moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.
Gregor Robertson Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation. The purpose of Build Canada Homes is to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada. The enactment, among other things,
(a) sets out the powers of Build Canada Homes and its governance framework;
(b) authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to fund the operations and activities of Build Canada Homes; and
(c) provides that the Governor in Council may transfer to Build Canada Homes the property, rights, interests and obligations held by any Crown corporation or subsidiary of a Crown corporation and may issue directives for measures to be taken in relation to the reorganization of Canada Lands Company Limited or any of its subsidiaries.
It also includes transitional provisions, makes a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act and contains coordinating amendments.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-20s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
This bill establishes "Build Canada Homes" as a new federal Crown corporation tasked with consolidating housing initiatives, leveraging federal lands, and partnering with stakeholders to accelerate affordable housing construction. Debate focuses on whether the measure will improve administrative effectiveness or merely create unnecessary government bureaucracy.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Green
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to support the bill respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. This decisive law will make Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation tasked with building and expanding affordable housing for Canadians.
As we all know, Canada is going through a housing crisis. To date, federal efforts have been spread out across several departments, agencies and programs, limiting the government's ability to have maximum impact. Traditional approaches to building and financing do not provide the scale or speed that Canadians need. That is why we are taking a new approach.
Every Canadian deserves an affordable place to call home. Housing is a basic need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. Build Canada Homes was created to act quickly and effectively. This legislation will give Build Canada Homes the flexibility and operational autonomy it needs to carry out its mandate.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will maintain a clear accountability framework with respect to the government. That will strengthen its ability to develop partnerships across the housing ecosystem and provide affordable housing at the scale and speed that Canadians need.
Build Canada Homes will streamline federal housing efforts by acting as a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. It will play a central role in building strong partnerships with all levels of government and indigenous communities. It will also work with non-profit organizations and other key stakeholders in the housing sector to stimulate the construction of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations.
However, Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its initiatives depends on partnerships. Greater collaboration between all levels of government and with key partners is needed to address the housing challenges we face across the country. Build Canada Homes will streamline and accelerate the delivery of large-scale affordable housing projects. The agency will attract public, private and philanthropic investment, thereby maximizing its impact.
The Build Canada Homes Act will foster partnerships across the housing ecosystem to bring together the right funding and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will provide access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools through a single entity. It will speed up the delivery of affordable housing by working with non-profit organizations, indigenous organizations and all levels of government. This approach will limit risk, eliminate barriers and guide projects throughout the development process.
Build Canada Homes will also work in close collaboration with developers, investors and manufacturers on securing funding and building homes. It will work directly with builders and suppliers focused on long-term affordability. That includes non-profit organizations, co-operatives, community housing providers and organizations that promote different housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships will make it possible to create affordable housing for a wide range of households, regardless of their income.
Build Canada Homes will have the authority to work under agreements with all levels of government and community partners on financial support, joint ventures and joint development initiatives. The agency will strive to create close collaboration and coordination with the provinces and territories, which will foster progress on priority projects. Among other things, that could include making land available, speeding up approval procedures or waiving any applicable fees.
In April 2026, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced a partnership to support the construction of nearly 865 affordable housing units across the province. The total investment in affordable housing, supported housing and transitional housing in the province amounts to $200 million. Build Canada Homes is providing approximately $100 million, and Quebec is also contributing up to $100 million.
This is a direct result of the memorandum of understanding establishing the principles of collaboration for rolling out Build Canada Homes in Quebec. Signed in January 2026, this memorandum of understanding will guide future collaboration and ensure the coordinated roll-out of Build Canada Homes projects across Quebec. Through their collaboration, the federal and Quebec governments will speed up the approval process and identify additional housing projects. The combined investments will help build more affordable housing in the communities that need it most.
To illustrate the importance of this legislation, I will give two clear examples of housing projects in my riding, Les Pays-d'en-Haut. The first was built under the old programs, and the second was built using the new tools provided by Build Canada Homes.
The first project is called Habitat Morin-Heights. It is a 30-unit housing project that enables our seniors 75 and older to remain in the community when they are no longer able to manage their homes. They used to have to move elsewhere. The project had the support of the community, the municipality, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Canada, but even with all that support, five years passed between the housing units being acquired from the Société d'habitation du Québec upon completion of construction and the residents moving in. That is unacceptable. Some residents on the waiting list simply moved away, and some even passed away before they could move into their homes. Ultimately, the project has been a great success. Habitat Morin-Heights is full, and there is a new waiting list. However, five years to complete a housing project is far too long.
Now, I would like to tell members about a similar project in my riding that will be carried out using tools from Build Canada Homes. I am talking about the Coop de solidarité Au coeur des collines in Saint‑Calixte. It is a project involving 28 affordable social housing units.
After I was elected last year, I met with the 19 mayors in my riding, as well as several municipal councillors. During that tour, Michel Jasmin, the mayor of Saint‑Calixte, Lucie Chagnon, a municipal councillor, and Maria Dias-Ribeiro, the president of the board of directors for the Coop de solidarité Au coeur des collines quickly made it clear to me that the project was vital to the community and that they needed help seeing it through.
The project was ready to go. It had the support of the community, the municipality and the province. The bidding process was under way. The only thing missing was the federal funding needed to start construction. After several unsuccessful attempts to get the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on board, they submitted the project to Build Canada Homes, and in just six months everything was finalized. That is what Build Canada Homes does. It analyzes and identifies projects that will give fast results, supports them and makes it possible to start construction because the longer we wait on a project, the more expensive it becomes. I am pleased to announce that construction on the Au cœur des collines project in Saint‑Calixte will begin this summer. That is a significant achievement.
To announce this wonderful project, I had the opportunity to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to my riding in Morin-Heights. I specifically chose to make the announcement at the site of the first project I mentioned, Habitat Morin-Heights. I must admit that it was a strategic choice on my part, because I wanted to show my colleagues the impact that a housing project can have on a small community. They were able to talk to the residents who had recently moved in and explore this new community a bit.
They also saw that a 30-unit project in a small community is as important as a 500-unit project in a big city. They were also able to see the emotion in the eyes of Ms. Chagnon and Ms. Dias-Ribeiro, who will finally see the project they fought so hard for get built. That is the real-world impact of Build Canada Homes, and that is why we need to pass the bill to create the Crown corporation.
In conclusion, the Build Canada Homes act will create a Crown corporation with a clear mandate, governance structure and powers. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the operational independence, governance and flexibility that is necessary to deliver affordable housing at scale.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because we want housing to be built. However, a similar body already exists, namely the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Its mandate is very similar, if not identical, to that of Build Canada Homes.
Why create a new body? What is the logic there? What will happen to the CMHC?
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think I illustrated this very clearly in my example: the dynamic and flexible nature of Build Canada Homes will make it possible to build more quickly. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had programs, but it had limited capabilities. Build Canada Homes is much more dynamic and much more flexible, which will facilitate partnerships and quicker housing construction.
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
Our Minister of Industry recently announced support to train and attract new talent in the field of skilled trades. I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on how see sees that program, to attract and train new skilled trade workers, dovetailing with the Build Canada Homes initiative.
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, to build all these homes that Build Canada Homes is going to build, we need skilled workers. This initiative is 100% complementary, I would say, to Build Canada Homes. It is going to permit the construction of a lot of apartments, homes and everything we need to get these things built.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I have no objection to Bill C-16, but this is only the first step. Now there is a Crown corporation.
A Crown corporation is better than having a special operating agency, which is where Build Canada Homes started out.
However, I do have some concerns regarding the minister's accountability and responsibility. The more independent the organization is, the less responsibility he bears. When it comes to the important issue of housing, accountability is crucial.
The accountability question is the one that bothers me. We are seeing a lot of new Crown corporations created.
Will the ministerial lines of accountability be as strong?
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and I love having wonderful conversations with her in the House every day.
I think Build Canada Homes is the necessary tool at this time to get things done. Accountability to the minister is going to be super important, but I am not worried that there are going to be any problems on that front.
Again, the flexibility that Build Canada Homes has, and the quickness with which we can get stuff built, is the most important factor right now.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's words on the importance of Build Canada Homes.
He highlighted how important it is to recognize that Build Canada Homes is not going to operate in itself, that it is very much going to work collaboratively with different stakeholders and provincial jurisdictions. It is all about doing what the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have been talking about, and that is increasing Canada's housing supply, with some particular focus on affordable housing.
I wonder if he could just provide his thoughts on how important it is that we work collaboratively with the different stakeholders out there.
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Madam Speaker, I think the best example of that is the deal we signed with Quebec for 865 new homes that are going to be happening rapidly. We were able to coordinate with the provincial government to make sure that its priorities became our priorities. That is what we need in these times to get stuff built as quickly as possible because we have to get out of this housing crisis. The best way to do it is through Build Canada Homes.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Government of Canada's Build Canada Homes act, especially the important role of Build Canada Homes in supporting Canada's economy and the federal government's buy Canadian policy.
Since September 2025, Build Canada Homes has functioned as a special operating agency of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Its fast and effective work has allowed this new federal agency to make considerable strides already in increasing the amount of affordable housing available to Canadians. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy needed to fulfill its mandate. It will follow a clear framework of accountability to the government. That is what makes the Build Canada Homes act a decisive legislative measure.
The Government of Canada must strengthen its ability to address the housing crisis and speed up innovation in residential construction. Too many Canadians are having a hard time finding housing that they can afford. Housing costs are rising, supply is not keeping up with demand and productivity in the construction sector is weak. Traditional construction and financing approaches alone are not enough to deliver at the scale or speed that Canadians require.
Build Canada Homes consolidates functions that were previously spread out across multiple departments, agencies and programs, which limited the federal government's ability to maximize its impact. It will act as a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation to help create a more productive housing construction sector. Canadians need more housing, and the Build Canada Homes act will enable us to build faster, more efficiently and on the scale required.
The global trade environment is changing rapidly. In response, we are building a stronger, more resilient and more independent Canadian economy. At the heart of this strategy lies an ambitious plan to deliver nation-building projects, more affordable housing and stronger local infrastructure. We are strengthening relationships among all levels of government—municipal, territorial and 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 international trade barriers and secure new agreements that will stimulate the local economy.
This will require a skilled workforce in the trades. That is why, on April 29, as part of the spring economic update, the Prime Minister announced the team Canada strong initiative. This new $6-billion pan-Canadian initiative aims to recruit, train, and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new workers in Red Seal trades over the next five years.
The team Canada strong initiative will transform the skilled trades sector and attract more apprentices to the workforce. It will ensure that young Canadians are ready to build the housing and infrastructure we need. It will create new jobs, provide access to good jobs, and strengthen Canada's workforce of tomorrow.
The Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our country and make it more resilient, so that it can move from dependence 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 is achieving this by building on the solid foundation of Canada's strong industries. We are investing in our future and fostering economic growth through Build Canada Homes and the implementation of the buy Canadian policy.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by the initial $13-billion allocation announced in budget 2025. Build Canada Homes was created to consolidate federal support for affordable housing in one place by working in collaboration with other government departments and agencies.
It is going to move swiftly, use federal lands, support innovative building approaches and establish partnerships in all sectors to build affordable 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 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. Together, we are building stronger communities and a stronger Canada.
The Government of Canada launched a new strategic framework for the buy Canadian policy, which took effect on December 16, 2025. This policy leverages federal investments by prioritizing Canadian suppliers, content and materials to make the Canadian economy stronger, more resilient to global shocks and better placed to support Canadian businesses and workers.
The policy is comprehensive and covers not only direct procurement but also all federal investment. It is enforced by federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
Build Canada Homes embraces the buy Canadian policy of the Government of Canada. It will do this by prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials, strengthen domestic supply chains and create good jobs. Every new home will lead to increased demand for Canadian steel, wood and aluminum, helping workers and businesses thrive.
The buy Canadian policy also provides some flexibility and a road map for provinces and municipalities to implement similar standards in their own procurement processes based on regional realities and priorities. 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.
The buy Canadian policy supports strategic sectors like Canada's construction and defence industries. It applies to projects such as buildings, bridges, aircraft parts and much more. It requires major federal construction and defence procurement projects to use steel, aluminum and wood products made in Canada.
In closing, Build Canada Homes is one of a number of strategic efforts by the federal government to invest in our country, protect Canadian interests and make our economy one of the strongest in the G7. Making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation puts the Government of Canada in a better position to make Canada stronger and more resilient.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, earlier I had the opportunity to ask one of our colleagues a question about how important it is that we recognize our stakeholders, working collaboratively with provincial and territorial jurisdictions, indigenous communities and so forth. Already this morning, one of the things that have been highlighted is the importance of making sure we have the skilled workers necessary. My colleague made reference to the Red Seal program and its 80,000 to 100,000 people over the next number of years, which is a serious investment by this government.
I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on working collaboratively, as we have witnessed with the federal government and the Province of Quebec, or if he could comment on just how important the Red Seal program is to our nation in terms of building homes and other projects.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, the Red Seal program is a very important program. Canada is facing an extremely serious labour crisis and a housing crisis. If we want more housing, we need more people to build it. By investing in these programs, our government is taking proactive steps to quickly address an existing crisis.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Liberal government's response to the housing crisis in our country, I believe that Canadians are looking to see steps that the government can take to immediately address this acute housing challenge without creating additional bureaucracies.
Within the current remit of existing agencies, what additional powers do they hope to glean, at great additional expense to the taxpayer, that will more quickly resolve the very acute housing challenge that Canadians are facing?
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, the only power we have is the power that comes to us from the people of Canada, who elected us to carry out these important mandates in light of the current housing crisis. We are therefore taking action on behalf of Canadians. We are taking action because the housing market is in a deep crisis. That is why we are creating Build Canada Homes: to immediately respond to the current crisis.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he recently celebrated his first year as an MP, and I imagine he has not yet had the opportunity to work closely on specific projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.
