction in an innovative way. It is designed to partner across the housing ecosystem. It works in partnership with non-profits, indigenous organizations, private developers and all orders of government. The federal government's investment in housing supports local jobs and local businesses, helping to grow Canada's economy everywhere.

Build Canada Homes is also implementing the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy. This means prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials and strengthening domestic supply chains while creating jobs that pay well. This aligns extremely well with the government's significant investments in training for construction trades.

By also prioritizing modern methods of construction, such as factory-built housing, Build Canada Homes will spark a more productive homebuilding industry. I have seen this first-hand. Guelph's Pacd Homes can flat-pack a home. People from the auto sector, one of the most productive sectors in the country, have figured out a way, with new materials, to assemble, in particular, ADUs or additional dwelling units. They can ship them. They can assemble them in four to six weeks if they have the zoning and the land. We are going to see more and more of these innovations right across the country. This will drive a steady demand for factory-built housing to speed up delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability.

The industry committee just completed a study on productivity and how Canada can boost it. Did members know that industries with the lowest productivity often include those that are highly labour-intensive, slow to adopt new technologies or composed mainly of small firms? Those are all characteristics of residential construction. In fact, in 2024, TD Bank identified construction as one of the lowest-performing sectors in terms of productivity and said it was at a 30-year low.

The need is so great that we can boost productivity in homebuilding, and there will still be plenty of room for smaller builders. Every new home that is built will mean more demand for Canadian steel, lumber and aluminum, helping workers and businesses thrive. A broad increase in supply will have a downward pressure on prices on the market side of the housing continuum. These are some tangible results provided by Build Canada Homes already.

In just a few months, Build Canada Homes has delivered measurable progress. Landmark agreements have been signed with many provinces and municipalities, and six federal land projects are advancing toward construction. Canada's housing crisis is being addressed. Do we wish it could happen overnight? Absolutely, we do. With new innovations, thousands of affordable homes are committed, and we should see shovels in the ground this year. Hundreds of projects are under review across the country, ready to break ground. These are concrete results that show how this new approach is turning ambition into action. It is what can be achieved when speed, innovation and especially collaboration are prioritized.

Housing advocates across the country are very excited. I met with housing proponents in Guelph just last week who are collaborating to submit a portfolio of projects. One is an affordable housing project for vulnerable families, and another is a multiresidential, permanent supportive housing project for seniors who are struggling with mental illness. These are not projects that the private sector would build. The private sector has a profit motive, which is fine, but the private sector in Guelph also has a big heart. It has been a huge provider of services, funding, supports and, very importantly, land in the last few years, to help previous Guelph projects literally get off the ground.

Land is so often the core of this issue, so this bill would also give the federal government the authority to transfer the land holdings and development experience of Canada Lands Company Limited to Build Canada Homes. This would streamline and consolidate federal tools to directly build affordable housing on public land for public good. Build Canada Homes and Canada Lands Company would continue to work together closely. They would continue to advance priority projects, including the direct-build sites, and ensure a smooth transition.

As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would be overseen by a board of directors responsible for strategic direction, risk management and oversight of activities and performance. This would ensure alignment with Build Canada Homes' legislative mandate. A chairperson and CEO, both appointed by the Governor in Council, would provide leadership and ensure that the corporation's activities align with government priorities. The legislation, importantly, would provide Build Canada Homes with the independence to operate effectively, while ensuring clear lines of accountability to Parliament.

Once this legislation is passed and comes into force, Build Canada Homes will become a Crown corporation. It will be given the independence necessary to take risks and the operational autonomy it needs to focus on fulfilling its mandate, while remaining accountable to Canadians.

Making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation will give it the flexibility and legal and operational autonomy it needs to fulfill its mandate. At the same time, it will maintain a clear framework of accountability to Parliament. It will be able to exercise a broader range of powers than a special operating agency, and it will be able to hold assets, make investments and conduct complex financial transactions.

This bill fulfills the commitment that the government made in budget 2025. It is a historic law that will help advance the mandate of Build Canada Homes, which is to build more housing more quickly and more affordably. It will guarantee safe and affordable housing for every Canadian.

Everyone in Canada, no matter where they live across the country, should have access to affordable housing. A home is not merely shelter. It is security, stability and connection to community. We are facing a housing crisis, one that has been growing for decades. In response, the new government is adopting a new model, a new approach, new construction methods and new partnerships and collaborations to accelerate housing construction, restore housing affordability and reduce homelessness.

Canadians need affordable housing now. This bill would help enable Build Canada Homes to continue to deliver on the federal government's promise to Canadians. It would provide a better, brighter future for homebuilding across our country.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the first question that comes to mind regarding the need to build homes is this: Who builds homes? It is builders. People build homes, but they need a way to be able to build them. They need the government to get out of the way and municipalities to facilitate it. All these conditions have to be provided by the authorities to make sure that homes are built on time, with productivity levels in place and with the numbers and efficiency needed. We do not need another bureaucracy to stand in the way.

Another layer of bureaucracy is definitely going to slow down production and productivity, and that is the wrong path. I would like the hon. member to understand that and comment on it.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a city councillor for many years, I saw the municipality streamline its processes. The member is quite right. The private sector is building homes, but for 30 years, communities have expected provinces or the federal government to build non-market affordable housing. Guess what: The private sector does not build that kind of stuff. Why? It is because it has a profit imperative. Look, I have an economics degree. The private sector wants to maximize its profits. It wants to pay higher wages and all that stuff. It is all fine, but there is a gap. Build Canada Homes is going to fill that gap for true market affordability.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot be the only person who heard the Prime Minister say during the election campaign that he was going to implement an ambitious construction program to help our forestry sector, one of the economic sectors paying the highest countervailing duties and the most tariffs in Canada.

Although nothing in the bill necessarily promotes the use of lumber, that is not what concerns me. By the time that the Build Canada Homes program gets off the ground, and given the tariffs that the forestry industry is currently paying, no one will be left in the industry anyway. If it truly wants to build homes using more lumber, the government should find a way to provide funding now and give people in the forestry sector access to liquidity. That does not appear to be the case.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that the government needs to support sectors put at risk by unfair U.S. tariffs. Liquidity programs exist for the lumber, steel and automotive sectors.

Although this issue is truly important, it falls outside the scope of this bill, which only seeks to create a Build Canada Homes Crown corporation. Nevertheless, the issue is indeed important and yes, we need to use Canadian lumber.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, may I congratulate my colleague and her husband on their anniversary.

Having said that, it is really important to recognize that our government understands it has a leadership role to play in the issue of housing and affordability. As a federal government, not only are we investing by creating an agency, but we are also working with the other stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and municipalities. I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on how important it is that the government works with municipalities, provinces and other stakeholders to meet the situation Canada is facing today.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the City of Guelph is a participant in the housing accelerator fund from the previous government. That funding has allowed all kinds of zoning reform. We have removed exclusionary zoning. We have seed money for accessory dwelling units. We have seed money for affordable housing projects. That first step, that first foray of working directly, has been extremely important. This next step is a complete game-changer. I want to congratulate all the affordable housing providers in Guelph, which have done an amazing job of building affordable housing with wraparound services over the past four years.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a housing crisis. This does not come as a surprise to anyone in this place, and it certainly does not come as a surprise to Canadians who are looking for a home or a place to live, be it a first-time home purchase or simply shelter.

We can agree that there is a crisis, but how do we solve it? The government has made some proposals and has some ideas on how best to address it. The Build Canada Homes act would, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, cost about $219 million in operating costs. That would be the administrative price of this bureaucracy. This is not the Liberal government's first iteration of a housing bureaucracy, but it is its latest one.

Housing starts are projected to fall sharply. The government promised 500,000 homes per year, but it is not fixing the real barriers, which is why we are going to continue to see a decline or insufficient growth in housing starts.

There are a few different ways we would propose, as Conservatives, to address this. For market housing, we obviously have a supply-side challenge, and we need to unlock that. The private sector is going to be the biggest driver in building homes. We need to recognize that and do what government should be doing, which is getting out of the way and reducing the burdens. Removing taxes, such as the GST on new homes, and tying federal infrastructure funding to municipalities to permit more housing are part of an approach that would absolutely lead to faster project approvals and easing prices for homebuyers.

We also need non-market housing. Private developers are not going to be the ones to solely fill this need, but supportive housing, indigenous housing and housing for people experiencing homelessness need to be addressed, and need to be addressed urgently. However, this federal bureaucracy, and that number again is $219 million in operating costs that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said it would cost, would take money away from the approaches that work and that we advocate for.

We come at this from a point of agreeing with the government that there is a housing crisis, a homelessness crisis and an addictions crisis, but there is not a crisis in the creation of too few bureaucracies by the government.

What happens when government provides funding to the people who need it without creating a new bureaucracy? A good example of that is in my community, where I advocated for supportive housing. There was a municipal building that was a former administration building for the water pollution control plant. Along with my provincial counterpart, MPP Steve Clark, we encouraged the local government to free that up for supportive housing, which it did in partnership with the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville. They pursued a service provider and project funding that would house the homeless and help to treat those suffering from addiction, giving them the tools to get well, to get off drugs if they were suffering from addiction, giving them skills for employment and helping them find market housing and a job. Once they graduated through, a new space would be opened up for someone else.

The Pathways supportive housing project in Brockville, which is being administered at that site by the John Howard Society, is a great example of funding that can come from government. It is $850,000 to operate that program, and it is going to change the lives of dozens of people every year by getting them off the street, getting them off drugs and helping them to get jobs, to get into market housing and to reunite with their families. This is incredible. This is the way.

The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness administered these funds. This comes from a government program. It comes from the homelessness reduction innovation fund. Are the parameters of this program perfect? No, no government program is, but when we are comparing investment where it is needed, $850,000 is going to help dozens of the most vulnerable people every year in one community. Let us take that in terms of the value for investment against, and I keep looking down to make sure I get the number right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, $219 million in operating costs alone for this latest bureaucracy. We agree on what the problem is. We agree on some of the ways to solve it, but where we disagree is the expenditure on another bureaucracy. This is one of those things.

How quickly we can build homes in this country can also be addressed by expanding skilled trades participation and continuing to unlock private investment so builders can deliver homes faster and at greater scale. I had the privilege to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I was a tradesman. I was a telecommunications lineman, so I got to work with all kinds of construction trades. It was a tremendous opportunity for me. I got to work with the greatest Canadians I have ever encountered.

My experience in meeting with the building trades in my community is that the hard-working men and women who build stuff, who fix stuff, are the folks who make it is easy to see the investment bring a great return. If we want to find ways for all levels of government to work together, we need to be partnering with them, investing in our skilled trades, recognizing their credentials uniformly across the country and giving them fair tax treatment, as fair or fairer than CEOs who are able to write off their travel. What are we doing to encourage people to enter our building trades?

We have had this housing shortage for years, and we have seen the supply challenge for years. However, we have also seen the creation of new housing bureaucracies over that same period of time, and the problem has not been solved. We agree there is a problem, but where we disagree is on the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for the creation of a new bureaucracy.

We can agree on investment in the areas where it matters most. Cutting taxes and removing the GST for first-time homebuyers will get the job done. Let us find ways we can work together to help Canadians without the creation of another bureaucracy, which will only drive up inflation through higher taxes but will not do anything to meaningfully address the housing crisis we find ourselves in here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I disagree with the member's assessment of the need for the agency. He does bring up one valid issue that I do support, which is the area of non-profits. Many different agencies are out there. I am thinking of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity in the city of Winnipeg has done amazing things, and it has received federal support in the past. It relies on a lot of volunteerism. It supports deeply individuals who are challenged to be able to own their very first home. If not for Habitat for Humanity, hundreds of people in Winnipeg would never have really had the opportunity to own homes.

I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on Habitat for Humanity, because Habitat for Humanity is a national non-profit.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Habitat for Humanity is a real lifeline. It is a program that, frankly, provides dignity to folks. I think that the creation of conditions where we can allow people to continue to live with dignity or to find it for the first time is an area where we can collaborate. These not-for-profits are experts in being able to deliver these types of solutions, and partnering with them and working with them is one area where we can find common ground to stomp on. Those are good investments for us to make.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, housing construction generally falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. My concern is that the federal government is again creating a structure that will increase the amount of time it takes to build housing.

Does my colleague agree with me that it would be much simpler to transfer the money to the provinces and ensure that the homes are built, as they are the ones in the best position to do so? Does my colleague agree?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada provides all kinds of money to municipalities, to towns and cities. We can help to incentivize, in every province and territory, new home construction by increasing or bonusing municipalities when they make regulatory changes that accelerate the construction of homes. Whether it is building fourplexes or making sure that there is housing densification near transit projects, these are criteria that the government should set. It can continue or even increase the funding as long as we see measurable outcomes, which is what all federal funding should be tied to, because that is what Canadians expect.

There needs to be more housing faster, and municipalities, cities and towns can be a real player in that right across the country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues the Liberals seem to keep putting forward is just little dribs and drabs of a tiny bit of new supply: a hundred homes here, a hundred there. It is clear that Canada needs hundreds of thousands of new homes. We are in a supply crisis, not a government spending crisis. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that there is nothing in Build Canada Homes that would reduce the regulations or reduce housing costs for Canadians and developers.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is from the beautiful city of Edmonton, which I am proud to have called home when I served in the Canadian Forces. I want to draw him back to the PBO's estimates on this program: that it would add 26,000 homes, 5,000 homes per year. That is certainly a long way from what the government is promising. What we need is a reduction in taxes, a reduction in regulations and working with the municipalities so they create the conditions and so we can get housing densification and more houses built, and address this problem without a new, expensive Liberal bureaucracy.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin not with a policy argument but with something more fundamental, a question that I think most Canadians are grappling with right now: Can the next generation afford to live in the communities they grew up? For too many Canadians, and certainly this is the case in my riding of Vancouver Granville, the answer is no. I think it is worth sitting with that for a moment before we get into the mechanics of the legislation.

The mechanics matter only if we are honest about the scale of what we are trying to solve. We are not dealing with a temporary market fluctuation. We are dealing with a structural deficit in housing supply that has compounded over decades in communities large and small in every province and every territory. The cost of inaction shows up in families doubling up in homes that were not designed for it, in workers who cannot live near the jobs they are being asked to fill, because they cannot afford to, and in young people who have quietly stopped imagining home ownership as something that belongs to them. This bill is one part of the government's response to that reality.

Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, proposes to transition Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada into a Crown corporation. I want to take a moment to explain why the distinction matters, because I think it is easy to hear “Crown corporation” and think of it as a bureaucratic technicality or a boondoggle, but it is anything but.

A special operating agency, however well resourced and however well intentioned, operates within the constraints of its parent department. It cannot independently hold assets, it cannot take on the kind of financial risk that is required to build complex or large-scale housing developments, and it cannot move with the speed and flexibility that a housing crisis of this magnitude demands. A Crown corporation, on the other hand, can do all those things while remaining fully accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.

What the legislation would do in practical terms is give Build Canada Homes the legal and operational independence to deploy $13 billion in additional capitalization to hold and to develop public lands; to enter into complex financial arrangements with provinces, municipalities, non-profits and indigenous housing providers; and to do so without the structural friction that has, quite frankly, slowed federal housing delivery in the past, regardless of who has been in power.

The legislation would authorize the integration of the Canada Lands Company, which would bring with it significant land holdings and deep development expertise, under the Build Canada Homes umbrella. It would enable non-profits, church groups and other organizations to bring their land to bear in helping to solve the housing crisis in the country. That matters. Federal land is one of the most underleveraged assets we have in addressing the housing supply gap, and the legislation would begin to change that.

The arguments that one could make against the bill are predictable, and they deserve a substantive response. We will hear and have already heard that this would be yet another federal bureaucracy, that the government would be inserting itself where it does not belong and that builders build homes, not bureaucrats. I would say with the greatest of respect that this framing misunderstands what Build Canada Homes is designed to do.

Build Canada Homes would not be competing with the private sector. It is not designed to replace builders, developers or market mechanisms that have an important role to play in housing supply. It is designed to go where the market on its own has demonstrated it will not go: deeply affordable housing, non-market housing, supportive and transitional housing, housing for indigenous communities and housing in places and for populations where the financial returns do not attract the scale of private capital that other markets do. This is not government overreach. It is government doing what only government can do.

I want to point out something concrete, because I think this debate benefits from moving from principle to evidence. Last month, Build Canada Homes and my province, the province of British Columbia, announced a partnership that I think illustrates exactly what this model is capable of. Through that agreement, Build Canada Homes committed $170 billion in capital, which in turn unlocked $640 million in provincial investment through BC Housing.

Together, that partnership will deliver over 700 shovel-ready and supportive transitional homes, with construction beginning in the next 12 months, alongside at least 400 affordable rental homes using B.C.'s DASH program, Digitally Accelerated Standardized Housing, which uses prefab Canadian components to reduce costs and construction timelines simultaneously. It is one federal investment and multiple times its value in leveraged provincial dollars. It is over 1,000 homes built using innovative Canadian construction methods on a timeline that would not have been achievable under the old model.