I have been an MP for several years now, and I can say that CMHC was a fairly important body for vetting business plans, as well as for ensuring that social housing meets various standards, particularly energy efficiency standards, and that our new housing meets the highest construction standards in terms of both sustainability and development.
I would like my colleague to clarify this for me, because I do not really understand. Essentially, Build Canada Homes is taking the place of CMHC. Will the CMHC's expertise be transferred to Build Canada Homes?
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Madam Speaker, the advantage I have is that I served at the local government level before being elected to the federal Parliament. I saw how local authorities went to great lengths to push funding projects through, because dealing with CMHC involved a lot of red tape. Build Canada Homes brings everything together in one place. People submit an application and all the answers are in one place. It is flexible, efficient and it meets our needs.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split her time?
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C‑20 with deep concern for the families in my community who are watching this housing crisis unfold before their eyes.
In Cambridge, I have witnessed what the government struggles to acknowledge. What we are navigating is no longer a housing crisis; it is a housing catastrophe. Rebranding existing projects does not build homes.
Let me tell the House about an 84-year-old constituent of mine. She worked her entire life, paid her taxes faithfully and raised her family with dignity, yet a staggering cost of living, property taxes and maintenance costs consumed her pension and home ownership, pushing her to seek refuge in a Cambridge shelter overwhelmed by those without a roof. There are so many people that shelters have long wait-lists, and they can no longer accommodate seniors in need.
Members can picture their own grandmother or grandfather struggling up shelter stairs that were never designed for their needs, squeezed into overcrowded dormitories with makeshift bunks, unable to find comfort or rest in spaces designed for temporary crisis, not for the housing needs of seniors who built this country. The dignity of a lifetime of contribution to our community was stripped away by a housing market that no longer recognizes their value or their need.
In today's Canada, people who did everything right are ending up with nowhere to live. This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada any of us promised to protect, yet we are witnessing families across this nation face impossible choices because the government has failed to deliver the most basic foundation of security: a home. When housing costs consume 60%, 70%, even 80% of a household's income, families are forced to choose between rent and groceries, between keeping the lights on and keeping a roof overhead. In Cambridge, I have seen families with two working parents, both with steady jobs, unable to afford a modest two-bedroom rental. Teachers, nurses and trades workers are being priced out of the very neighbourhoods they serve. These are not choices any Canadian should face in a country as wealthy and resource-rich as ours.
The mathematics of survival have become impossible for working families. A nurse earning $70,000 annually faces rent costs of $2,500 per month for a basic apartment before utilities, groceries and child care, let alone having any capacity to save for a down payment or dream of owning a home of their own. This represents more than half their gross income for housing alone. When the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recommends spending no more than 30% of income on shelter, we see how this market has completely failed Canadian families. After 10 years of empty Liberal promises, national strategies and new bureaucracies, what do we have to show for it? We have another Crown corporation, another layer of administration, another committee that multiplies meetings while families feel the grip of inflating rent.
Bill C-20 asks us to celebrate yet another bureaucracy, the fourth housing agency under the Liberal government, while seniors face impossible housing costs and families are priced out of entire communities. The Liberals created the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's national housing strategy with great fanfare. They established the federal lands initiative. They launched the rapid housing initiative. Each came with press conferences, ribbon-cuttings and promises that this time would be different. It is not.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that this new Crown corporation will contribute just 5,000 homes per year, which is 1% of what the Liberals promised. The Liberal housing minister himself admitted there are no targets set for the number of homes to build. How can we take seriously a housing plan with no housing targets? What kind of strategy refuses to define its own objectives while families wait in desperation? These numbers represent a scathing indictment of Liberal priorities. Across a nation of nearly 40 million people, 5,000 homes annually means one new home for every 8,000 Canadians. In Cambridge alone, with a population of just over 160,000, this would translate to fewer than 18 new homes per year for this grand federal initiative.
This is not merely policy failure. This is a matter of life, death and dignity for Canadians. Behind these statistics are real people facing real crises that demand our immediate attention. The housing market has become a barrier to the very foundation of Canadian life. Economic mobility, once the hallmark of our nation, is grinding to a halt as housing costs consume an ever larger share of family budgets.
Let me address a particularly troubling consequence of this crisis. Women trapped in abusive relationships face an impossible choice when financial abuse underlies domestic violence. Those who want to leave dangerous situations must choose between staying with abusers who control their finances or face homelessness because safe, affordable housing simply does not exist. The cruel irony is that when women finally find the courage to leave dangerous relationships, they discover that housing costs make independence impossible.
Meanwhile, children aging out of foster care find themselves with nowhere to turn. At 18, they are expected to navigate an adult world without the family support most young people rely on, yet they face housing costs that challenge families with dual incomes. These young people, who should be focusing on education, building careers and contributing to our communities, instead spend their energy simply trying to survive in a market that treats housing as a commodity rather than a necessity. Builders in my community consistently raise concerns about rising costs, lengthy approval processes and regulatory requirements that change throughout projects.
Those challenges make it difficult to plan, invest and expand. Some builders also struggle to retain skilled workers. Construction depends on a stable workforce. Industry uncertainty makes it harder to provide the long-term opportunities that workers and families rely on. When housing opportunities arise, we lack the workforce to build at scale because skilled trades have moved to more stable sectors. The skilled trade shortage has reached crisis proportions. Electricians, plumbers and carpenters are aging out faster than young people are entering these fields. Why would a young person commit to an apprenticeship when project delays make steady employment impossible?
Development charges have increased by 180% over the past decade in some Ontario municipalities, while approval timelines have stretched from months to years. These costs are passed directly to homebuyers.
Across the country, many young adults are delaying major life decisions like marriage and starting families because of housing costs. They cannot afford to care for themselves, let alone children. We are witnessing the fundamental promise of Canadian life, that hard work leads to prosperity and security, crumble under the weight of housing costs that have far outpaced wage growth. Even Statistics Canada reports that birth rates have declined to historic lows, with housing costs cited as a primary factor in family planning decisions.
At some point, we all have to ask whether the answer is another layer of federal administration or whether the focus should be on removing the barriers that prevent homes from being built in the first place. Canadians are not asking for more organizational charts. They are asking for more homes. That is why Conservatives believe the focus should be on removing barriers to construction rather than creating new bureaucracies.
We would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, immediately saving families up to $65,000, making home ownership achievable for thousands more Canadians. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars directly to homebuilding results, requiring municipalities to permit at least 15% more housing each year or forfeit federal funding. We would seek to end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing construction, unlocking billions of private investment that is currently sitting on the sidelines. These measures would reduce construction costs by tens of thousands of dollars.
While the government creates new departments and new delays, we would create new opportunities and new homes. Our approach recognizes that housing is built by workers with tools, not by bureaucrats with organizational charts. Canadians have waited long enough for leadership that understands the urgency of this crisis and the necessity of bold action to solve it. These are practical measures focused on increasing supply and improving affordability. They recognize that every family needs a home.
How can we ask Canadians to call Canada home when we cannot trust the government to provide the foundation they need to build their lives?
Bill C-20 offers bureaucracy where Canadians need action, it offers committees where families need shelter and it offers promises where communities need results. For that reason, I cannot support Bill C-20, because rebranding existing projects does not build homes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservatives maintain the principle of just getting out of the way, when, in fact, this is something that is necessary. It is one of the ways we can actually work in a collaborative fashion with provincial, territorial and indigenous communities and the different stakeholders to improve and build Canada's housing stock, particularly in the area of affordable housing.
The leader of the Conservative Party, when he was the minister of housing, built a grand total of, and if I had a drum, I would roll it, six homes. There is absolutely no surprise here that the Conservatives have decided not to support the legislation, but there is a disappointment.
Does the member opposite believe that the federal government has a role to play in building Canada homes?
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, Canadians are not living in the past. They are living through a housing crisis that has worsened dramatically over the past 10 years. Under the government, Canada has experienced rising costs, declining affordability and the most severe housing pressures we have seen in a generation.
What once was a challenge has now become a full-blown housing catastrophe. The consequences are very real. Women are staying in dangerous situations because they have nowhere to go. Shelters are full. Providers in communities like mine are turning people away because there are simply no beds available. Those frontline organizations are not asking for more announcements or more studies or more excuses. They are asking for action. The reality is this. The government promised homes but delivered bureaucracy. Rebranding programs and making announcements does not build homes, and Canadians are paying the price.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I agree with my colleague that it adds another layer of complexity.
My riding is home to some social housing projects that were supposed to be funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now we are waiting for the funding, because the program has been deprioritized or sidelined by Build Canada Homes. As of today, we are still waiting for a response from Build Canada Homes regarding funding that was due years ago. There has already been a delay, and now a new structure is being added. The government appears to have rushed this process. I am wondering whether my colleague has any similar examples in her riding.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, to restore housing affordability in Canada, we will have to double housing construction across the country, adding more than 200,000 units each year for the next decade. Build Canada Homes will hardly scratch the surface, building only a few thousand units a year at best. Since the inception of Build Canada Homes last September, demand for shelter space has risen dramatically, and the perceived accomplishments from Build Canada Homes have not offset any of the high rates of families seeking—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, there was so much I agreed with in the speech the member gave. She referred to the fact that we should look at homes as homes and not as investments. If I am not quoting her accurately, I am sure she can correct me.
The concept that Greens also bring to this is that we are building homes and communities. We are not just building homes for market purposes. We need to meet the needs of communities and help people actually have a life with dignity.
I wonder if the member has any comments on the approach between a Crown corporation, bricks and mortar, and what we can do to make people's lives better.
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the member. Seniors should be able to live out the rest of their life with dignity. After 10 years of the Liberal government, housing has become less, not more, affordable. What once was a crisis is now a catastrophe.
We see the consequences every day. Shelters are at capacity. There are long wait-lists. Shelters are no place for anyone, families, children or seniors, to live. They cannot accommodate the overwhelming number of people seeking shelter. If we are looking for dignity, we have to build the homes for people to build their family and their life.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on what it tells us that, for the last 11 years, we have had the same Liberal government but the housing situation has not improved. In fact it has worsened, and the evidence of that is clear in my community and the communities of all members of this place.
Why is another housing bureaucracy not the answer to getting homes built and getting dignity for Canadians?
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, it is true that we need to have greater dignity expectations. The examples I raised of seniors and women who tried to leave dangerous situations are not isolated cases. They are clear indicators of a system that is under serious strain. When housing supply is this tight, the people who feel it first are often the most vulnerable, and—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, I was an MLA in British Columbia in the years coinciding with when the Conservatives were in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those were the years when Canada, and more specifically B.C., was moving forward. Projects were getting built under a free enterprise provincial and federal government.
In my riding, there is the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. The highway that used to go between Vancouver and Squamish was called the highway of death because of all the fatalities there. That was expanded. There is Kicking Horse Pass. The Olympics happened. There is the Canada Line, the convention centre and a new stadium, new hospitals and new schools. All throughout British Columbia there was tremendous progress, and I know that this was the same throughout the country.
The New York Times, during that period, said that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. We had a dollar at par with the American dollar. I would talk to Americans and others visiting Canada and visiting Victoria, where I often was for my government work. They were amazed by the prosperity they saw in British Columbia and in Canada.
Let us keep in mind that between 2007 and mid-2009, the world underwent the great global recession. It was the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression in the late twenties and the thirties, impacting housing significantly. Canada weathered this storm very well, and we were number one in growth. Between 2006 and 2015, under Stephen Harper, there were two million housing starts in Canada, while the population growth was about 3.2 million. Using household sizes, those starts were enough to accommodate more people than the population during that period. Canada fared the best in the G7. We were a prosperous nation going from strength to strength.
Fast-forward to 2026. After 11 long years under the Liberal government and under two Liberal prime ministers, we have gone from boom to gloom and from first to worst. There has been economic stagnation and decline under the Liberals. In three of the last four quarters, we have shrunk. We are in a recession. We are the only country in the G20 with an economy that is shrinking.
The G20 includes nations such as Argentina, which was an economic basket case not so long ago; Australia; Brazil; China; France; Germany; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Mexico, whose number one trading partner is the U.S., as it is for Canada; Russia; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; South Korea; Turkey; the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that the Liberals would like to blame the U.S. for all the problems Canada faces, but all these countries are impacted by U.S. tariffs, and some are in war zones.
However, credit must be given where credit is deserved. The Liberals excel, get an A, for building bureaucracy, increasing red tape and doling out money to friends, family and themselves. Since I was elected to the House of Commons in 2019, it has been one scandal after another. We get numb after a while.
The Conservatives had their scandals also. One lady, a cabinet minister, resigned for having a $16 glass of orange juice.
The Prime Minister promised to double housing construction to half a million homes a year and to move at speeds we have not seen in generations. How has that turned out? More than one year in, the result is the exact opposite: fewer permits, fewer starts, and a housing crisis that keeps getting worse. For example, Toronto has experienced a major housing construction downturn, a crash. Starts are down more than 50% in the last three years. New condo sales in the GTA collapsed to 1,599 units in 2025, the lowest annual total in 35 years and 91% less than the 10-year average.
However, this must be kept in context. Canada's population has increased by 2.5 million people in the last three years alone, under the Liberals' chaotic handling of immigration. Construction should be skyrocketing, not plummeting. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that we need to build 480,000 homes a year for the next decade. We are expected to build only half of that this year and only 212,000 units by 2028. Meanwhile, 131,000 Canadians who used to work in construction are unemployed as of April, and half of home builders and contractors are reporting layoffs in the first quarter of this year.
Maybe there is a strategy under this political madness. Maybe the intention is to make things so bad that when there is a change, and I think there was some positive news with the numbers today, the Liberals will blow the trumpets, bang on the drums and say how they have turned things around, how marvellous things have become. However, this is a fail. It is not a new day. It is not a new government. It is the same old, same old.
Instead of a plan to build homes, the Liberals would deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. Far from building at generational speeds, they have taken a year to introduce legislation that still builds no homes. Even when homes start getting built, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found, Build Canada Homes would add just 5,000 homes per year, 1% of what the Liberals promised. We can do the math on how much is being invested right there and what that equates to as far as cost per unit. It is more bureaucracy, more red tape and more cost.
I recently held a round table with builders and developers. They are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more. Ever-increasing regulations are killing the market and driving up construction costs. Federal, provincial and municipal regulations and taxes are all adding costs, not just for the builder but also for the home purchaser. If we are to make housing affordable for Canadians, we need to cut the cost of building and to build more, faster.
Bill C‑20 would not build, and it would not cut costs for builders. What would it do? It would build a fourth government bureaucracy. That is an F, for “fail”. I was a teacher. We can see the stats here very clearly.
Canadians used to be able to buy their first home in their twenties or early thirties. Realtors in Vancouver tell me that it is now an anomaly for new homebuyers to purchase a place without getting significant financial help from their family. This is building a sharp divide in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots. This is not good. It is becoming dependent upon generational wealth rather than on someone's being able to make it on their own, even with a supposedly great salary.
Conservatives have a plan: Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year to get things done; cut development charges by 50%, because the number one cost of construction is all the regulations and permitting; and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector.
Canadians should be able to earn a strong paycheque in a thriving economy to buy an affordable home. It used to be this way, and it can be this way again.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing how the Conservatives love to give misinformation, not only inside the chamber but outside the chamber also. I look at what the member just finished saying of the government in the last year. He was being critical of how we are doing the opposite, and then he used the example of immigration. He said the immigration numbers have gone up by 2.5 million in the last three years, and then he went on to blame the Prime Minister. In the last year, we have actually seen a decrease in immigration, yet the member tries to give the impression that the Prime Minister and this government have not stabilized the immigration issue. That is a sample of the misinformation that Conservatives pump out, day in and day out, inside and outside the chamber.
Will the member apologize for providing misinformation once again?
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for the fact that I will probably be too nice in my remarks to the Liberal member. This is madness, and it actually proves the point that the Liberals might see a slight change and then blow the horn about how wonderful they are. It has been a disaster, and now they are saying that immigration is down, but it is down from historic highs. The Liberals tweak it down just a little and say how great they are doing.
They have made a total mess of things. Under the Conservatives, we built two and a half million homes during a time of population increase that was less than the increase over the past few years. I hold onto that F for failure for the Liberals.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I find it discouraging, as I am sure many members do, when the debates get overly partisan. I did not find the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to be particularly partisan in his comments.
Also, in a weird show of solidarity with a former member, I would like to point out that poor Bev Oda has been vilified for years for something that was not her fault. It is her fault that she is addicted to smoking, and her staff put her in a non-smoking hotel. She asked to be moved, and she never bothered to check that, where she was moving to, it was impossible to order breakfast without getting a $16 glass of orange juice. There are many things about which Bev Oda and I disagreed, but I served at the same time as her, and we did share a love of dogs, so I will just put that out there.
My concern with this bill, and I will agree with my hon. friend from Pitt Meadows, is the proposed creation of new bureaucracies on bureaucracies. I will address this when I get a chance in my speech, but it does not mean that the Build Canada Homes idea is a bad idea.
How do we get more efficient delivery, from a speech and money and a commitment to actually getting Canadians homes?
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, how we do it is we move building more into the private sector, as opposed to keeping it in government hands and government bureaucracies, where it gives jobs to friendly insiders and goes nowhere. That is the problem. The government has just been building bureaucracy. It has become a disaster for Canada.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on something.
We know that Build Canada Homes will be entitled to acquire shares in companies involved in public housing. It seems to me that the roles are getting mixed up. We have some reservations about this.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, I did not hear my colleague's question. If he is wondering if there is a role for private companies, the answer is yes. It is important.
Canada needs to be unleashed. This is what is happening. Companies, individuals, Canadians are being held back, and they need to be unleashed from all these regulations.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member, if he wishes, will have about 35 seconds to finish the questions and comments.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the member to reverse the Conservative policy of just getting out of the way, recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play in housing. Would he not agree?
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Speaker, to capsulize Bill C-20, I would say it is more bureaucracy, it is more regulation and it is more cost to the taxpayer, but it is great for Liberal insiders and friends. We are probably going to find out more and more as time goes on.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-20 on Build Canada Homes or, as it was originally mistranslated in French, “Bâtir Maisons Canada”.
It is not in the Bloc's nature to agree to the creation of federal Crown corporations that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I would remind all members that housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. However, there is always context, and the current situation is extremely serious.
The housing crisis that has been raging for some time is appalling. There is crippling inflation, which means people are struggling to find housing and often, or even regularly, have to cut back on other expenses. This is a serious crisis. That is the first factor. The second factor is that the federal government has finally, in the end, reached an agreement with the Quebec government. That is one of the factors that may lead the Bloc Québécois to accept such measures.
The agreement very clearly states that Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities and legislative framework will be respected, along with the Build Canada Homes investment policy framework.
An agreement has been reached, an urgent need exists and funds are available. We are talking about $1 billion, after all. We cannot, in good conscience, say that we are rejecting the money in accordance with a general policy. The context here allows us to approve this bill, as we did at second reading.
At second reading, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan gave an interesting quote. I really like quoting this man. He is brilliant, intelligent and humble at the same time. My colleague commended the government and the minister for trying to speed up efforts to address the affordable housing issue, and I share his sentiment.
We therefore applaud the effort and the investment, and we will support this bill because something needs to be done about housing, especially affordable housing. That said, we have some concerns. Affordable housing is not social housing. Build Canada Homes is focusing strongly on affordable housing. The government is creating a structure that will inevitably encroach on areas outside federal jurisdiction and giving it very broad powers. Among other things, Build Canada Homes will have the power to become a shareholder or partner of private companies operating in the area of affordable housing. We have concerns about that, and I must express them in the House. What does that mean in the long term? It is a bit like the current agreement with Quebec. It exists, but how long will it last? Will it be renewed and will it still respect Quebec's jurisdiction?
Unfortunately, Canadian history has taught us that the federal government generally has a hard time respecting Quebec's jurisdiction. That is why we are on alert. All of this background information is intended to highlight this fact.
Something has to be done about housing. There is no getting around that. The billion dollars that will be sent to Quebec will, I hope, provide some general relief, as long as this structure is effective.
Speaking of effectiveness and structures, I would now like to talk about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already exists. Its mandate includes funding, program creation, support, and planning and validating this type of housing project.
Why create a new structure? We have raised that question before and I am raising it again today because we never really got an answer. The Liberals talk about agility, or perhaps they just wanted to create something new. Governments love to say that they are responsible for creating one structure or another. Often, they create things and put the word “Canada” on it three or four times so that it sounds good when they say it.
In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. My argument about adding “Canada” to the names of things does not apply here because the “C” in CMHC already stands for Canada. CMHC stands for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so this is not about adding Canada to the name. Why then, do the Liberals want to create a new structure that operates in the same areas?
More importantly, the CMHC is at risk of losing a lot of its funding and programs. The government is telling us that it will maintain the current funding levels and any initiatives that have already been announced. I honestly have to commend the government for that, because at least it is not cutting programs mid-stream. However, that means that these programs will disappear when the funding runs out, and that raises concerns. I am thinking, in particular, about the rapid housing initiative, which is working well. People had better take full advantage of it while it is still around, because it is not every day that a member of the Bloc Québécois says that a program is working well. If I am saying it, then it must be true. In that case, why sunset that program? We are concerned about all of these things.
This new structure is causing concern not only among Bloc Québécois MPs, but also among community organizations like FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a housing rights organization.
Build Canada Homes is allowed to become a shareholder or partner in housing projects, and that is causing concern among FRAPRU's members. They said, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing with Build Canada Homes, the government's new strategy...is starting to become clear. Build Canada Homes is an investment bank, plain and simple.” These comments were reported by my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. That sums up the situation well.
It goes without saying that we will be on our guard and will carry out our role as a constructive opposition by monitoring the work of this entity and ensuring that it does not start to disregard Quebec's jurisdiction or cast its net too wide. This federal government has a tendency to overreach and it has far too much money relative to its responsibilities, yet it still manages to run up record deficits and accumulate stratospheric debts. We must keep a close eye on it because it will meddle in whatever areas it can.
Again, housing is the responsibility of the Quebec government. I would like to quote Quebec premier Daniel Johnson. This is not a recent quote. He said this in 1967, a short time before I was born.
Quebec considers the following areas to fall within its exclusive jurisdiction: culture, adult education, university research, trade training programs, industry-cooperative training programs, and training programs for the unemployed; urban development and housing; municipal structure; municipal powers; and land use planning.
That pretty much sums up what I just said, and as I mentioned, this is not a new issue. I was not even born yet, and I am not exactly young anymore. I am not old, but I am not that young either.
There would be a role for the federal government if everyone here made an effort to respect the Constitution, which is rather ironic. I hear a member telling me he agrees. He might disagree with the rest of my statement, but it will be fun. We are pretty much the only ones here who want to the Constitution to be upheld. It is funny because we are the only ones who did not sign it. We all remember that it was done behind our backs in the middle of the night. It is still a pretty scandalous affair. I think I have managed to get one of my colleagues thinking. I am quite proud of myself.
Originally, the federal government's role was to transfer money to these jurisdictions, because it had a monopoly on taxation powers. Over time, attempts were made to balance the situation, but they never offset the shortfall. This is the crux of the problem with Canada's federal structure, which is a federation, not a confederation. That was another historical rip-off. The government has too much power and more money than its responsibilities require, so it tends to take advantage of the situation to shine in the public eye. Its members love making announcements from a sun-drenched balcony, hair blowing in the wind. I use that sentence a lot, but the image speaks for itself. The government wants to tell Canadians that it is generous and that it is going to hand out billions of dollars. That way, it gets credit and hopes that votes will follow. I am guessing that is the reasoning.
However, it would be nice if the contract that was signed behind our backs was respected. The Bloc Québécois has enough class to say that we are are stuck with that, and that we are going to play by the rules until the day comes that everyone knows about already. It should surprise no one that our goal is not to stay here. Our goal is for the Government of Quebec to assume its full powers and manage its responsibilities.
I will use the example of Build Canada Homes. We are saying today that, yes, we will take the billion dollars. We need it, because the crisis is urgent. Ottawa has an agreement with the Quebec government stipulating that decisions will be made by the Government of Quebec based on its jurisdictions and priorities. We agree.
However, if we take a step back, $1 billion out of $6 billion represents 16.6% of the amount Canada allocated through Build Canada Homes, even though Quebeckers represent around 22% of the population. That means that while Quebeckers are paying 22%, they will receive only 16.6%. I know that I am going to get questions from government members, who will tell me that we are being ungrateful and that we should be happy and stop whining. I would like them to think about those numbers.
I am sure that the thousands of people who are watching us at home agree that this does not make any sense. If Quebec had control over all of its economic levers, then we would have a lot more money to put into housing. We would also do things more effectively because we are more in touch with the people.
When we say that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, it is because the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec are closer to the people and they are in a better position to provide services. The municipalities are even closer to the people. This should be done in partnership with municipal governments. Who knows the needs of a community better than its municipal officials? That is true as long as they are doing their job properly and they are in touch with people in their community. When the federal government comes in with its heavy-handed approach and imposes its priorities, we always have to insist that it respect our jurisdictions. That is why we are always raising concerns. I hope that people are listening. I think that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very pleased because I know that he will likely go and tell his caucus that what the guy from Berthier—Maskinongé said made a lot of sense and that his government should be vigilant. At least that is my hope, because I am sure Manitoba must also have regional priorities.
All that the federal government would have do is simply transfer the money, but because it would not get enough credit, it creates structures instead. Having an agreement with Quebec is important. However, it is appalling that every time we talk about housing—and the same holds for many other sectors, but housing in particular—the timelines grow longer. I remember that my former colleague, Denis Trudel, who I can call by name today because he is sadly no longer with us, long criticized this situation in his role as housing critic. I believe that it took four years the last time to reach an agreement with Quebec, even though the other provinces had already received the money. I could be wrong about the number of years, but it is around that many.
It took nearly two years for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. The general funds have been released, but agreements still need to be reached. It is frustrating, exhausting and discouraging to see the federal government make announcements and reach agreements after a few months with other provinces, but not with Quebec. Why? It is because the federal government wants to stick its nose into everything and that does not bother Canadians in other provinces. For them, the government is the federal government. This does not bother the provincial governments, because they have far fewer responsibilities than the Quebec government. I invite people from other provinces who might be listening to take a look at Quebec's administrative structure and its social and economic fabric. They will see that the country of Quebec already exists. I often say this, and people sometimes think I am joking, but I really mean it. Regional county municipalities, or RCMs, do not exist anywhere else. They are groupings of municipalities meant to foster greater regional cohesion.
I will give an anecdotal example regarding electoral redistribution. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé already had three RCMs and one city. I explained to the commissioner that I really wanted to properly represent the people of Saint-Sulpice, whom I salute by the way and whom I am very pleased to represent, but that, for the sake of territorial cohesion, it might be better to give me a larger area of land, such as Matawinie, which I already shared with my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. When I explained that to the commissioner, he said it made sense. When I asked him if he had any questions, he said no, that everything was very clear, that I had made a good point and that he would look into it. When I received the card a month later, I realized that he had not listened to me. It is no big deal, because Saint-Sulpice is a beautiful part of the country. I have come to know a lot of people there, and I am very proud to represent them. However, this just goes to show that Canada could not care less about RCMs. They are not in its DNA, whereas they are a reality in Quebec.