This is the logic of the legislation made real, and it is not an isolated example. Since its launch in September, Build Canada Homes has already secured partnerships and agreements with the City of Ottawa and with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, and a tripartite agreement with Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. All of these represent, together with the B.C. agreement, more than 8,600 new homes already.

Since I was elected, I have made a commitment to my constituents that I would do everything possible to bring affordable and rental housing to our riding. Since then, we have delivered more than 10,000 units of affordable and rental housing in Vancouver Granville. However, that is not enough. That is why this work with Build Canada Homes is essential.

I want to say a word about affordability and accountability because I know it will be raised, and accountability should be raised. Accountability is not a distraction from the urgency of the housing crisis; it is what makes sustained, long-term delivery possible. Build Canada Homes, as a Crown corporation, would operate with a board of directors and a Governor in Council-appointed leadership. It would be subject to the FAA. It would report to Parliament. The minister would retain authority to issue directives.

These are not weak accountability mechanisms. They are quite the opposite. They are the standard framework that has governed effective Crown corporations in this country for generations. The question is not whether there will be accountability but whether we are willing to give this institution the independence it needs to actually deliver. The legislation seeks to balance that in the right manner.

I think about what the bill would achieve when we look down the line 10, 15 or 20 years. What would it make possible in that time frame? We know, because history has shown us, that the most consequential investments governments make are rarely the ones that produce immediate visible returns. This is not just about between now and the next election but about security and stability for generations of Canadians.

The infrastructure that was built by previous generations, the institutions established over decades, and the long-term bets on innovation and capacity that have compounded over time are what define whether a country is building toward something or simply managing its present. Housing affordability is one of those long-term bets. Turning Build Canada Homes into a durable, well-capitalized, operationally independent institution is not a quick fix; it is a foundation that if built well will be delivering homes for Canadians long after the politics of this moment have moved on.

I believe, and on this side of the House we believe, that is worth doing, and I think it is worth doing urgently. The evidence of the last six months, the partnerships, the projects, the capital deployed, the communities engaged from British Columbia to Nunavut and to Nova Scotia, suggest that we have in Build Canada Homes an institution that is ready to rise to that responsibility.

When I think about what we have already accomplished in my own riding, whether it is the Soroptimist project, which is women-led housing for women and women-led families; whether it is the Ashley Mar project, which turned a small number of co-op units into hundreds of co-op units alongside rental; or whether it is the Sen̓áḵw project in the north end of my riding, each and every one of these projects, supported by the federal government, has enabled different types of housing to take shape. It has helped to address the missing middle challenges. It has helped to address what workers need in order to be close to their jobs.

However, we need more. We need to be able to move quickly, and I think every single member of the House recognizes that CMHC has not been able to deliver this on its own. That is why Build Canada Homes, given the space, the authorities, the capacity and the independence to be able to act, would do what we all need it to do.

It would unlock private capital, unlock the investors who are going to be able to partner with government, and unlock lands held by the federal government. It would enable all manner of groups and organizations that have land, but do not have the means to be able to develop it, to work with the federal government and to look at a portfolio approach across this country to develop housing where we need it most, in the communities that are in desperate need of this.

The legislation would transform positively the lives of Canadians, young Canadians and the people most in need. It would also make sure our communities are resilient, our cities are strong and rural Canada has what it deserves: the type of housing where we are going to see an increasing and growing need. I encourage every member of the House to support Bill C-20. I know that by moving forward on the legislation and by giving Build Canada Homes the space and the mandate it deserves, we would see the results that Canadians deserve from all of us.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite on how bureaucracy does not build any homes and how the government has to have a mechanism to do that. However, he said that the process was going to allow us to use unused lands in the different parts of the departments. Could he tell me where in the bill there are any limits, goals or numbers for departments to say what is possible for vacant lands? My understanding is the departments themselves determine what is vacant, and they may never actually come up with any available lands unless they are given goals and requirements.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question because it illustrates some of the information that I think people should have access to.

As each department has gone through and looked at their land inventories, that is one step in the process. There is also a process by which Build Canada Homes will ask pointed questions when inventories do not look like they line up with reality. I will give a good example of this. As we all know, there are Canada Post facilities across this country, some of which have been designated and some of which have not. There is going to be a process that the folks at Build Canada Homes will be certain to undertake to ensure that, where there is an opportunity to access those lands, they will.

In my own riding, there are several pieces of land that the federal government owns that are now going to be part of the portfolio approach, including the Heather Lands, which is going to be an important development.

If we all look at those opportunities together, we will be able to achieve success.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, everyone agrees that investments should be made in housing. The government is facing a terrible crisis that it needs to manage. Unfortunately, in the past, the federal government has always used these crises as an excuse to centralize power. We support building more housing, but we are concerned about Build Canada Homes. We are concerned that a centralizing structure will be created, when, in fact, housing falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. What assurances can my colleague give me?

Recently, an agreement was reached with Quebec. The details are still unknown. That agreement exists and let us assume that it is valid for one year. What assurances can my colleague give me that, next year, or in 5 or 10 years from now, this institution will not continue to trample on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this agreement between Quebec and Canada to work together within the Build Canada Homes framework should reassure my colleague that the Quebec government is committed to protecting the rights of Quebec and Quebeckers.

We can draw on Quebec's experience and capabilities to assure Quebeckers that the federal government's involvement in this matter will benefit Quebec. In fact, we can leverage all of Quebec's and the Quebec government's experience, authority, and capabilities to ensure that Quebeckers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East has the floor.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen examples of the government supporting new housing projects, such as the 612 new co-op homes near the Kennedy TTC Station in my riding of Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East.

Could my colleague share how projects like this demonstrate the kind of community-focused housing the legislation is aiming to deliver?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the amazing work that she does in that community.

The example she presented is a perfect example of how community-led initiatives give government the priorities that it should be using. When we look at the types of projects that communities need, we see that communities know best what they need. By being able to work through the Build Canada Homes process, they will be able to put those projects at the fore as their priorities.

This is one perfect example of that, and the more of this that we can do, the more communities will see that government partnering with them can deliver the types of results that they deserve.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, like everywhere else in the country, families are working hard and making the right choices. People get up every morning and go to work. They pay their taxes. They want to build a better life for their children. Today, however, there is one vital thing that eludes far too many young families, workers, and seniors: the ability to find suitable, reasonably priced housing in their region.

The crisis is not limited to housing. It is a cost of living crisis. It is a regional development crisis. It is also a crisis of confidence in our institutions and in the government, which makes big promises, makes plenty of announcement and spends lots of money, but is not delivering results.

The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes a year. According to current estimates, the government is going to end up building more like 212,000 homes a year between now and 2028, or less than half the number expected. That is a far cry from the Liberals' promise. It is a far cry from what is needed. Most of all, it is a far cry from addressing the reality confronting families looking for a home but forced to remain longer in an apartment because the market is obviously not on their side.

What has the Liberal government done to try to tackle this crisis? Instead of drawing up a proper plan, it has created more red tape. Instead of speeding up the start of new housing projects, it has added a fourth department responsible for housing. Instead of setting clear targets, the minister himself tells us that no overall target has been set for the number of homes to be built. When a government does not even know how many homes it actually wants to build, how can we, as elected representatives and as the public, trust the Liberals?

That is not all. The assessment indicates that, even once the machinery gets up and running, Build Canada Homes will only be able to build 5,000 homes a year. That is 1% of what was announced. Their strategy is a wholly inadequate response to the crisis. It is not a response that meets families' needs. It is not a construction plan. It is a sham. These are announcements and pretty pictures, but they do not address the real problems.

What are people going through in the meantime? Everything is more expensive. Interest rates are going up, shutting down their chances of buying a home. Household budgets are being eaten up by rent. Their children are leaving the region because they cannot afford to settle there.

Back home in Montmorency—Charlevoix, this is the harsh reality for young couples, tourism workers, retail employees, single-parent families and seniors who want to stay in their communities, but this is also affecting small businesses that cannot find employees because people are unable to move to these towns. Having a roof over one's head is the foundation for building a family, a future, and a community's future. It is a matter of economic vitality. It is a matter of social well-being. It is a matter of land use. It is, in fact, an existential issue for our regions.

The federal government cannot do it all alone. We know that. In Quebec, land use planning, urban planning, permits and several other mechanisms fall under the jurisdiction of the municipal and provincial governments. However, the federal government has very real responsibilities and can really help where its jurisdiction allows. The federal government can provide federal tax relief, better direct its transfers to certain programs, quickly free up its land and empty buildings and put an end to tax barriers that are slowing down construction investment.