When it comes to supporting businesses, we are trying to explain to people in the other provinces that Quebec's economic fabric is different from the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we have a very high concentration of small and medium-sized businesses that need more targeted support, including the infamous wage subsidy.
The wage subsidy is like OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74. We will not give up on this. I know that some people are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this, but we will not stop, because we stand up for such worthy causes. Wage subsidies are intended to maintain the employment relationship between businesses and employees. As for the old age pension for people aged 65 to 74, it is intended to ensure fairness among seniors so that different categories based on age do not exist. That is age-based discrimination.
It is an election promise and a housing measure. We want to work together, but we are putting the government on notice. We are asking the government to honour its commitments. I do not want to have to go on the attack again in three years when the agreement expires because Build Canada Homes might want to extend its reach into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. Two years to reach an agreement is a long time. We do not want any further delays. Some people sometimes think we are here to block everything or to show that nothing works. However, we often simply point out that things rarely work.
The next time federal funds are released, I would like to see less red tape, a quicker response to Quebec's specific requests and no attempt to impose federal conditions on Quebec's economy, society and politics.
I am extending this olive branch to the parliamentary secretary. I assume he will accept it warmly and that he hears the message I am sending today. I am very keen to see what sort of question he will ask me.
That said, we are separatists. I know some people do not like it when I talk about that, but I do because it is my job. I mentioned earlier that we are going to take the billion dollars injected into Build Canada Homes because we want to make constructive progress here while awaiting Quebec's independence. I pointed out to members that this figure represents 16.6% of the total amount Canada has invested in Build Canada Homes. Quebec accounts for approximately 22% of the population. Once again, we are not receiving the full amount that should be coming to us. We will gladly take it and try to make it work, but there is still some missing.
My separatist argument stands. We would not have had to wait two years for a policy to be implemented if we had not had to negotiate with a federal government that does not understand Quebec's reality and that wants to impose its own rules and its own way of doing things.
That is the essence of my speech today. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I impatiently await their questions.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I look at the federation as working in a collaborative way. When we think in terms of the important issues Canadians have, housing is one of them. When I think in terms of issues like housing co-ops, Quebec has a lot of housing co-ops, as Manitoba has housing co-ops. I think of organizations like Habitat for Humanity. Again, throughout our great nation, there is a presence, a footprint of Habitat for Humanity. These are organizations that I believe want to be able to see the federal government continue to work collaboratively, to continue to provide programs that are going to encourage growth and support non-profit housing. Ultimately, I believe the federal government does have a leadership role to play on the national scene. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but the principle of government support for housing is something I think we can both agree on.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, for once, the parliamentary secretary anticipated my response quite well. We can both agree on that, but we will also have to agree to disagree.
That said, as I mentioned in my speech, we are here to salvage something from the wreckage. We are defending Quebec and trying to get as much as we can for our people. That is what we are doing today. We will take that billion dollars.
My colleague mentioned programs that work and working together. I gave an example of such a program in my speech. I hope he appreciated that. The rapid housing initiative is working. It has worked in the past and it is still working. Why get rid of it? Why replace it with an unknown quantity? When a program is working, we should invest in it and leave well enough alone.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC
Madam Speaker, I was unable to hear my colleague's entire speech, but he said certain things that deserve to be acknowledged.
First, he spoke about Daniel Johnson, leader of the Union Nationale and premier of Quebec from 1966 to 1968, who passed away on the day the magnificent Manic‑5 generating station was due to be inaugurated.
I would like to point out that today marks exactly 60 years since Mr. Johnson was elected. Some will recall that this 1966 election was particularly notable because there was an incredible discrepancy between the percentage of votes and the percentage of MNAs elected. There was the famous question posed by Pierre Nadeau to Daniel Johnson on election night. Mr. Nadeau asked him whether he was aware that Premier Lesage did not recognize the victory. Mr. Johnson replied that, although Jean Lesage might not recognize the victory, he himself recognized that he had won.
My colleague also spoke of the Constitution. I agree with his remarks. The Constitution must be respected. The Constitution quite clearly defines federal and provincial jurisdictions. When it is followed, things go well. To support this claim, I would remind the House that, during the 1981 constitutional debate, Conservative Party leader Mr. Clark allowed the provinces to join the debate. Speaking of Mr. Clark, I want to mention that today is his 87th birthday.
Does my colleague know that, although Quebec never signed the Constitution, which is extremely unfortunate for all of Quebec, it nevertheless managed to take full control over its affairs? I have to say that I would not have signed either. That said, let us hope that jurisdictions will be respected, which has not been the case over the past 11 years.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was very long but very interesting. It is always interesting to dialogue with colleagues who are cultured and give historical dates. It is wonderful. It is quite a coincidence that I am talking about Mr. Johnson when it is the 60th anniversary of when he was first elected and, at the same time it is also Mr. Clark's 87th birthday. I had not made the connection. This is wonderful.
My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said that Quebec has been able to thrive. Fortunately, Quebec developed its own autonomy by introducing the single tax return, among other things. My colleague will be happy to hear me mention Maurice Duplessis, who established that. People often talk about Mr. Duplessis in a negative light, but he also had a very positive side, which in no way detracts from his darker side. He did, after all, get some things done, and Quebec has developed gradually. We have been developing on our own.
My colleague says we can grow to our full potential, but in this case, we will be growing at 16.6% instead of 22%. We manage to get things done because we are very smart and very strong. The day we become independent and have full control of our finances, people will be very impressed by everything we manage to achieve and by how quickly we manage to do it.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague, the Bloc Québécois whip.
I would like my colleague to talk to us about the diversity of social housing in Quebec. There are housing co-operatives and non-profit organizations that manage social housing buildings for people with disabilities or seniors. There is also social housing or low-income housing for seniors. I understand that other provinces do not have as much diversity. This diversity is Quebec's strength.
I would like my colleague to tell us about one of Quebec's demands. Quebec would like to see funds set aside to allow alternative housing networks to flourish. When I think of Build Canada Homes, I tend to think that we are talking about housing in partnership with private entities, which might exclude community organizations, for example.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my “original whip”. Today is the first time I have called her by her nickname in public. I want to thank her for her thoughtful question and the wise counsel that she kindly gives me on a regular basis. She is right to talk about Quebec's uniqueness, its specificity and the diversity of its models. We would like to see more respect for those things. We do not understand why it takes two or four years to reach an agreement. That is the problem.
The federal government needs to understand that. We need flexibility. I am going to make a constructive proposal to the government, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is taking notes. The difference between the 22% and the 16.6% could be transferred to Quebec. That way, we could take care of our diversity, as my colleague explained so well.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members are great at defending the provinces in the House. I think I heard my colleague say that he thinks the federal government's only role in housing should be to transfer money to the provinces. If that is the case, then what would he do with existing federal agencies, like CMHC? Does he think that the federal government should get out of the housing business altogether?
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec, but my colleague is gradually becoming my favourite Conservative. Not only is her French exemplary, but she is also very receptive. I would like other members of the House to take a lesson from her. She has only been here for a short time, but she is already doing extraordinary work.
I commend her and I appreciate the fact that she understood the gist of my message. Her question is very relevant and very intelligent. She can rest assured that we are very resourceful. We are going to turn things around quickly and manage our own affairs. As I was telling my other colleague earlier, we are capable of doing things well, faster and better if we have all the means at our disposal. I think the people in her province would certainly benefit from the same flexibility.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live?
What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges. Behind the hype and the Prime Minister's rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government's direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector.
As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes.
The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29.
Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire.
Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain.
What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent? Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long?
This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well.
The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home.
At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable.
At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability. They do not really want Canadians to know the facts.
Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again.
There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone?
The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing. Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1.
That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government's approach.
The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets. We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities.
This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow.
However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need. If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people.
Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing?
The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach. If we are serious about solving the crisis, we must be serious about addressing inequality. This is not just about opposing development. We need to build, but we need to build the right kind of housing. We need to build housing that is affordable, accessible and secure. We need to build housing that is protected from speculation.
Housing is not just about supply. It is about dignity. It is about stability. It is about a basic human right. That is why the government needs to take action in a serious way. That is why there need to be accountability measures in this bill and we need to address the housing crisis for all Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize, within the legislation and the commitment of the government, the issue, in one word, of collaboration. It is not going to be the federal government itself that resolves the housing crisis. We have to work with many different stakeholders: provinces, indigenous communities, territories, municipalities, housing co-ops and others. Habitat for Humanity is one of the non-profits I constantly bring up. That is what this government has committed to do: increase the housing stock.
The member made reference to two things that I would like her to provide a bit of further comment on. She said to build one million public homes. How would she define public homes? Would the government build them in their entirety and then provide an ongoing subsidy of 30%, as the member said? Today, there are non-profit government-run houses where there is a percentage based on income. Is that what she is proposing for the one million homes?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, the NDP has been a strong advocate of the federal government's getting back to building social housing and co-op housing like it used to, before the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program prior to 1993. That is what I want to see in place.
The build Canada homes act fails in its blueprint and the details on how it would actually deliver affordability, social housing and co-op housing for Canadians. By the way, my amendment called for accountability, to set baselines, to set targets and to set reported measures of what the government actually achieves. The Liberals voted against it, because they do not want Canadians to know the truth. They want to hide it from Canadians. There would be no accountability measures under the act.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East anticipated my question, because I was just asking where the accountability measures are in the bill. I wonder if she has noticed, as I have, that the responsible minister is not actually listed. The bill just says they may be “designated by the Governor in Council”. Where is the accountability?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no accountability in the bill. It does not even name the minister responsible for ensuring the deliverability. It does not actually say what the government is trying to do. How many units will it build and in which provinces? What are the targets the government will set? The bill does not even ensure that the government delivers on letting Canadians know what the outcomes are, and there is no affordability measure. It is just like, “oh well, whatever”. If we have a plan like that, how is the housing crisis going to be solved? History has shown that what the government has done over the last 30 years is rely on just the private sector, and that has failed.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that my colleague has taken the time to talk about the importance of having targets, measures and accountability in bills, and also about how important it is to have different kinds of housing.
I know that the member comes from Vancouver East, which is, like my riding, suffering very much from the addictions crisis. I am wondering if the member could talk about the importance of having sober housing in this environment.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, there is a great need for a full range of housing, and that includes supportive housing. The truth of the matter is that building housing in and of itself is insufficient. We have to have the supports in place as well for a certain segment of the community, for example, those who are faced with multiple health issues, including addictions issues, mental health issues and so on. Supportive housing is what helps ensure people are successful in that housing, and that is what we need as well. We do not have enough supports from the federal government in that regard.
By the way, the spring economic update did not renew mental health support funding, and that is going to create greater problems for communities like Nanaimo and mine, and across the country.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I confess that I have been struggling as to whether I vote for or against the bill.
Of course, building homes for Canadians is a great goal. I would vote for that. I kept trying to figure out why it is that I am having trouble figuring out whether I would vote for it or against it. I guess it is because, when I really study the bill and think it through, it does absolutely nothing, even if fully implemented. That is troubling.
I am just going to get to the bare bones. To Canadians who may be watching, what does Bill C-20 do? It is called an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. That is a familiar-sounding announcement because it was made on September 14, 2025, when the government created Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency.
That is something it has done a couple of times since the new government came in. Special operating agencies operate under the Treasury Board in an opaque environment where nothing is particularly visible or transparent or included in legislation. We already created Build Canada Homes on September 14 of last year. We are creating Build Canada Homes but not as a special operating agency. The bill deals with that. It would now be a Crown corporation. The bill would set up a Crown corporation. That is what it would do. It does not talk about the housing crisis. It does not give tools to address the housing crisis. It sets no targets. It has no timelines. It does not talk about the housing crisis. The purpose 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 rest of the bill is devoted to how many people are on the board of directors, what it can borrow and what it can lend. My favourite part of the bill, which, again, is a bill about setting up a corporation, is that this new corporation, Build Canada Homes, can actually take money from the federal government and give it to the federal government. It is lacking, shall we say, in ambition.
The bill misses the point. If it is going to take us through the process of passing legislation in this place, it ought to have accountability. As the member for Vancouver East just pointed out, there is no minister of housing named in the bill as responsible. The minister shall be appointed by someone in the Privy Council at any given time, who will say, of the people around the cabinet table, this week it will be Joe. That is the kind of accountability we have here. That worries me.
We also have the fundamental reality that since the end of the Second World War, since 1945, we have had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. Was there something wrong with CMHC? It has been massively cut. It is not being scrapped. We will still have CMHC. The Minister of Housing is responsible for CMHC. That is an entity we understand. Are there endless delays? Are there things that should be done better at CMHC? Yes, but for a government that wants to, as we always hear from the Prime Minister, move fast, why not use, fit for purpose, the institution we have already? It has in it fewer people who know what they are doing, but it still has a goal and a principle and a practice that understands that housing is a human right.
We have two kinds of housing crises in Canada right now. I want to make sure that this is explicit in the rest of my remarks. We have a crisis of affordability in market housing. People earning good incomes cannot afford a good home. A lot of that is due to industry speculation, things like real estate investment trusts, corporations owning housing and making money out of speculation. That hurts, and so does the supply of housing not being adequate to our population.
The first housing crisis, I will underscore, is a market housing supply problem for affordable housing in rental and ownership. The second housing crisis we have is acute, cruel, grinding homelessness and it is on the rise. What do we do about that?
I want to share an inspiring example. I was so honoured to tour a little place called 12 Neighbours outside Fredericton. It was a few years ago now. I met Marcel LeBrun of Fredericton, a young man. He would maybe not think he is so young now. He is a multi-millionaire because of his own entrepreneurial instincts and because he got involved in an Internet company he built up and then sold. At a sermon in a Baptist church one day, he was called upon to do more.