The federal government can enter into clear agreements with Quebec and the municipalities to reward those that are actually getting things done rather than funding bureaucracy. In other words, Ottawa does not issue municipal permits, but it can stop making the crisis worse and start rewarding those who are building. That is why the Conservatives are proposing a clear, simple and, above all, responsible approach at the federal level.

First, we need to axe the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. That is something only the federal government can do. That would directly reduce the purchase price, help families and encourage the construction of new homes. It could also save a family up to $65,000.

Second, the government could tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. Let us be clear. Municipalities are the ones that make the decisions regarding building permits. That falls under their jurisdiction. However, the federal government has the right, and even the duty, to demand results when it provides cities with billions of dollars.

We in the Conservativs Party are proposing that municipalities allow a minimum 15% annual increase in residential construction in order to receive full federal support. This is not an intrusion into municipal areas of jurisdiction; it is a federal condition for receiving federal funding. That is exactly how a serious government can work in partnership, by rewarding municipalities that are really making an effort to find solutions for their residents.

Third, the taxes and fees that are driving up construction costs could be reduced by 50%. Obviously, these costs are also a municipal matter or are often even covered by provincial programs. However, the federal government can set standards. It cannot eliminate all these standards unilaterally, but it can work on agreements with Quebec and the municipalities, use its programs and offer financial incentives to reduce taxes and fees. In other words, co-operation is not just a slogan. It must become the normal way of working. Quebec and the municipalities retain authority over their jurisdictions, but Ottawa uses its financial tools to get more housing built faster and at a lower cost.

Fourth, we could end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada. Once again, that is a federal responsibility. It is a powerful means to unlock billions of dollars of investment in residential construction. Here is what we propose: fewer tax penalties, more private investment, more housing, less talk and more action.

Finally, the federal government needs to clean house. We found out that it takes up to nine years to dispose of federal property. Knowing that, the reason for the problem is clear. The Liberal government talks about doing things fast but moves at a snail's pace. It talks about urgency but acts like there is no hurry, like all is well. If the federal government owns under-utilized or entirely vacant buildings and sites, it must make them available quickly, subject to clear requirements, simple agreements and an obligation to produce results.

It should not take nine more years and three or four more administrative structures. While the Liberals drag their feet, families have bills to pay. Families are paying more for everything. Right now, they are putting off making purchases. Families are even delaying plans to have children because they cannot find an affordable home. Families are leaving our regions because they cannot stay and settle down there.

What does that mean, in concrete terms, for Montmorency—Charlevoix? It means that personal support workers, hotel employees, young entrepreneurs, couples with two children, fishers and seniors who want to stay in the area are all asking themselves the same question: What can they do to stay in their region, in their home? That is the real question.

The answer does not lie in a new agency that has no clear targets. It does not lie in more delays, more press releases, or more announcements about fake projects. The answer lies in a clear response from the federal government that respects its jurisdictions and uses them to the fullest in order to lower federal taxes, reward construction, unlock federal lands faster, attract private investment and enter into partnerships with Quebec, the RCMs, the municipalities and the private sector.

The Conservatives believe that a strong country starts with families who can afford a home. We believe that a strong economy starts with workers who can stay in their region. We believe that a fair society starts with an affordable roof over everyone's head. Most importantly, we believe that after 10 years of promises, Canadians deserve results. Enough with the red tape. Enough with the false starts. Enough with the empty promises. The time has come to build more, tax less, approve faster and give families a chance not just to survive, but to thrive.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the figures speak for themselves. Three of the five best years on record for housing starts in Canada have been within the last five years, in 2025, 2022 and 2021. The other two years were in the 1970s. What do these historic peaks have in common? Liberal governments were in power in Ottawa.

However, the Conservatives' record from their most recent stint in power is far less impressive. Only a few tens of thousands of affordable homes were built or renovated over the course of nearly 10 years. There was no national strategy and very little investment.

When comparing these records, would my colleague not agree with me that the Liberal approach to housing delivers far more tangible results, with increased housing starts? If he agrees, will he vote with us to support the bill and enable Build Canada Homes to accelerate housing starts across the country?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how when, the Liberals ask us a question, they say that tens of thousands of homes were built during the Conservatives' years in government. However, when we ask questions in the House, they say that only six homes were built.

They may have trouble counting, but the numbers are out. They are promising 500,000 homes, but only 212,000 homes are going to be built per year by 2028. That is less than half. Next, let us look at the objectives. Build Canada Homes is going to deliver 5,000 homes a year, not 500,000. That amounts to 1%.

Maybe the Liberals should review their program, stop funding bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and finally help the people on the ground for real.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and noticed a potential blind spot.

If the government wants to build more housing, it will have to support the forestry industry, which is going through one of the worst crises in its history. Right now, what we are seeing is consolidation within the forestry sector. This means that if a major construction initiative started tomorrow, a lot of players would be missing. Where would we get our lumber then? The question is sure to come up.

Does my colleague agree with the proposal jointly presented by the Bloc Québécois and forestry sector representatives? Would he back the idea of introducing a financial support program to help the forestry industry make it through the current crisis?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to give the member a chance to reply, but unfortunately, he will have to wait until after question period, since it is almost 11 a.m. He will have lots of time to think about it.

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.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. After a decade of Liberal government, housing prices in Canada have doubled and the dream of owning a home has never been further out of reach for millions of Canadians, especially in Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt.

For generations, owning a home was a cornerstone of the Canadian dream. It represented stability, security and the promise that if we worked hard and saved, we could build a future for our family. Today, that dream is slipping away.

Young northern Ontarians are increasingly asking themselves whether they will be able to buy their first home. Many have done everything right. They studied hard, found good jobs and saved what they could, yet still find themselves priced out of the market. At the same time, Canadians are carrying record levels of household debt. Today, that number stands at $2.6 trillion, much of it tied to mortgages. Families are stretching themselves financially to simply put a roof over their heads. Mortgage payments have skyrocketed, and rent has climbed dramatically. For many Canadians, the cost of housing now consumes a larger portion of their income than ever before.

This is not a small challenge. It is not a temporary problem. It is a full-blown housing crisis, and Canadians are asking a simple question: How did we get here?

The reality is that after years of failed policies and immigration influx, the Liberals have utterly broken the housing market. Buyers cannot afford to buy. Sellers cannot afford to sell, and builders cannot afford to build. The supply of housing has not kept up with demand, and the barriers to building new homes have grown higher and higher. Instead of removing those barriers, the government has too often added to them. Regulations have multiplied. Approval processes have slowed. Costs have increased, and every delay means fewer homes being built for Canadians who desperately need them.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this crisis is the gap between the government's rhetoric and the results Canadians are actually seeing. We hear announcements, slogans and promises, but when Canadians look around their communities, they do not see homes being built at the pace that is needed.

The Prime Minister's latest budget provides another example of this pattern. Not long ago, the government promised to cut municipal homebuilding taxes in half in order to make it easier and cheaper to build new homes, yet in the most recent budget, that promise has been broken. At a time when we should be reducing the cost of building homes, the Liberals have instead allowed costs to continue rising. Industrial taxes imposed by the federal government are increasing the price of key materials like cement, steel and glass. Every time the cost of those materials goes up, the cost of building homes goes up. As the cost of building homes rises, those costs are ultimately passed on to Canadians.

The result is a system where everyone is stuck. Young families cannot buy their first homes. Parents worry that their children will never be able to afford to live in the communities where they grew up. Seniors want to downsize. Often, there are not enough suitable options available. Builders who want to construct more homes are facing rising costs, delays and uncertainty. Instead of focusing on removing barriers and enabling builders to build, the Liberals have chosen another approach. Their latest proposal is to create yet another federal housing bureaucracy. Canadians are now being told that the solution to the housing crisis is a fourth federal housing agency, Build Canada Homes.

Northerners are right to ask an important question. If the existing housing programs and agencies have not solved the problem, why would creating another bureaucracy suddenly change the outcome? More bureaucracy does not build homes. More paperwork does not build homes. More announcements do not build homes. Builders, workers and communities build homes. What they need is the ability to move projects forward quickly and affordably.

Unfortunately, the early result of this new initiative raises serious concerns. So far, the only thing Build Canada Homes has delivered is paycheques to bureaucrats, with zero dollars spent on actual capital investment. After months and months of discussions, Canadians have not seen a shovel in the ground. They have not seen cranes in the sky. They have not seen the kind of progress that this crisis demands. In fact, far from building at generational speeds, it took nearly a year simply to introduce legislation that still would not result in homes being built.

Canadians do not measure success by the number of press releases issued by the government. They measure success by results. They measure success by whether their children can afford to move out of the basement. They measure success by whether families can buy a home in the community where they work. They measure success by whether young people can start their lives together with confidence about the future.

Right now, too many Canadians feel that the system is working against them. They feel, no matter how hard they work, the goalposts keep moving further away. This is not the Canada people expect, and this is not the kind of Canada people deserve.

The housing crisis demands urgency. It demands practical solutions, and it demands a willingness to remove barriers that are preventing homes from being built. That means reducing red tape. Most importantly, it means focusing on outcomes rather than announcements because, at the end of the day, Canadians are not asking for more bureaucracy in Ottawa. They are asking for more affordable homes in their communities. They are asking for a fair chance to build a future. They are asking for leadership that understands the urgency of the moment.

A Conservative government would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, cut development charges by 50% and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada.

After a decade of Liberal housing policy, the results are impossible to ignore. Housing prices have doubled. Household debt has reached record levels. An entire generation feels increasingly locked out of the dream of home ownership. After 10 years of Liberal housing policy, the only thing they have managed to build is a housing crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at this in terms of what is happening on the ground. On the ground, we have municipalities, provinces and many other stakeholders working along with Ottawa to ensure that we can address a very important issue that Canadians are concerned about. I reflect on the City of Winnipeg, the local mayor, the premier of Manitoba and others, who are saying this is a good thing. The Conservatives seem to be the only ones who are kind of out in the cold.

Does the member support what our municipalities, premiers and provinces are saying, and the deals that are being struck?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need more homes. Northern Ontario needs more homes. The Prime Minister promised to build 500,000 new homes a year at speeds not seen since the Second World War, but his own agency confirmed that housing starts have collapsed.

While the Liberals fail to get housing built, Conservatives will bring real solutions to restore a country that puts home ownership within reach. That means increasing the supply of homes by cutting building taxes, tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, ending the federal sales tax on all new homes under $1.3 million and axing the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canadian companies.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that the government is going about things the wrong way. There is a major housing crisis. They are going to set up a Crown corporation to address this crisis, but they are not securing the materials we will need to build these homes.

Right now, the forestry sector is facing the worst crisis in its history, and we are losing forestry sector players month after month, week after week. By the time the government is ready to roll out its strategy, where will the building materials come from? We will have lost a significant portion of our forestry sector players, and the government is not taking action. The government does not seem ready to negotiate with the Americans to end the tariff war that is still raging.

Does my colleague agree that the government is going about things the wrong way and that, for now, it should focus on securing the forestry sector?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that construction costs are too high. Something definitely needs to be done for the forestry sector to help with housing construction.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague about the frustration, which I know I am feeling, and people in my riding are feeling it too, about this increase in bureaucracy and it not resulting in more houses being built.

I would ask my neighbour, because my colleague is my neighbour to the north, if he is seeing the same real-world consequences, especially for our youth. This lack of housing for the next generation sees youth having to move out of our respective ridings, or at least my riding, to go to the major cities to find a place, and even there they cannot find a place to live that they can afford.

Is the member seeing the same sort of challenges with youth not having a place to live and that then dwindling the workforce in his riding?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first-time homebuyers need supply and affordability. That means more homes being built in communities across Canada, not another federal bureaucracy. We need to be cutting unnecessary taxes and lowering material costs. Speeding up approvals would give young Canadians a real chance to own a home rather than staying in their parents' basements.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, the badly misnamed Build Canada Homes act.

Before getting into some of the problems with Build Canada Homes, let me just outline the very real housing crisis that this country faces. After 10 years of the Liberals, housing costs have doubled. In fact, housing costs are now 50% higher than they are in the U.S. Consequently, many young Canadians cannot afford a new home. The aspiration of home ownership has become unattainable, something that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. The Liberals have literally priced an entire generation of Canadians out of the market.

What is the root of the problem? The root of the problem overall is one of supply. The reason housing is expensive is that we are not building enough of it. We are not building enough homes fast enough. Indeed, we are building fewer homes today than we were in 1972, at a time when Canada had half the population we have today.

According to CMHC, Canada needs to build anywhere from 430,000 to half a million new homes for a sustained period, year upon year, to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that mark. In fact, in 2025, new housing starts languished at 259,000, and according to CMHC data, the trajectory is not a positive one. The projection from CMHC is that new housing starts are trending downward year upon year, falling to a mere 212,000 new housing starts in 2028, which is less than half the number of new homes needed to restore affordability.

We enter into Build Canada Homes, which is the Prime Minister's brainchild to solve Canada's housing crisis. What is Build Canada Homes? Well, it is about getting the federal government into the business of building homes. It would establish a Crown corporation wherein the federal government would act as a real estate developer for affordable housing.

The overriding problem with Build Canada Homes conceptually is that it seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. In Canada, we are not lacking real estate developers. We have plenty of real estate developers, but that is what Build Canada Homes is. It is about the federal government acting as a real estate developer.

The real problems that we face when it comes to housing are layer upon layer of red tape, regulation, development charges and taxes, which have discouraged builders from building. Indeed, if one looks at building permits in Canada, we rank 34 out of the 35 OECD countries. It takes, on average, 250 days for a building permit to be issued in Canada. By comparison, for a residential building permit in the U.S., the time is, on average, a month, and in some cases, they are issued in the span of a week.

The source of the layers of red tape and regulation largely falls at the municipal level with big city mayors and councils that have acted as gatekeepers. These local gatekeepers have created some of the most unaffordable, most expensive housing markets in the world. Vancouver is the most extreme example, being the third-most unaffordable housing market in the world, but other cities, such as Toronto, are not far behind. According to analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute, gatekeepers, with their red tape and regulation, have added $1.3 million to the cost of the average home in Vancouver and $350,000 in Toronto.

Given that, is it any wonder that we are not building the homes that we need and that we have a supply issue that has resulted in housing being very expensive, pushing Canadians right out of the market? In the face of that, the solution, intuitively, is to get the gatekeepers out of the way to let builders build. To that end, Conservatives have put forward a number of common-sense proposals.

For example, we proposed the building homes not bureaucracy act. Under this proposed legislation, federal infrastructure dollars would, in part, be tied to the building of new homes to municipalities, so that municipalities that sped up permitting and increased the housing supply would receive a building bonus, whereas those municipalities that insisted on being gatekeepers would see a similar percentage or the same percentage of federal infrastructure dollars withheld.

However, we did not stop there. We are calling for the cutting of the GST on all new homes. That would save the average family $65,000 on the purchase of a new home. The Liberals promised something similar during the election campaign. What they delivered instead is to take the GST off new homes for first-time homebuyers. The problem with that, of course, is that very few first-time homebuyers purchase a brand-new home, meaning that the Liberals' GST cut helps very few purchasers.

Conservatives have also called for the government to take action to reduce development charges. This is something that the Prime Minister campaigned on. In fact, the Prime Minister quite correctly noted that taxes can contribute to 30% of the cost of a new home. When it comes to actually doing something about it, we have not seen action from the Prime Minister, just talk.

Conservatives have proposed taking the capital gains tax off reinvestments in Canada, including reinvestments in housing, which would help unlock billions of dollars in Canada's home building sector. In contrast, what are the Liberals offering? They are offering Build Canada Homes, which does nothing to address the underlying cost factors that have stifled supply, resulting in housing being unaffordable due to a lack of supply.

Now, what will Build Canada Homes do? One thing it will certainly do is build a big, fat new bureaucracy, a $13-billion bureaucracy, but what it will not do is build new homes. In fact, according to analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Build Canada Homes will build approximately 5,000 new units per year. That is 1% of the half million new units that we need to restore affordability. This is the brainchild of the Prime Minister, his solution to the housing crisis. He said during the election that he would accelerate housing at speeds not seen in generations. He has put forward a bureaucracy that will build 5,000 new homes.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, Build Canada Homes is badly misnamed because it will not build new homes. It will build bureaucracy. We do not need bureaucracy. We need to get gatekeepers out of the way and let builders build the homes that Canadians need.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps more of an invitation than a question, but I would very much like to offer to my hon. colleague an opportunity to come to Winnipeg and visit, in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre, significant developments that are being made on former public lands to help support indigenous communities and build the local economy more broadly.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that Build Canada Homes allows us to leverage these opportunities in ridings like mine, which are going to help spur development for much-needed growth and to support communities that have historically been disadvantaged?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes would build 5,000 new units at an extraordinary cost. It would be totally inefficient and would not achieve the results that are needed to restore affordability.