He made a big donation to a local homelessness group. Then he thought that was not quite enough and the homelessness problem was growing in Fredericton. Long story short, this is what Marcel LeBrun decided to do. He realized that one of the critical obstacles for building affordable homes and social, non-market housing was the cost of land, so he bought a bunch of land. Then he said, “I'm going to build 99 tiny homes on this land, 240-square-foot homes. This will give a person dignity, a home of their own. They can lock the door. It will be their home.”
He applied to CMHC for funding. He was prepared to pay one-third of the cost of this project out of his own pocket. He was putting $12 million of his own money into it. CMHC told him it would take about two weeks to process. He built 35 homes before he heard from CMHC that his project was approved, because it took CMHC about a year and a half. He got it done. Not only did he get it done, but then he saw that these problems were acute. We cannot take someone who has been homeless, living in a tent or in an encampment in the woods, put them in their own home, and magically everything is good for them, because they lack community and they lack social skills. They are still wondering how they are going to make a living.
He created a whole network of social enterprise around the housing development he built himself, for the people in his community, things like a local restaurant that people could come to, where the people who lived in his tiny homes could learn how to work in that restaurant. There is a trade shop, so people can learn how to use a Skilsaw. What Marcel LeBrun has done goes on and on. With supports for mental health and addiction, he did not just build homes. He built a community with love, care and compassion. That can be done in every community if we mandate CMHC to see if it can follow the model of what Marcel LeBrun did on his own to create sustainable long-term housing with strong mental health supports and built-in dignity and community. That is what we should be building.
This Build Canada Homes bill is not about building homes. I am not being mean about it. If colleagues read it, they will see that the Build Canada Homes act is about setting up a Crown corporation, full stop. Build Canada Homes, Bill C-20, is about replacing a special operating agency set up last year with a Crown corporation this year. There are no goals, no timelines, no accountability, no listening to the briefs that the government got from the Assembly of First Nations about engaging indigenous people and no listening to the brief that it got from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where the rubber really hits the road at the municipal housing level. That is where people have to figure out what we are going to do.
The government is not listening to the co-operatives in this country. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada gave a great brief to the committee that studied this bill. Since the bill does not include timelines or goals, I think that, if we were to actually put meaning into this bill, the clerk of the committee would have said it was outside the scope of the bill, because the scope of the bill is to set up a Crown corporation. After that, well, I wish the current Minister of Housing a great deal of luck. I hope he becomes the designated minister. Maybe he can make something out of this, but this does nothing more than set up a Crown corporation.
We need to do so much more. There will be money thrown at this Crown corporation, for sure. There will be chief executive officers and board members and it will function as a Crown corporation, but will it do more than what Marcel LeBrun did for the people of Fredericton?
The first social housing ever built in this country was in the early part of the 1900s, after the Halifax explosion, when that devastating collision in Halifax Harbour wiped out homes for thousands of people and the government had to build housing for people. The government did it, and did it fast. Nobody froze that winter. Everybody was gotten into housing fast.
We need to act like this is an emergency, because it is an emergency. Women my age in my riding are living in their cars. This is driving me to distraction. Why can we not find the housing, build the housing? There are so many delays. They are unintentional in many cases, but they show a lack of political will, which has to come from the top down. Yes, there are multiple levels of government involved, but the federal government, in Build Canada Homes, should set the standard and set some goals.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker. I understand the member has not decided how she is going to be voting on the bill. I think it is important to recognize, as she has, the purpose of the bill. The bill is there, in a way, to clearly demonstrate that working collaboratively with provinces, indigenous peoples, territories and the many other stakeholders is the best way for us to address the multitude of issues facing Canada's housing situation.
The federal government is stepping up. Here we are talking about legislation, but we have also made serious dollar commitments through the budget to support Build Canada Homes. I think we have to take a holistic approach to dealing with it.
Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is to work collaboratively with others? This, at least, helps set that stage.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I know I cannot ask the member a question in response, but if he could show me the sections of the bill that talk about partnership, collaboration, working together and the things he just posed to me in the question, I would be fascinated to know where they are, because it is not that long a bill and they are not in here.
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Madam Speaker, I agree that this bill is not going to do anything. What is scary in this whole process is this: Is the government losing direction? Is it losing focus? The focus has to be on building more homes for Canadians to fix the problem. Is the government only interested in building bureaucracies? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, for my friend from Edmonton Manning, I want to be clear. The act would not do anything. I am not saying the government will not do anything. The act is kind of pointless, because the Liberals created a special operating agency. I would agree that there is a titch more transparency when we shift from an agency operating under the Treasury Board to a Crown corporation, but not much.
I would demand that the government act and respond to the housing crisis with non-market housing and market housing. The bill does not do it by itself. It does not do anything.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, in Canada we have CMHC specifically designed to deliver housing. Now the government is coming forward with an act for Build Canada Homes, another Crown corporation, to deliver housing, yet in this bill there are no accountability measures, no targets and no affordability requirements. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that Build Canada Homes would only build around 50 to 100 units per year, a fraction of the annual 500,000 units, at least, that are required to address the housing crisis.
My question for my colleague is this: If there are no accountability measures, what is the point of creating yet another Crown corporation?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, without intending to sound snarky or partisan, I guess the point of establishing yet another Crown corporation is to have an excuse for another set of press releases.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out in her speech, there is already the CMHC. Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. On top of that, there is also the Canada Lands Company, which already has the power to develop federal land. There is Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which already manages federal housing funding and agreements. There is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. The last time I checked, it was a minister's job to knit all of that together and to find co-operation, so I am as baffled as she is that there is yet another Crown corporation being created. I wonder whether or not the issue here might be the minister.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith that I cannot speculate. I have known this minister a long time, so forgive me for trespassing into my personal history. I am terribly fond of him. I do not think it is the minister. I think it is the government.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, bureaucrats count starts. They count units. They count dollars. They count funds, programs, agencies and promises, but in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we count something different. We count the months our adult children have been living in the spare room because rent has eaten the down payment they were trying to save for. We count the number of graduates who cannot find a job that pays enough to cover rent. We count the number of people with no home at all as we pass them on the way to work.
Before I forget, I will be splitting my time.
On a more serious note, we count the graves of friends lost to addiction, the treatment beds that are not there, and the people who make it through detox only to be sent back to the same chaos they were trying to escape. We continue to measure the distance between the government's language and our reality. That distance is the distance between a young person with a diploma and a job and having no real path to owning a home in the community they grew up in. It is the distance between a person who is coming out of detox trying to stay clean and housing where drug use is not happening down the hall. Those are not separate crises. They are part of the same failure of government. We have lost the link between housing and hope.
Canada does not lack for housing announcements. In the last decade, we have had strategies, accelerators, funds, agencies, accords and photo ops, including some that have their own complete purpose-built backdrop. What we do not have is enough homes that people can afford. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we do not have enough of the right homes for people who are trying to rebuild their lives.
Now we have Bill C-20, which would create Build Canada Homes to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing. From the speeches, it sounds ambitious. The question is whether it will be useful once the media has packed up and gone home and the sets have been dismantled. All this bill does is create the skeleton. It creates the framework and the corporation itself.
The government is presenting Build Canada Homes as a generational housing investment, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it will only have a modest impact. The headline number is $13 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the actual planned spend is $7.3 billion over five years on an accrual basis. The projected result is about 26,000 homes over five years, or roughly 5,200 homes a year across the entire country. This would increase housing completions by only 2.1% above the baseline and address just 3.7% of the estimated housing gap. Even with Build Canada Homes included, planned federal housing spending is set to fall by 56%, from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to $4.3 billion in 2028-29. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has put the scale of the new housing gap plainly: Canada needs 3.2 million net new housing units by 2035, which means an average of 290,000 units a year for a decade.
The PBO also warned that this would still not fully solve affordability in every region, because income, interest rates, regional gaps and the kind of housing built all matter, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. That last point matters the most to growing communities like mine, because we do not just need more housing; we need the right housing in the right places for the people who need it. Housing experts have made this same point over and over again. Mike Moffatt's report says, “Canada needs to build millions more homes, but not just any homes.” They have to be homes built for today's needs, and getting there is going to require bolder reforms, in our opinion, than those that have been put forward so far.
Bill C-20 would not speed up local approvals. It would not give our provinces and municipalities the infrastructure they need. It would not service land, and it would not set binding targets for how many homes will be completed by when, for whom, at what price.
What Bill C-20 would do is create another federal bureaucracy on top of at least four others in this space. There is CMHC, which already has the power to finance housing, lend, guarantee loans, invest and run federal housing programs. The Canada Lands Company already has the power to develop federal land. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada already manages federal housing funding and agreements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing.
In other words, the functions are already there, and Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. What it lacks is results. Building another bureaucracy means time spent setting it up. Offices need to be set up, executives hired, mandates written, files moved around and programs reorganized, and that is time and money that could be spent getting homes built. That is the problem. The government is using language that Canadians want to hear, but the structure does not match the urgency of the moment.
Young Canadians understand this instinctively. We tell them to study, work, save and be patient. Then they graduate into a labour market where entry-level jobs are harder and harder to find, where rent consumes too much of their income and where ownership feels less like a goal than a memory from someone else's Canada.
This week, a recent software engineering graduate came to a committee of the House to say that he could still not find entry-level work in his field. When asked whether he was working, he said yes, but not as a software engineer. The Liberal MP's reply was, “At least you're employed.” That answer reveals something deeper than one exchange. It shows a government that has lowered the bar.
I will continue my speech when the House resumes next week.
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Surrey Centre B.C.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai LiberalSecretary of State (International Development)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act—
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
In fact, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has three and a half minutes remaining. She is now in the House, so I will ask the secretary of state to wait until the hon. member has finished her speech.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and promote innovative and efficient building techniques for the housing sector. The goal matters deeply in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
As I said at the beginning of my original speech, I am splitting my time today.
Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country.
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the time allocation was given correctly. How are we getting a minute and a half for the member?
With everything going on, could the hon. member have the chance to actually deliver her speech, if she starts right now? We would appreciate that. There is too much noise here. We were not listening carefully.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
We will let the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith give her remarks. She will have three and a half minutes remaining in her comments.
The hon. member.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, among other things that I am continuing in my speech from the other day, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing sector. That goal matters deeply in communities such as Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home, seniors are looking for options that allow them to downsize while staying close to family and workers are struggling to live near the jobs that keep our communities running. We agree that we cannot meet that challenge with old thinking alone. We need to build differently, build faster and make use of better and new methods and Canadian standards, as well as local business that are already doing the work.
The mid-island did not wait for legislation. We know we cannot rely on the government to solve our problems for us. Local innovators have already risen to the occasion to make the mid-island an emerging hub for modular and innovative construction.
I recently toured Cueva Homes, which is headquartered in Nanaimo. There, I saw exactly the kind of practical innovation this country needs. Cueva Homes is focused on modular homes, backyard suites, ADUs and smaller housing options that can help communities add supply without changing the character of every neighbourhood. The folks at Cueva Homes are ready to go. These are real homes designed for real lots, and they are built with the kind of efficiency that could help address the housing shortage. They are especially well suited for communities like ours, where many families need options for aging parents, adult children, renters and first-time buyers. Cueva Homes' work also shows why standards matter. When homes are CSA-compliant, even if they are fabricated abroad with a significant proportion of local materials exported from the island for that purpose, communities can have confidence that innovation is not coming at the expense of safety, quality or code compliance. That should be central to the purpose of Bill C-20.
I also want to recognize Wescon Doors, another Vancouver Island business contributing to this same housing ecosystem. Wescon manufactures doors built for our climate and to meet applicable Canadian standards. Businesses like Wescon Doors remind us that housing innovation is not only about the finished home, but also about the local supply chain, components, skilled workers and manufacturers that make faster, better building possible.
If Bill C-20 is truly about supporting innovative and efficient building techniques, then the government must recognize communities such as ours. We already have businesses working in modular housing, prefabricated systems with high-quality components and climate-appropriate construction. The opportunity now is to connect federal policy with local capacity. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is ready to be part of that solution
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to hear the member opposite say something to the effect of Bill C-20 inspiring Canadians and helping them build more homes faster. I agree that there is that inspiration within Bill C-20.
Could the member expand on that particular point? Through Bill C-20, we want to be able to encourage and see that support realized.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, for his benefit, I would like to share with the member opposite what I am hearing on the ground.
We are also concerned about the fact that there are multiple bureaucracies already in place. We are very concerned about Build Canada Homes and making sure that it does not become another Ottawa-driven program that overlooks the builders and manufacturers already solving problems on the ground in communities such as mine.
We would like a commitment from the government that it will help and support practical, CSA-compliant, scalable solutions such as those found in our communities.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report commenting that the government was stripping away services to the vulnerable via housing benefits and social housing in order to fund another bureaucracy.
I wonder what the member thinks about the government taking money away from the most vulnerable to fund another bureaucracy that is going to produce, as the PBO says, only “a modest amount” of new housing.
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question, because just last night in my community, our local city council was holding a special meeting about the need for sober housing specifically. All kinds of housing in our communities came up.
The provinces, especially provinces like mine, are really struggling in the context of this economy. Of course, this means that municipalities are struggling as well. If the government is going to allocate funds toward housing, it really needs to work harder to address those issues in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith and beyond.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Surrey Centre B.C.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai LiberalSecretary of State (International Development)
Mr. Speaker, the member from Nanaimo knows a lot of the issues that are particular to the island. Market housing works really well in places like Nanaimo, and can probably be the solution that she is expressing would be valid there, but urban markets with the missing middle are a challenging place. Regardless of the red tape and other things, it is very hard for builders and developers to develop there.
How does the member consider developers should be incentivized to build in those areas without a Build Canada Homes-like approach?
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, if the member believes market housing is working well in Nanaimo, he really does not understand British Columbia. We are the missing middle. We have the missing market housing and the missing supportive housing. We are in the throes of an addictions crisis. Last night, we heard testimony about how hard it is for someone to resist the lures of addiction when they are down, homeless and sleeping on the street.
That question was an insult to my communities.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the response to that question, in the sense that, if we look at it, we have seen a great deal of emphasis on collaboration. We want to work collaboratively with municipalities, provinces, indigenous people and so forth.
Does the member not agree that working collaboratively is the best way to deal with the issue that is before us?
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member from the other side goes back to the question before and suggests that I was being insulting, when someone was trying to tell me that my community does not need mid-market housing and below, and that we are just fine with market housing. I am sorry, but that is another member who does not understand what is going on in British Columbia or in my riding.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Surrey Centre B.C.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai LiberalSecretary of State (International Development)
Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in support of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.
The challenge before us is significant. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford, and too many communities are facing housing shortages that continue to drive up costs. That is why our government launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025 with a clear mandate to build affordable homes, support builders with financing and encourage innovative construction methods using Canadian technology, workers and lumber. In just a few short months, Build Canada Homes has already begun advancing projects and establishing partnerships across the country.
Bill C-20 would build on that early progress by establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, providing it with the operational autonomy and dedicated governance needed to scale up efforts to address Canada's housing crisis. By transitioning Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency to a Crown corporation, the legislation would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate at scale while maintaining accountability to Parliament and to Canadians.
All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action, which means that this is about more than creating a new institution. It is about giving Build Canada Homes the tools it needs to build more homes more quickly.
As we consider the legislation before us today, it is worth revisiting exactly what Build Canada Homes was designed to achieve. Build Canada Homes was created to build and finance affordable housing at scale while helping to catalyze a more productive and innovative homebuilding industry. It makes it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground, attracting public, private and philanthropic investment. thus maximizing impact.
Build Canada Homes does more than fund individual projects. It is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with governments, builders, non-profits and investors to identify and scale high-impact housing solutions. It is also helping modernize Canada's homebuilding sector by supporting innovative approaches, including modern methods of construction. Build Canada Homes is helping create the conditions needed to build more homes more quickly and more efficiently.
This is particularly important at a time in Canada when Canada needs to significantly increase its housing supply. Build Canada Homes is helping build the capacity needed to meet that challenge. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof.
It would work alongside non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government to help move projects from concept to construction and to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing. It would also work in close partnership with developers, investors, manufacturers and housing providers 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 to a range of households across the income spectrum. These partnerships are about building capacity, supporting innovation and creating the conditions for more homes to be built across Canada, which is what makes the legislation before us today so important.
By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, Bill C-20 would provide the agency with the operational autonomy and governance structure needed to pursue its mission more effectively. It would also provide Build Canada Homes with the flexibility needed to hold assets, make investments and make long-term decisions that support the delivery of affordable housing. Together, these tools would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate and build more homes for Canadians. These are exactly the kinds of tools needed to increase housing supply and accelerate construction across the country.
Partnerships with provinces and territories are central to the success of Build Canada Homes. Whether through land financing, housing expertise or construction-ready projects, provinces and territories play a critical role in increasing housing supply and helping more homes get built.
Allow me to use my home province of British Columbia as an example. Build Canada Homes and BC Housing have partnered to deliver at least 1,100 homes, including supportive, transitional and affordable rental housing. This partnership will make use of standardized designs, Canadian-made prefabricated components and modern methods of construction to reduce costs, improve quality, shorten construction timelines and help increase housing construction at scale. These approaches demonstrate how innovation can play a critical role in addressing Canada's housing shortage.
This is only the first phase of a broader commitment between Canada and British Columbia. By aligning federal investment with construction-ready projects, Build Canada Homes is helping move projects from plans to shovels in the ground, while laying the foundation for thousands more homes in future phases. This is exactly the type of collaboration Build Canada Homes was created to support. It demonstrates how governments can work together to increase housing supply while helping to modernize the homebuilding sector.
Importantly, it also demonstrates the potential of Build Canada Homes as a national institution. In just a few short months, it has advanced projects and partnerships representing thousands of homes across the country. Bill C‑20 is about turning that early momentum into sustained long-term results. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, we would be strengthening its ability to support more projects, deepen partnerships and help deliver more homes for Canadians.
However, that is not all. In addition to helping build more houses, Build Canada Homes is also helping build a stronger Canadian economy. By prioritizing projects and partnerships that invest in sustainable Canadian materials, strengthen Canadian supply chains and create good jobs through the homebuilding process, Build Canada Homes is helping advance the federal government's buy Canadian strategy. This means Canadian lumber, Canadian building materials, Canadian manufacturing and Canadian construction expertise.
Across the board, Build Canada Homes is helping ensure that public investments create economic benefits here at home. In a changing global economy, strengthening domestic capacity matters. Build Canada Homes is helping increase housing supply while supporting Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian innovation. The partnerships and projects already under way demonstrate what Build Canada Homes can achieve. Bill C‑20 is about scaling up what is already working. It is about building the partnerships, capacity and innovative construction approaches needed to deliver more homes for Canadians in the years ahead.
By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, the legislation would provide the governance, flexibility and financial capacity needed to build on that progress and to deliver on its mandate at a greater scale. It would allow Build Canada Homes to hold assets, make investments, deploy innovative financial tools and pursue long-term opportunities more effectively, while maintaining a clear accountability framework to Parliament and Canadians.
At a time when Canadians need more homes built more quickly and more affordably, Bill C‑20 would help ensure that Build Canada Homes has the tools it needs to deliver. I urge all members opposite to support it.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, could the member who just delivered his speech explain to me and to the House why we need a third federal Crown corporation to do what he described it would do? Why can CMHC or Canada Lands Company not do these things?
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a Crown corporation that would take a lot of federal lands, provincial lands and municipal lands and build quickly and efficiently. It would actually hold, in a lot of cases, those assets in the Crown corporation, and the revenue from that would hopefully help build more homes going forward. It would also help expedite a lot of the process.
I think it is much needed. Canada has tried many other things, and I think this is a time when more homes are needed more quickly. We need an agency like this that has the agility, the financial firepower and the power behind it to build these homes much more quickly.
Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, municipalities and community organizations are asking us for more tools to help them build affordable housing. Can my colleague explain how to create this new Crown corporation to meet those needs?
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I apologize for not being able to answer in French.
I think it gives, first, the financial tools. There is $13 billion seeded in it, so it has a lot of financial capability. It has the necessary vehicles, whether that is using CMHC or its own funding, the new building code with pre-approved designs, and encouraging modular design and working with modular providers. These are the types of tools that give it the assets and capabilities to move much more quickly and much more efficiently, and also to innovate in the industry in a time when sometimes the private sector is a little hesitant to do that. That is the ability it has, and as a Crown corporation, it would have more power than a special body.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price.
For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing.
What does my colleague have to say about that?
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The affordability measurement is, I think, 30% of pre-tax income of a household, as a means of affordability. That is the test case, so it varies, obviously.
In areas where perhaps housing costs are lower, there might be less of a need for Build Canada Homes, but I think that in most cases, Canadians are feeling the pinch in having to pay a lot more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing. The goal is to build the type of housing for which people do not have to pay more than 30% of their household income.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Mike Moffatt, who is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the housing crisis. He comments on the program, saying, “Canada has a substantial shortage of three-bedroom and larger homes, and the need for our cities to densify, [but this program's] prioritization of small, low-rise homes is a peculiar choice.”
Why is the government making a peculiar choice to help build the wrong type of houses, not what Canadians are looking for?
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with that. When Build Canada Homes makes its judgments, including for the 1,100 homes that are being built in British Columbia, it uses a varied metric of all types of housing, such as three-bedroom units in these buildings, two-bedroom, one-bedroom and accessible units. It is designed and built for a mosaic of the families that need them. If that needs to be adjusted, I would welcome the Conservatives' comments at committee to make sure that Build Canada Homes does that.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. As we are here to discuss third reading of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, I have been sort of reflecting a bit. Of course, I have spoken on this issue a few times. I have spoken on housing many times in the House of Commons, in committee and certainly around the country. I guess it is no secret that I spent most of my adult life in local government, in municipal politics. I have sat in municipal council chambers and planning committee meetings, and I have also worked with a lot of local builders and understand the process they have to go through to get things approved.
During my time as a mayor, I devoted an awful lot of time trying to speed up processes, and when things got stalled about 10 years ago, I was part of the charge at our district council to cut development charges by 50%. We were thinking ahead back then. Now, of course, here we are still talking about the development charges in this country. I guess if there is one thing I would regret from my time there, it is that I did not change the systems well enough. I worked within them to keep things moving, but after I left, things slowed down again a bit, I think. It would have been good if I had done things to change the process.
If we fast-forward, we are now here in this place. I thought that, in a time of crisis, this place might work in such a way that we would see what the problems that created the crisis were and that we would work together to find a way to clear the bottlenecks that make it harder and more expensive to build homes.
However, if we look at Bill C-20 today, I have to say I find my patience is a little worn. We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is actively compounding. It is getting worse every single month for young families and young professionals. Interestingly enough, I think it is also getting worse for seniors. We probably do not talk enough about seniors and how the housing crisis affects them. If people cannot afford to buy, that means they cannot afford to get into the market, which means the market is not healthy. This means, for the people who were planning to use the equity built up in their home to help fund their retirement, if they cannot afford to sell, they are kind of trapped there. We need movement in this system. This is something that affects all generations, not just young people, but that is mostly who we talk about.
After all the debates and the discussion in this place, it is really frustrating that the government's response to this crisis of bureaucracy, pace, process and fees is the creation of a brand new, multi-billion-dollar federal bureaucracy called the Build Canada Homes corporation. For the record, I just want to make sure all Canadians know that I am not talking about a new agency. I am talking about the fourth federal housing agency. We are all familiar with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the work it does. It was created right after the Second World War, and it did miraculous things by getting things out of the way and just getting things built. We solved that housing crisis then in about 10 years. We also have, of course, the Canada Lands Company, which was created and actually does development. It uses federal lands to develop. I hear the members opposite talking about how this Build Canada Homes agency is going to build on federal lands, even though there already is one doing that.
We are at a point of real crisis in our country on the housing file. I think people maybe thought that, when they elected this new Prime Minister, there was going to be some kind of shift from the past. They were promised this technocratic competence, a sort of practical delivery. We were told that we were going to get this economic mastermind. He has been the governor of a couple of banks, such as the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We thought we were going to get this leader who would move past the superficial politics of the past and bring this cold, hard managerial excellence to federal operations.
Instead, though, it has actually been a bit of a disappointment, a bit of an illusion, I would say. What we see now is the style over substance that we had with the previous government. I can give examples. The first one would be that, like clockwork, on Monday mornings, the Prime Minister puts on a nice, new, clean hard hat, puts on a fancy, brand new, high-visibility vest, and he goes out into the suburbs of Ottawa and stands in front of a housing construction project for a nice photo op.
I have to say that the Prime Minister looks like he is straight out of central casting. He looks really good in that get-up. It looks really exciting, because the image says that the Liberals are getting things done, that they are building. The staging is really immaculate. If members have not seen it, I encourage them to take a look. It is really good stuff. He holds these press conferences, but the interesting thing about press conferences, photo ops, talking points and bureaucracy is that they do not get homes built. They do not pour concrete. As it turns out, posing with a golden shovel does not get a roof over a family's head.
The hard truth is that, while the Prime Minister is out there modelling safety gear for his communications team, actual housing starts in this country, which we are studying at the human resources committee, are declining. They are declining at a time when the first federal housing Crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does more research than anybody else on housing in this country, has reported that Canada needs to build between 430,000 and 480,000 homes per year just to reach affordability for all homes. We cannot even build 250,000 homes a year, and starts are declining. It is getting worse. This is what I find so incredibly frustrating. I think Canadians find it incredibly frustrating as well.
At committee we looked at the actual structural design of this bill and this agency. We asked housing experts to come and tell us what they thought, and they exposed the reality. Do not get me wrong. We brought in some of the sharpest minds on this. There were builders and experts. Dr. Mike Moffatt was mentioned, who is a well-known expert on this file. Of course, everyone is very polite at committee, because that is what we do. We are polite. However, when we strip away all the polite language and the niceties at committee, their collective verdict was actually kind of devastating. Maybe the Liberal members did not hear this, but I heard over and again that if it were up to them, they would never have created this fourth federal housing agency.
As it turns out, Canada does not suffer from a shortage of housing agencies. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have the Canada Lands Company, which develops on federal land. At the very time that Canada needs less government bureaucracy, costs, processes and painful work to get permission to build a house in this country, the government has responded with more bureaucracy. We saw the limits of this approach even with the launch of this thing. Everyone remembers, I am sure, when the Liberals proudly announcing the first six projects that were going to be done under the Build Canada Homes banner on federal lands. It was very exciting. It was evidence that they were hitting the ground running. Even before they turned it into a Crown corporation, it was an agency of the government. There were six new projects. It was so exciting. There was great fanfare. As it turns out, there were really good photo ops and staging. I will tell members that they really looked good. However, the truth is that those six projects they announced were already well under way by the second federal Crown corporation called the Canada Lands Company. It already had the land. It had already done a lot of the planning. Some of the units had already been built on some of these sites. They were presented as this proof that Build Canada Homes was going to develop faster on federal lands. Build Canada Homes did none of those things. What it did was adopt projects that were already years in the making and already well under way.