By the way, it is a concept that is not particularly new. In fact it has been tried and tested, and it failed, as recently as the last few years in New Zealand. The socialist government there put forward KiwiBuild, which had the target of building 100,000 new affordable housing units in 10 years. After six years, KiwiBuild managed to build 2,400 units.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that we may simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy. Will setting up a Crown corporation give the government the flexibility needed to respond to the housing crisis? That is also my concern.

Could the government not have addressed these concerns by simply transferring Build Canada Homes funding to Quebec and the provinces, who have jurisdiction over housing construction? Does my colleague agree with me that the government is creating a centralized structure that may serve no purpose, when it could simply have transferred the money to Quebec?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a role for the federal government to play when it comes to working with provinces and municipalities. In that regard, I concur with the hon. member, but at the root of the problem is supply.

The reason we have an issue of supply is red tape and bureaucracy due to policies of gatekeepers. We need to get gatekeepers out of the way, cut taxes and reduce barriers in order to increase supply, build the homes that Canadians need and bring home affordability. Conservatives have put forward a number of concrete measures to do just that.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we face a situation similar to the one we faced after the Second World War, with millions of people looking for homes. The solution then was quite different and quite a bit more effective. By 1947, Canada was building 80,000, 90,000 or as many as 100,000 homes per year. Not one Crown corporation was involved, though I should say there was only one, CMHC, and that was explicitly for veterans. How was it done? The private sector did it by responding to demand at the time, and the government helped by getting out of the way.

I wonder if the member could explain to the Liberals how that possibly happened without a giant bureaucracy to do it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if it were a matter of building bureaucracies and spending money, we would have more housing and the most affordable housing in the world, because the government has added layer upon layer of bureaucracy. It has spent tens of billions of dollars around so-called affordable housing, but at the end of the day the results are that fewer and fewer Canadians can enter the market. Housing has never been more unaffordable than it is today after 10 years of the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of housing, he built six houses, and the Conservative policy today says, “Just get out of the way.”

We understand the Conservatives' policy position on housing, but what makes the member believe that we would have more houses being built under the past policy of the Conservatives?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the past record of the Harper government was a solid one. We did not have a housing crisis in this country at the time. Housing costs were half of what they are today. The idea that a first-time homebuyer would be priced out of the market was not the reality in 2014 or—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recall very well the Prime Minister's rhetoric during the election campaign when he introduced this initiative, Build Canada Homes, as part of a strategy that would allow the federal government to support the forestry industry. I have to say that we are disappointed. I will come back to that.

It is very commendable for the government to want to respond to the housing crisis, but is creating a Crown corporation really the only solution? As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. Generally speaking, federal government initiatives take a long time to be felt on the ground in Quebec. In addition, housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I have to wonder why the government did not simply transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a position to undertake this effort to build more housing. I have to wonder why the government wants to create this infrastructure.

However, if we look on the bright side, there are some worthwhile announcements here, such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund. I know that many municipalities raised the issue with us before the last election campaign. That was something they were calling for. Along with the housing crisis, municipalities are also experiencing various infrastructure-related problems, whether it be with the water or sewer systems. This is a major concern for municipalities, so it is encouraging to know that Quebec has been allocated $1 billion from that budget to help deal with the crisis. That was one important aspect. Another important aspect of the housing crisis is the need for construction materials. Wood is the best construction material, and I want to make a quick aside to talk about that.

I do not want to get too far off topic, but I do want to say a little more about the forestry industry. Right now, this industry is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. The industry's lifeblood has been weakened by absolutely appalling conditions, including insect infestations, the historic wildfires in 2023, the caribou order, which created a lot of concern in the industry, and the infamous softwood lumber dispute, which has been dragging on and undermining the entire sector in Quebec. Quite frankly, the softwood lumber industry is now at a crossroads, and its survival is threatened in many regions of Quebec. The vital role it plays for many communities has been seriously weakened. In short, we are well aware that we can no longer rely on the commodity product model, the ubiquitous two-by-four, in the forestry sector. It makes us too dependent on the United States. We must urgently come up with a strategy that would enable us to produce more value-added products. To do that, we need to transform the forestry industry.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has spoken on a few occasions about wanting to revitalize the forestry sector. That is very commendable, but given the severity of the crisis facing the forestry sector, we cannot wait for the federal government to roll out a strategy. Immediate action is needed. It is also important to keep in mind that we will not be able to fully replace the American market by increasing domestic use with a program like Build Canada Homes or by developing new markets. In these circumstances, it seems futile, to me at least, to believe that the industry will make it through this crisis without substantial financial support from the federal government.

The major players in the forestry sector are facing a liquidity crisis that is closing off any opportunities for investment in infrastructure and equipment. The federal government needs to understand that. The forestry industry is being asked to invest in new equipment so it can supply the engineered wood needed to build homes at the worst possible time in the forestry industry crisis, that is, when forestry companies have virtually no access to cash.

In my view, before even thinking about implementing a strategy like Build Canada Homes, the government must ensure that it can help as many stakeholders in the forestry industry as possible continue to operate.

Therein lies the problem. So far, the government's actions do not seem to take into account the fact that the forestry sector operates like a chain. When one link in the chain is cut, all related economic stakeholders are weakened. By failing to protect sawmill operations and the operations of small forestry businesses, the government is putting the entire forestry industry at risk.

Quebec's ministry of natural resources and forestry estimates that, since April 2017, when the countervailing and anti-dumping duties came into effect, 35 plants have permanently closed and 29 others have temporarily closed. That represents a net loss for Quebec of 2,158 permanent jobs and 1,927 part-time jobs.

Let us not forget that this whole fiasco mainly affects Quebec's disadvantaged regions. Right now, the softwood lumber dispute is resulting in a 45% decrease in revenues for sawmills that export their products to the U.S. market. I do not need to point out that no industry can survive with a 40% cut to their profit margins.

With countervailing and anti-dumping duties, plus a 10% tariff, this sector is facing the highest tariffs in Canada, yet the government refuses to take action. Not only is it failing to prioritize softwood lumber negotiations, it is also refusing to introduce a duty buy-back scheme, as industry representatives are calling for. I will explain this later.

In response to the crisis, the government announced a loan guarantee program in collaboration with the Business Development Bank of Canada in early August. Seven months have passed. Having spoken to many stakeholders in the forestry sector, I can assure members that no one is feeling the impact of the program put in place by the federal government. Without a short-term resolution to the liquidity crisis facing the forestry industry, by 2026 we will see many companies significantly wind down their operations, leading to the the loss of thousands of jobs and the accelerated decline of numerous communities that depend on forestry.

I say this because the first thing the federal government should do is protect Canada's capacity to manufacture building materials to ensure these materials remain accessible when Build Canada Homes is rolled out. That is what the federal government should be doing.

How can it go about it? How can we maintain our capacity to produce construction materials? It is fairly simple. The forestry industry will not be able to turn things around overnight. It will take months and months to rebuild its capacity. It will take a fairly long time before it is able to supply materials for the construction of new homes.

If we want to keep jobs in the forestry industry in the meantime, the only solution is for the federal government to accept the proposal that was made by industry stakeholders and the major unions. We, too, have been pushing for the government to accept that proposal.

At the end of every month, the government could easily buy back 50% of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties from people who sell softwood lumber to the United States. That way the government could keep lumber mills operational and ensure that, when its Build Canada Homes strategy is deployed, we have an industry that is capable of supplying lumber in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, through a joint collaboration table, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec agreed to work together to fund affordable housing projects aligned with their shared priorities. On this side of the House, I am pleased to sit with more than 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec who understand the importance of working together to address housing needs.

In light of this formalized collaboration between the two levels of government, will the Bloc Québécois member vote in favour of the bill to create the Build Canada Homes Crown corporation, or will the Bloc Québécois decide to oppose it by voting to block housing construction in Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the agreement with Quebec and its $1-billion infrastructure funding was a good thing.

I certainly will not stand in the way of housing construction. It is the government's ineptitude that is killing one of the economic sectors that is essential to housing construction: softwood lumber. The federal government is literally allowing this sector in Quebec to die. There has been no negotiation to resolve the tariff crisis that is affecting the softwood lumber sector. I am not hearing anyone across the way express concern for forestry workers or their plight. Sawmills might eventually get a retooling program, but they are all in the process of closing down.

I am not the one slowing down housing construction in Canada. The government's inaction is to blame.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every time the government has an issue, it either throws money at it or creates another bureaucracy. Would the hon. member agree?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the bureaucracy issue. I do not believe that creating a Crown corporation is the way to solve the housing crisis.