If the Liberals slap a new corporate logo on the side of a train that has left a station and is moving down the track and then claim they built the engine, that is ridiculous. It is rebranding. They have rebranded the Canada Lands Company projects and called them Build Canada Homes projects. We are supposed to celebrate that because apparently it is building more homes, when really all they have done is slapped a new logo on it.
If the Prime Minister really wanted to accelerate federal land development, he could expand the existing mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is an agency that has broad legislative authority. In 2017, it was handed the bulk of the government's national housing strategy to deliver programs. It was not really used to delivering direct programs anymore, but it scaled up and got things going, and for years delivered on these various different programs.
However, instead of expanding the mandate or giving new directions to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which is already actively doing development, the Prime Minister has created a whole new parallel executive suite with new corporate rules.
It has been a year. The Liberal government has built no homes, yet here we are celebrating. Not only have we created a new agency, but now we are going to jam through a piece of legislation that turns that new agency into a federal Crown corporation, as I pointed out, the third federal Crown corporation. I still do not know why we are celebrating that. The truth is the failure goes even deeper than just the administrative burden of this new thing. Experts like Mike Moffatt told the HUMA committee that they would not have done this either. At the same time, one of the problems with what the government has created is that there is a staggering lack of any concrete targets, clear definitions or binding timelines.
Everybody should think about this for a second. This is a brand new fourth federal housing agency, the third new federal Crown corporation for housing. It has been given $13 billion and there are zero targets for how many units it is supposed to get done. The government says it is going to focus on non-market housing. I asked CMHC about this just the other day. It is the leading researcher on housing. CMHC told us how many units we need to get built in this country. It pointed out that 95% of housing in this country is market housing and 5% is non-market housing.
I asked CMHC about this. It is interesting. It does not seem to have any targets. I asked whether the government had had a conversation with CMHC or its research department about maybe what their targets should be. The president and CEO of CMHC said they had not had those discussions. I asked if CMHC had done any research to send the government some targets. I realize it has taken employees from CMHC, so now maybe CMHC does different things, but it still does research. Maybe it could advise on how many non-market housing units the country actually needs. It has not done that.
Of course, I asked the minister here, just moments ago, whether he had talked to CMHC and its research department about whether it had done any analysis of just how many units needed to be built.
Interestingly enough, the CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a comment about how he did not know what their target would be, but that they had a certain amount of money. I said, “Wait a second, this is just based on how much money they have. Shouldn't this be based on the need for non-market housing?” Colleagues may be surprised, but I did not really get an answer to that question because, of course, it is Build Canada Homes. It is the Prime Minister's baby. Everyone is very excited about it and we do not ask too many questions, even though we have a situation today where a housing crisis has been getting worse. The government's response is to create a fourth federal housing agency and give it $13 billion.
The minister stood here and said the goal is to get as many homes built as possible. Well, I do not find that very promising for Canadians, who are desperately hoping that one day maybe they might own a house. I look at all these pages down here. They are nice, bright, young people who may want to own a house one day. I worry about that.
All we get from the government is more platitudes and more billions of dollars, with no targets. How do we measure success if the government has no goals and sets no targets? It is classic. There is that vast research department there that has advised every agency, the industry, the banks and the government on housing data. The government does not want to talk to CMHC. It is not interested in that. It is not interested in setting targets.
In fact, the minister referred to a target for the Build Canada Homes corporation. He said it was just a random number. He did not like that. We got nothing. Obviously, he does not respect the work of CMHC and the research it does. I was talking about using those experts, who have done more analysis on the housing market in Canada than anybody, to help them come up with a number. Right now, we have this new agency. We are rushing through this bill because it needs to be a Crown corporation, because somehow that is going to make it better.
I have talked to private and non-profit builders across Canada who already have applications in to this Build Canada Homes apparatus. Interestingly enough, with CMHC, when they had this program, there was an apparatus where builders could follow their application online and see how they were doing. They could reach out to get information about the status of their application. Curiously, there is no such thing with Build Canada Homes, so builders are sitting there waiting and wondering what the status of their file is.
They do not know, really, what criteria will be used to adjudicate their file. They do not really know when a decision will be made. There is no way to track the progress. I have to say, as a former mayor who has dealt with this on the front lines, that this uncertainty, this lack of transparency, is a killer. It is a killer of housing development. That investment requires some level of certainty. When a builder does not know where their application stands in the process, capital sits idle. Land loans accumulate interest, because one has to borrow money for the land. Subcontractors cannot be booked.
By building an agency with no timelines, no targets and no tracking framework, the government has not just created yet another bureaucracy at a time when we need to reduce bureaucracy; it has actually fixed in place this paralysis by process. It has institutionalized the bureaucracy, and we just do not know when this process is going to be done.
Homes are built by builders, not by boards and certainly not by prime ministers and photo ops. The housing experts who came to our HUMA committee made it very clear that they would not have built this agency. The tools were there. They existed, and yet here we are. We have wasted an entire year, as the crisis gets worse, adding a fourth federal layer of bureaucracy and administration. It does not solve a crisis that is rooted in regulatory delays.
If we do not fix time, we do not fix costs. Bill C‑20 does not fix time. It simply creates an unaccountable gatekeeper and makes builders wait in the dark. I call it the illusion of competence. We do not need a government that acts like a public relations firm. We need a government that focuses on the quiet, very unglamorous work of clearing the path, eliminating regulatory friction and restoring basic administrative competence. We need to get out of the way of builders and stop subsidizing the bureaucracy.
If we stopped subsidizing and creating new agencies and new bureaucracies with billions of dollars, maybe then we would have the resources left over to invest in those important social and supportive housing needs that exist in our country. Maybe if we spent some time talking to the researchers, to get real data on what is needed in this country in terms of the number of social, supportive and non-market housing units, we could create some targets. We could have given the CMHC the tools it needed to make sure that this was happening.
Instead, we spent one year creating another bureaucracy, and here we are. The crisis is worse than ever, and the minister has the gall to stand in the House and say that the goal is to get as many built as possible. Liberals say not to worry and to just trust them, because it has only been 11 years and they have created strategies. They have another strategy they want to create for housing for young people specifically.
Canadians cannot live on strategies and proclamations and photo ops alone. They need homes. They need governments to stop getting in the way and to reduce the bureaucracy, the cost, the fees and the taxes.
This was an opportunity for the government. I thought that maybe this was a Prime Minister who understood the file and understood the issue, that we need to use federal dollars and leverage federal infrastructure investment to get results at the local level, working with provinces and working with cities to get the job done, and to get out of the way. There is absolutely none of that. All we have now is a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with $13 billion, and anyone's guess is as good as mine as to how many units are going to get built. It is a huge disappointment. It is the illusion of action, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he was a mayor before being an MP. There was a program that was very helpful for municipalities. It was the housing accelerator fund, just like the Build Canada Homes program. This is what their leader was telling them. This article says, “Conservative MPs frustrated after [their leader] bars them from promoting housing fund”. The Conservative leader “instructed Conservative MPs to stop advocating on behalf of municipalities in their ridings who want to obtain funds [for housing].”
The member said that he was a mayor. Was he one of the members who were told not to send a letter of support for a housing project in his municipality?
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference between that member and me is that I recognize the importance of getting things done. Conservatives have proposed all along that we use federal dollars as leverage to make sure that municipalities are getting the job done. I will acknowledge that, in reality, the housing accelerator fund has been useful in some small and rural communities that are already doing really good things. However, in larger centres, where the epicentre of the crisis is, like the GTA and Toronto or the Lower Mainland and Vancouver, in those areas, they have used that money and they have given billions of dollars to cities on promises that they will be better. It has been a failure. It has been another classic Liberal situation where they give a whole bunch of money to cities, have a photo op and pretend that homes get built. It did not work.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs.
What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is a crisis, in many ways created by the current government. It has been building for years, I grant the Liberals that, but their solutions are, in fact, what the member said: They are building new bureaucracies, creating new agencies, and they give money out based on promises from cities that they will be better. As a case in point, the City of Toronto got the most money of anyone in the housing accelerator fund, $471 million. The Liberals gave it the money and made the deal, and then the City of Toronto, immediately after the ink was dry on that deal, raised its development charges by 40%.
Do the Liberals not understand that rising costs make it less affordable and harder to buy a home? They did not get it, and they still do not get it. They are creating more bureaucracy. They are handing money with photo ops, and it is not getting the job done. They are completely ignoring that they are now a big part of the problem.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”.
CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague always has incredibly insightful questions. That is a very good point.
In fact, what has happened with respect to development charges is that the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges, but not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program. A local municipality can say, “Yes, we are good; we like our development charges at $100,000 a lot”, and that means nothing happens. Those development charges stay high and no results happen. It is all based on whether the municipality agrees to reduce its development charges.
Conversely, the Conservative plan would be to leverage municipalities to reduce their fees, and to assist them, absolutely, with the costs of housing-enabling infrastructure, but it would be based on results, not on hopes of things getting better.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Trois-Rivières Québec
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on Bill C‑20 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He asked good questions. We really felt that he truly wanted to understand.
After listening to him today, however, I have to wonder whether we were on the same committee or heard from the same witnesses.
I find the premise of the member's speech a bit disingenuous. We heard the committee witnesses, including promoters and developers, talk about how BCH would help, because increasing the number of affordable homes would ease the pressure on the market. We heard, including from the head of CMHC, about how BCH and CMHC are collaborating and how their work is complementary. Most important, the CMHC CEO said that while CMHC does have the legislative mandate to do some of the work that BCH will be doing, it is not set up for it. It would take it quite some time to ramp up to get to that point. I am just wondering if my colleague can really stand here today and say that none of these things were heard at committee.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am a big fan of that member. We have done some great work together. However, I think she has been afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear.
There is no question that builders and developers said they would use Build Canada Homes and work with it, that they have to work with the cards they are dealt by this federal government and they are going to work with them. They also said they would not have created this agency if it were up to them. They did say those words. The fact is that all the member heard was that they love Build Canada Homes, they want to work with it and they want to do these things.
I also heard the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do. The interesting thing about this is that, in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy, the CMHC was not set up to deliver that either, but it scaled up and did it. This is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan. They gave the housing project to CMHC in 2017, which scaled up, but now all of a sudden it is incapable of scaling up to deliver this stuff. I do not know why we have a fourth federal housing bureaucracy.
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned taxes and costs from the government. The member has already spoken about that. The government has other tools. Instead of setting up a bureaucracy to spend and waste money, the government could be doing other things. One of the things that I would like the member's comments on is building codes. It has been estimated that the latest round of building codes created by the government agencies will potentially add $115,000 to the cost of an average house in Canada.
I wonder if maybe changing the building codes or keeping in mind the cost of things that are happening in the building codes might be an even easier, simpler way to reduce the cost of housing in our country.
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is another incredibly insightful question from my colleague. He happens to be a builder, and he knows what he is talking about. He has actually built homes, and he understands these changes and what they have done.
The real problem with the building codes process federally is, of course, the process itself. There is a whole process that they go through where they make recommendations to make changes to the code. Then provinces may or may not adopt that. The interesting thing about these code review bodies is that they are populated, mostly, not by electricians or plumbers or carpenters, but by lobbyists and salespeople for the people who manufacture these products. In fact, they do not ever consider what the cost implications are of the changes they are making.
The Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that over the last 10 years, changes made to the building codes have added over $100,000 to the cost of a home. Not all of those things are common-sense, energy efficiency-type things. They have just added more cost, and there has been no consideration by the national building codes or the National Research Council of what that means for the cost of a new home.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, giving a farewell speech in Parliament feels a little like delivering a eulogy at one's own funeral, so if I leave members with anything, let it be my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve and to make a difference, and the unending importance of doing politics differently.
Politics is like pushing a boulder up a hill. All of us feel that at times, I think. It is rewarding and frustrating. It is meaningful progress in one moment and unfinished work at the same time. There are three things that I think matter as we are pushing that boulder uphill. Sometimes it rolls back down on us, obviously, and sometimes we get it to the top or think we have gotten it to the top. We need ambition, and I do not mean ambition in personal title; I mean ambition in ideas. We also need a team. No one accomplishes anything alone, and I would not have accomplished anything over the years without my team.
There is a quote I am reminded of. It says that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, and “Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” I think that in politics, one needs almost unreasonable persistence at times. It does sometimes pay off. I have been lucky to be a part of efforts to deliver progress at times.
There has been stronger climate action and accountability, for my kids and hopefully for our economy, and action to reduce poverty. There have been, with the Canada child benefit, hundreds of kids lifted out of poverty. The guaranteed income supplement is incredibly important for seniors. The Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit, has increased in a significant way, and tens of thousands of workers have been lifted out of poverty. I am lucky to have been part of that advocacy. There is also a new disability benefit that needs to be improved and strengthened, of course.
When I look back over 10 years, this is part of the work we have been able to do together. If we have the courage to reform old age security, we could actually end seniors' poverty without spending a single dollar. I hope future Parliaments get that done.
There has been action to defend competition and protect consumers. Of the many things I have been proud of, one is that CEOs of oligopolies do not like to come to committee when I am there, whether they are CEOs from Rogers, Bell, Stellantis, Facebook, Apple, Google or grocery oligopolies.
There is a story here, because it is incredibly important to work together, where we can, across party lines at committee. I am turning 42 years old next week, but on my birthday a number of years ago, I was so incredibly furious because grocery store CEOs had all been communicating with one another to cut pandemic hero pay at the same time for low-income workers. I tapped out a motion on my phone. We brought the industry committee together, brought the grocery store CEOs to that committee and worked across party lines to deliver recommendations that the government acted on to make sure we criminalized wage-fixing so that what took place cannot take place again.
We have built more housing. I have been part of those efforts and part of advocating. We have gotten to a place where, across party lines, we all understand the need to end restrictive zoning and to get out of the way so the private market can deliver. I think more work still needs to be done to deliver non-market housing and to really and truly treat housing as a home first.