The simplest solution would have been to take the money associated with this program and transfer it directly to Quebec and the provinces, which have the capacity to build these housing units. However, the federal government likes to slap a little Canadian flag on its measures and continues to be a little less efficient than it should be.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

It is rather shocking to see that, throughout his speech, my colleague pointed out the lack of support for the forestry industry, which will be vital for the housing construction, but nobody on the other side has responded. What does my colleague have to say about that?

When he says that the $1 billion is a good thing and a good start, he is right. However, what does he think of the fact that this $1 billion represents 16.6% of the amount, while Quebec's share of the population is 22%?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague so eloquently highlighted is the injustice that Quebec has become accustomed to.

Specific sectors of the Quebec economy are overlooked when it comes to government policy. Which two sectors are currently subject to the highest tariffs? They are the aluminum sector, which is predominantly based in Quebec, and the softwood lumber sector.

Is anyone in government expressing concern about those two sectors? All we hear about are the gas, oil and automotive industries. That is Canadian history in all its glory. That has been the case for the last 30 or 40 years.

There is a fairly simple solution: independence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member. The federal government has programs that really promote things such as housing co-ops. My question for the member is this: Does he make any attempt to communicate with his constituents about programs the federal government is offering from which they would actually benefit, such as housing co-ops and things of that nature, including, in the future, this particular corporation being established today?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are federal programs to support housing co-operatives. It is only natural for an MP to support projects in their constituency. That is simply part of an MP's job.

What I wish the member for Winnipeg North would take away from my speech today is that the government is putting the cart before the horse. The government is creating a framework without first securing the materials that are logistically required for housing construction. That is what my colleague should worry about.

Creating a framework to address the housing crisis without taking care of the underlying logistics makes no sense.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-20, a piece of legislation purportedly aiming to address the housing crisis in Canada. We know that the Liberals are talking about the legislation in the light of believing that it would build Canadian homes, but we know from reading through the legislation and from the past work, after 10 years or 11 years of Liberal governments, that it would only build more Canadian bureaucracy.

There is no question that we are in a housing crisis. We see it right across the country in communities big and small, whether large cities like Toronto or the small rural communities of northern Ontario that I represent. It is the result of Liberal policies and a high tax-and-spend agenda that has driven up the costs of housing construction, interest rates and mortgage rates, and has led to a situation where people right across all walks of life, at different income levels and different ages, are struggling to find appropriate housing. As I mentioned, this is something we see right in northwestern Ontario.

I do not know how many seniors I have spoken to who are looking to downsize but cannot find an appropriate place. They are in too big a home. They want to be able to downsize and to move out of their home. They want to allow a young working family to be able to buy their home, but they are unable to do so. As a result, an entire generation of young Canadians are being priced out of home ownership. Mortgage rates are rising, and many people, even those who have a home, perhaps even their dream home, are now worried they are not going to be able to continue making payments. In fact, Canadians are carrying record household debt of $2.6 trillion, and most of that is from mortgages.

There is no question as well that homebuilding is trending down. The Liberal government likes to talk a big game about building housing and other infrastructure at speeds never before seen, but homebuilding has been trending down under Liberal governments over the last 11 years, including under the current Prime Minister. From spring to fall last year, 26% fewer permits were issued to build homes. This is a dramatic decrease, showing that the government's policies are continuing not only to not address the issue but also to make the issue even worse.

We see it right across the country in the headlines. I would like to look at a few headlines from the real estate section in The Globe and Mail today. I will point out that The Globe and Mail is not necessarily known for its street cred as a Conservative newspaper. Nonetheless, we see, “Townhouse seller in Bolton accepts bid $24,000 under asking”. There is also “Five bidders vie for semi-detached in [Toronto]” and “Buyer waits for Calgary condo price to come within range”.

These are just a few headlines from today's paper. We see this over and over, week after week, right across the country. The Liberals have created a housing market where buyers cannot buy, sellers cannot sell and builders cannot build.

How does that look locally? Of course, what is going on in northwestern Ontario is not likely to be captured in a national newspaper, unfortunately, but in northwestern Ontario, the city I live in, Kenora, currently has a shortage of 1,620 units, and that deficit is projected to grow to 2,500 units by 2031 as population grows and service demands increase. This has led to rising rents and home prices, of course.

Businesses and organizations are also reporting difficulties attracting workers to the region and retaining them, due to the lack of housing and rental options. Many business owners are looking into buying houses that would be owned by the business, strictly for their workers to live in, because there is no other way of bringing workers to the region or keeping them there.

In northwestern Ontario, in Red Lake, I was speaking with the mayor last night, and he told me that the community must build at least 40 new homes over the next decade, with an expected population increase of 1,900. That population increase they are expecting is good news. It comes from new mining developments in the region and job growth, with 1,000 jobs at the Kinross Great Bear project. First Mining Gold is bringing in 600 jobs, and Frontier Lithium is bringing over 700 jobs. In addition, there is an expansion of the current Evolution Mining operation by 300 people. West Red Lake Gold Mines is also looking to hire another 200 people.

These are just a couple of local examples of the massive gap in housing that exists, but in northwestern Ontario, I think we can see some of the solutions to the housing crisis, namely the land we have. There is a lot of land in northwestern Ontario, and indeed, a lot of land right across the country. Much of it is either vacant land or properties that can be used for housing development. I would include in that the underused and, quite frankly, deteriorating Health Canada-owned properties in Sioux Lookout. I implore the government, once again, to release these properties for housing development to help address the massive gap in housing that we see in the community of Sioux Lookout. It is a hub of the north and a service centre for many remote first nations.

We see it in Ear Falls as well. Ear Falls is an interesting community. It is about 336 square kilometres and has a population of less than 1,000. There is a lot of space to build in Ear Falls. There is nothing but space. In fact, there are even many lots that are serviced for housing development in Ear Falls. They are ready to go. Residents in Ear Falls are hoping as well to capitalize on some of the mining activity that we are seeing in the Red Lake and Ear Falls region, but they need to be able to build the houses to make that happen.

I would note as well that the government is always talking a big game when it comes to first nations but not following through. That is certainly the case when it comes to housing in first nations. We have seen a number of reports, whether on housing, drinking water or other critical infrastructure, where the government is spending a lot of money, making a lot of announcements and creating a lot of programs, but the results are not changing. Life is not improving in the communities. I am proud to represent 38 first nations across Treaties 3, 5 and 9, and each of these communities has their own unique housing challenges.

We have seen reports from the Auditor General, which have repeated that the government is failing when it comes to first nations housing. The Auditor General has pointed out that, despite massively increasing spending, as I mentioned, the Liberals are not meeting their obligations. In fact, homes are being built without being up to code. The prices are skyrocketing because of red tape and a lack of competition in the builders that are available to build these homes. However, instead of addressing these concerns, the Liberal government just keeps throwing money at the issue, and not just in first nations but right across the country. The Liberals are creating more bureaucracy, and communities are not receiving adequate housing as a result.

When we look at the Liberal approach overall over the last 10 years, they have failed to recognize that housing is a crisis of their own policies and of their own making. Under their watch, housing prices have doubled, and many young Canadians have given up completely on their dream of home ownership. The Liberals have now admitted that it is a crisis, but their answer is only to create another multi-billion dollar housing bureaucracy, their fourth housing bureaucracy, which is only going to construct 1% of the promised homes they need. They promised 500,000 per year, and in reality, housing starts are expected to fall to just 212,000 per year by 2028.

However, Conservatives have a solution. We do not support adding more bureaucratic red tape to the housing sector. That is why we would cut the GST on new homes under $1.3 million, which would save families up to $65,000 and unleash new buildings. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, ensuring that municipalities must permit at least 15% or more for homebuilding each year. We would cut development charges by 50%, something the Liberals have promised but have failed or refused to do after being elected. We would also end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in the country's homebuilding sector.

It is clear that only Conservatives have a plan to restore the Canadian promise of home ownership by axing bureaucracy and taxes on homebuilding, requiring municipalities to issue more permits and letting builders build the homes we need.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to correct an error I made in my remarks earlier. Tuesday is my 25th wedding anniversary, not my 20th, and my husband let me know immediately when I left the chamber. I wish a happy anniversary to Mike.

To the member opposite, we agree that we need to see housing prices come down. We have had a housing bubble since the 1980s, so when we are seeing homes selling under their asking price when we increase the supply, that is the housing bubble starting to deflate. When we increase housing, we create competition, both with new homes and the ones for resale.

I am just curious about development charges. I was a city councillor for six years. I wonder if the member opposite knows that if we cut development charges, and he voted against supporting infrastructure, that is a direct download of the cost of infrastructure to the property taxpayer.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the member that she ran on a platform to cut development charges. This is something the Liberal government promised it was going to do in the election campaign and, after being elected, has completely walked away from. It is one of many solutions I have laid out, solutions to address the Liberal-made housing crisis. We know that housing prices have doubled since they took office in 2015. It has priced many young Canadians completely out of home ownership altogether.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague's husband. If 25 years have felt like 20 to her, that is a good sign for their relationship. It means that time is flying by.

On a more serious note, I have a question for my Conservative colleague. I would like him to comment on the fact that the government is creating a new centralizing structure that will incur administrative costs, among other things, rather than transferring the money to the provinces, which have jurisdiction over housing.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. Does he agree with that?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the premise that the government is creating another Ottawa-knows-best bureaucracy that is not going to be effective. I would submit to the member that we should look at ways of incentivizing the provinces and the municipalities to get more homes built. That is part of what I mentioned in my remarks, tying infrastructure dollars that municipalities receive to homebuilding permits. This would ensure that we are not just giving a blank cheque and expecting that something is going to happen with that, and that these dollars are going toward houses being built, doing everything we can as a federal partner to work with municipalities and provinces, and doing all we can to incentivize that development.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a number of good points. Right now, in northwest Ontario, the mining companies desperately need people. Bill C-20 seems to be another bureaucracy by the Liberal Party and the government, and it is just going to hold that whole northwest part of Ontario back. How can we hire people when we do not have housing? I want to ask the hon. member about that.

I have a similar situation in Saskatchewan. They have these big plans but no housing. When we do not have housing, we do not have companies willing to build.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. As I mentioned, this is something we see across northwestern Ontario and many regions of the country, including in Saskatchewan. There is a lot of opportunity for development. Northern Ontario has what the world needs in terms of critical minerals. There are many opportunities for that, but we need the housing to be able to house the workers. It is a very simple concept. We see it in major development. The Liberals talk about self-reliance and getting things built here in Canada. They need to start with housing in northern Ontario if we are going to see that reality.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island to discuss Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.

Simply put, Vancouver Island, and indeed Canada, is in a housing crisis. There is an entire generation being priced out of home ownership, and far too many, including young Canadians, have lost the hope of ever owning a home. This crisis will not solve itself, and it is the job of the government to take action to fix it.

Last week, I held a round table in Langford specifically to discuss housing with my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka, the shadow minister of housing. We spoke to builders, developers, mayors and other local industry leaders to discuss the challenges they are facing, along with possible solutions, to get homes built. They all said the same thing: Extraneous regulations, long and unpredictable approval periods, expensive taxes and the rising cost of materials and services are killing the industry. Companies like Viking Properties, a small developer on Vancouver Island that has successfully built over 400 housing units in the Langford area, including 250 units since 2019, told us about increased fees, development cost charges and the long wait times they face to get permits approved. These all add significant costs to their projects and are holding them back from building at a faster pace. These are costs, by the way, that all end up being passed on to the buyer.

These are the real problems that are slowing homebuilding in Canada and making housing unaffordable for an entire generation. Compounded delays and skyrocketing costs have created a cycle where buyers cannot afford to buy, sellers cannot afford to sell and builders cannot afford to build. We see this in crumbling housing starts across Canada.

This brings me to Bill C-20. The Build Canada Homes agency, or bureaucracy, will be the third housing agency created in the last 10 years and the fourth housing bureaucracy, none of which have succeeded so far. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yet here we are, doing the same thing again. Canadians, frankly, deserve better.

Building enough homes to meet the demands of a growing population is the only way to make housing affordable again. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has said we need to reach a target of 430,000 to 500,000 homes built per year for the next 10 years to meet this demand. Originally, the government promised this new housing agency would build 500,000 homes per year. That was promising, yes, but it was just a promise. So far, it has not delivered.

In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that the Build Canada Homes agency will build only approximately 5,200 homes per year. That is only 1% of the original promise, 1% of the targeted amount needed to make housing affordable for Canadians again. This simply is not enough. This will not solve the crisis we find ourselves in, so we must rely on our private developers and builders who have the proven skills, ingenuity and fortitude to get this done. To do that, we must address the challenges they are facing so that they can build. Builders across Canada share the same message. They need less government involvement, fewer taxes and quicker, predictable approval times. We need to cut red tape so homes can be built effectively. What we do not need is a fourth remix of the same song.

The last 10 years have proven that adding processes does not fix the problem. Instead, it adds another layer of reviews, which take time, which leads to delays, which lead to added costs, which lead to higher sale prices. Another government agency is not the answer to the crisis. Under its current mandate, Build Canada Homes will not change zoning laws, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development charges or remove environmental duplication charges, so it will not build enough homes to meet the necessary targets or address any real challenges the industry is facing. Not only does this new agency not address these challenges, but it does not address the root cause of the crisis. We cannot build homes fast enough to keep up with our growing population.

Conservatives have put forward alternative solutions that would target some of the industry challenges head-on. One is cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, which would save families up to $65,000 on new homes, making these builds more affordable. Another is, importantly, tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, which would encourage municipalities to permit more homebuilding each year with a target of 15% more.

We have suggested cutting development cost charges by 50%. This was a campaign promise by the government last year, but I am sad to see that it has not followed through. We would also like to see the removal of capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada, which would unlock billions of dollars of investments in the country's homebuilding sector.

These are solutions that tackle the real problems the industry is facing and put the power back into the hands of Canada's home builders. I encourage my colleagues across the way to seriously consider these solutions so we can reach the goal I believe we all share, which is making housing affordable to Canadians.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Housing told Canadians the reason housing prices are so high is the war in Iran. This is a ridiculous statement to make for a multitude of reasons, none more so than the fact that we know the housing affordability crisis did not start a few weeks ago. It has been years in the making, indeed 11 years in the making, I would suggest.

My colleagues across the way keep telling us to focus on what we control, so I urge the minister to take that advice. Let us focus on the issues that truly burden the industry: too much government involvement, long wait periods, taxes. These are all the things that destroyed the housing economy in Vancouver when the minister was the mayor there. I spoke about insanity before. Here it is again. More of the bureaucracy, rules and regulations that caused costs to skyrocket in Vancouver when he was the mayor are now imposed on all of Canada under his leadership, and it has been a year.

The minister knows his grand plan is not working. His big announcements and promises of building at speeds never seen before, catalyzing the housing industry and 500,000 homes per year have gotten us nowhere. Instead of taking responsibility and focusing on positive solutions, the minister has decided to lay blame elsewhere. This is why my Conservative colleagues have put forward a plan, and I have reiterated it in my speech today. Canadians know the reality of the crisis they face, so I challenge my colleagues opposite to look at the reality of the last year of promises and slogans and compare it to the results, compare it to the reality. We have collapsing housing starts. Prices remain unaffordable. Despite lowering, they remain unaffordable to those who have lost jobs, are having their wages cut and are struggling just to pay for everyday costs. The supply levels are plummeting.

Conservatives have put forward a plan to unleash our trades, our investors, our workers and our resources so we can build homes quickly. Build Canada Homes will not remove those barriers. It only creates a massive new one. It does not solve the issue of delays. Therefore, it does not solve the issue of costs. Sometimes, the best thing a government can do is simply to get out of the way. I call on all my colleagues in the House. Let us work together to have homes built by builders, not bureaucracy.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the member maybe could share the importance of partnerships and building partnerships with municipalities, with provinces, with the non-profit sector and with indigenous communities, and comment on the fact that this really is a whole-of-government approach. We need all hands on deck if we want to build the housing Canadians need right now. In particular, I would like to point out that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is very happy with this Build Canada Homes announcement. In fact, it has said:

[It] welcomes the federal government’s Build Canada Homes...initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis. This announcement shows a clear commitment to working in partnership with municipalities—as well as provinces and territories, Indigenous governments, housing providers....

How is the member building partnerships in his community, and how can we all build together?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we do need to partner with municipalities, but part of that is getting out of the way and removing the extra layers of bureaucracy. I have spoken to builders and groups across south Vancouver Island, and they have said that they have had stuff cancelled and that they cannot afford to do these things, so they need help. As far as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities goes, they are signalling approval, but when they start looking at the realities I have pointed out, such as the cancelled projects and the promises of 500,000 homes that simply are not being built, the reality will quickly sink in that this plan is not working and we need to get out of the way and let our builders build.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to put the question on Bill C-20 at second reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)