There has been action to protect animals: to end the captivity of whales and dolphins; to ban shark finning and testing on animals, especially cosmetic testing; and to strengthen the Criminal Code against animal abuse. If someone had told me before I was elected that I would be at a press conference beside Jane Goodall and Murray Sinclair, advocating for treating animals humanely, I would not have believed them.
We are treating addiction as a health issue and Canadians as responsible adults. For example, we have legalized cannabis. No, the sky did not fall, and now I am no longer a criminal. Overwhelmingly, we still need to follow through on following the evidence to save lives and truly treat substance use as the health issue that it is, the same way we treat eating disorders, gambling addictions or alcohol addictions.
I have been there for my community. All of us who have served through and since the pandemic have had the frustration and the exhaustion, but also the good fortune, to be there for our communities, delivering for thousands of people and making sure that they are able to access benefits and supports in the most critical time and moments of their life.
I have also been there for my community in probably its most difficult time over 10 years: I was there with the Danforth families, including the Fallon family in the wake of the Danforth shooting. Then I was part of efforts supporting those same families and advocating for sensible gun control.
I can point to my standing up for constituents. I consider myself a pretty good advocate, but an expert in nothing. Constituents who are experts in something or have lived experience have come to me with ideas. I can point to a range of examples, but I would hold up childhood cancer survivor Helena Kirk. I worked hand in hand with her and other advocates, and we were able to deliver tens of millions of dollars for pediatric cancer research and support.
We have been defending human rights and civil liberties, and dying with dignity, of course. Being elected, we were dealing with that issue for the very first time. One of the first moments when I disagreed with the government was to say that I did not think this law was constitutional and that we should fix it. On the Emergencies Act, there was calling out its invocation in an overbroad manner. There was fixing overbroad anti-terrorism legislation from a past Conservative government, and defending international human rights in, hopefully, a consistent way and with a sense of conscience for Rohingya refugees, Uyghurs, Hong Kong democracy activists, Palestinians and others.
To make politics about ideas, in the pandemic, we transitioned from hosting regular town halls to hosting a podcast. I have been lucky to have many colleagues in this place join me for conversations across the aisle to really make politics about ideas. When I think back, it was a promise I made when I was running in the nomination in 2013 and 2014.
I leave with, yes, a sense of accomplishment in some ways but also a sense of unfinished business. I do hope that future Parliaments will take wealth inequality and generational fairness more seriously. I hope they take action to ensure that, in a wealthy country like ours, people will not live in poverty, and all people will live with a core sense of dignity.
I hope there is transformational action to deliver competition. We are a country of oligopolies, but we should not be. I hope that we do see a wartime effort to build housing, transit and clean energy infrastructure, and that we take international peace assistance and co-operation more seriously. We could use more Pearson in this moment.
We all know that this is a job that comes with little job description. It is what we put into it. It is what we make it. I have had some roles, not an unending number, over the years. On the anti-poverty caucus, I had the co-chair role alongside Senator Pate where we advocated for basic income supports and strengthening the social safety net. There was the animal welfare caucus, which I helped found with other Liberal colleagues. I was the 416 caucus chair, and we helped deliver transit and housing for our city. I was chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the team on the Canadian side.
I was also minister of housing, where I was lucky to deliver, for colleagues on all sides of the aisle, housing and building housing faster. It was one of the busiest times of my life, and my wife can attest to this. It was four months, although I will say that I did serve under two prime ministers.
The role I have lived the most, the one I have worked hardest to make a reality, is simply to be a principled voice in Parliament, one who takes ideas seriously, is willing to work across the aisle, acts with integrity, and more than anything, is honest, which is the most important value in this place.
I wrote this a while back, and I believe it to be true. I think we can all agree that no political party represents our views perfectly. We find the party that best represents our views and values, and we engage, debate, and organize to bring our party and country closer to those goals. We push, and in my case, I have seen my role as being to push the government to be the best version of itself. Yes, we disagreed at times but made that disagreement about ideas, and more often than not, with the benefit of time and persistence, there was change.
I will comment on the importance of independence. I was just telling my wife this. In the leadership race in 2023 for the Ontario Liberal leadership, I was in Norfolk County at an event. A woman rolled up in front of the café that I was about to go into for the event. She had all the “F Trudeau” stickers one can imagine. Her pickup truck was decked out. I went in to the event and saw that she had a thick binder of articles about me. I was not really sure how it would end.
I gave my speech, including the ideas I cared about but also the approach to politics I cared about. Afterwards, as I was working table to table, I came to her table. She quickly shut the binder and said, “You know what? I really appreciate what you said about independence. We need more of that in politics.” It strikes me that, when we take a step back, not only do we agree on more than we disagree on, but overwhelmingly across the aisle, we do care about the same approach to politics when we step outside of this place.
When I was first running in the nomination, a 29-year-old who had no idea what I was doing, a friend of mine from law school gave me a book entitled Tragedy in the Commons. I do not know if members have read it, but it is a series of exit interviews from former parliamentarians. They all basically say the same thing. It is a series of laments. They said things such as that when they came to Ottawa, they wanted to make the biggest difference they could on behalf of their community, but when they arrived, they read the canned talking points they were given to read, delivered the prewritten speeches given to them by staffers to deliver and voted how they were told to vote. They did not make the difference they had set out to make.
When I was elected, I was determined to not give an exit interview like that. In the back of my mind, I always kept this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: “We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be.” I actually happen to think it is doubly true in politics. This is my last speech, but when I go back to my first speech, and to judge at the end, one might want to go back to the start, I said at the time that I would stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness and the importance of reasonable disagreement.
If I leave members with anything, it is this message: We should all act how we want this place to be. We need more ideas, more independent thinking and more honesty. Honesty is central to trust, and trust is at the heart of our representative democracy. Amidst the centralization, the pressure and the whips, we should act how we want the House to be.
Yes, I can hear the common reply to this: “But isn't politics a team sport?” First, I would say that we are first and foremost trustees in the public interest, even if it means, yes, the occasional visit to the whip's office. We all win elections as a team, but we should remember why we win elections. We win elections to serve ideas. We do not come up with ideas to serve elections.
The second thing to say is that we are also voices for our home communities, and those home communities are our team too. When I go back to my local grocery store and I see a friend from high school, they are my team. When I go back home and I see the volunteer who knocked doors with me in the snow in 2015, they are my team too.
I just want to say, yes, I have been a very proud member of the Liberal caucus since 2015. I have been more proud to be the representative for Beaches—East York. I want to thank Beaches—East York and everyone back home. I want to thank supporters for everything. I mostly just want to thank Amy and my family, mostly for putting up with me but also for standing beside me.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I am going to suggest that we take all the questions and comments first and then provide the hon. member with an opportunity to respond to them all at once.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, in tribute to my colleague, I will share with folks a couple of lessons I have learned in my time. The first is that the power and responsibility granted to a member of Parliament from the centre of a political party are never greater than the power and responsibility granted by our constituents, and the first and foremost role of an MP is to hold the government to account. On that point, I have watched our colleague do that even while sitting in the governing party's caucus, and that takes a spine.
Our colleague has introduced bold private member's legislation that started national conversations and that pushed his party in Parliament to take clear positions on critical issues. Parliament works only when each of us remembers who sent us here. In that, Parliament needs much more envelope pushing and much less quiet complacency. My hope, as our colleague takes his leave of the House, is that the spirit he demonstrated over his decade of service here takes root, with a caveat.
Here is one other lesson I have learned in Parliament. In order to get anything done for our constituents, we have to build consensus. Oftentimes in Parliament, lesson number one and lesson number two are in direct conflict with each other. How do we advance a policy on behalf of our constituency if our party does not want to embrace it, and how do we convince colleagues that our solution or our leadership is in their best interest?
The answer to all these questions is humility, patience, persistence and self-discipline. Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague. I know that my colleague has always had his heart with the people who elected him, and as he leaves the House, colleague to colleague, I wish him this blessing: continuing the journey to find balance with those lessons, which admittedly is something I have to remind myself to fixate on every day.
I also want to thank him for taking risks, pushing himself and earning the right to say that he has walked that path, which frankly few people in this place actually do. In his future endeavours, may he be known as a consensus-building maverick. For that matter, for the sake of our nation, I wish that for all of us.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is sad for me to have to say this to my colleague from Beaches—East York, whom I knew and particularly appreciated at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for several years.
First, if his wife is in the gallery, I would like to take the liberty of telling her that she and my colleague have a lovely kitchen, which we have had the pleasure of seeing many times in committee, and that they also have very beautiful children.
What I will take away from my colleague is his spirit of independence. Independence obviously resonates with me very much. That is one of my motivations for being in politics. I actually wanted to ask him about that, and he talked about it in his speech. Indeed, for me, and just like the member for Calgary Nose Hill or the former NDP member for Windsor West, when we were on the Standing Committee on Industry, we knew that we had truly independent members.
As for my colleague's legacy in the House, I would like to ask him the following question: If we were to create the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith index to measure MPs' degree of independence from their party line, how would that index look right now?
I want to thank Nate, and I hope to see him again soon.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to say a couple of kind words about my good friend from Beaches—East York.
I will start by saying that it is disappointing. In the last few weeks, this is the third progressive member of Parliament from the government caucus who is leaving this place, especially at a time when we need progressive politics.
I cannot think of another member of Parliament in the history of this country who has fought and worked more to end animal cruelty and stand up for animal rights. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and we all know we have to carry that work forward. We will take his crusade with us.
My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about courage, and I really want to emphasize that. He stood with the NDP well before the supply and confidence agreement on pharmacare. I am disappointed that he does not get to see it exercised in his home province. I hope the government will take that to heart. He stood with my bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to tackle the toxic drug crisis. He was an outlier in his caucus and he stood with us to make sure that we had a plan to respond to the toxic drug crisis. I want to thank him for his support.
I want to highlight one thing, which is his job as a minister. He took it to heart when we asked for support for a pool upgrade in my riding. He understood the need for seniors to have a safe place to exercise and how it was community medicine. He constantly texted me, emailed me, phoned me and checked on the project. He worked so diligently. I was so taken aback by his persistence to try to get something done. It resulted in the single largest federal government investment in mid-Vancouver Island for a recreation facility. My community is grateful.
I hope he will visit my community so that we can celebrate the incredible work he put into our project. I want to thank him for his work and courage, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about my colleague from Beaches—East York.
I come to this place as a relatively new MP, but I had the privilege of collaborating with the member in my former life, leading a think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University. I greatly appreciated that we had the chance to engage on a number of the ideas he mentioned in his speech, particularly competition policy and responsible technology.
What I especially appreciate about our departing colleague is his ability and commitment to attach thoughtful policy to committed politics. Our colleague is a person of ideas and he is deeply committed to the underlying change that can happen with more attention to those issues.
We collaborated for a brief time on the industry committee. In fact, we had an exchange at the industry committee yesterday with a representative of one of those mega-platforms, which I think summoned the spirit of our departing member for Beaches—East York. In that time, I had the chance to understand his commitment to deep engagement on the issues and why and how it matters to get the details right, to get deep into the weeds of an issue, to call those involved in that issue to account and to be responsible, and to engage more broadly in how these big systems that are so removed from people, on the face of them, actually touch our constituents in all kinds of ways. These issues include affordability, protection online or those precious creatures that do not have their own voices in this place.
I deeply appreciate my colleague's commitment to bringing those system-level issues and questions and bringing them down to our constituents, not only in his riding but on behalf of those who care about similar issues across Canada. Our colleague represented an area east of the Don River. I represent an area west of the Don River. In the Toronto caucus and in some of the political engagements we had, I learned a lot about the way we can have committed politics and attach them to thoughtful policy.
With that, I wish my colleague the best in his new venture and new adventures. I know this place and our country have been stronger because of his service.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Beaches—East York, I will say, on behalf of this House, we wish him and his family good health and happiness.
The hon. member for Beaches—East York.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, I should not have used that line at the outset. I felt like I was speaking at my own funeral, but now I have just heard other people speak at it.
Where do I start? My wife is a chef, so that is why it is such a lovely kitchen.
I do not mind the label “maverick”. I am a shameless politician who likes getting elected, and that does not hurt, but I have actually always seen myself as being more of a reformer. I am not alone, standing here and giving this speech.
I think about the different issues I have raised over the years. When I first raised privacy issues, we worked collaboratively at committee. It was largely unanimous in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but privacy was not on the government's agenda. It then became government legislation on the government's agenda, like the digital government the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park just spoke about. We were early speaking about it, and now it is more firmly part of the government's agenda, recognizing that we live our lives online and we need laws to respect and realize that reality.
When we look at the working income tax benefit that became the Canada workers benefit, it was a caucus resolution that I put forward, which then became government policy.
I do not want to tell tales out of school, but the former prime minister called me shortly after my second son was born in December 2019. I said, “Prime Minister, thank you so much for the call. I have to be honest. You are not going to love this, but I just won the private member's bill lottery again and I am going to do something on drug policy.” There was a pause on the phone. I said, “We can collaborate. I could go alone and do drug decriminalization, but give me an adviser from your office, an adviser from Health and an adviser from Justice, and we will find consensus and get something done.” We did that and we changed the law, and now we treat substance use more as a health issue than we otherwise did.
I think persistence is right. I think patience is right. I think working collaboratively while maintaining a sense of principled independence is also an important part of the picture.
It has been great working with the members. I look forward to swimming in that pool. They can let me know when it is ready and I will be in Vancouver.
This is the last thing. Everyone has been offering advice. I would tell the leader of the NDP, who is new, to stick to his principles. I would tell the Prime Minister to stick to his values. I would tell the Conservative leader to find his sincere and serious side, and the picture might improve. Otherwise, I thank everyone.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to give my very best to my friend and colleague in his future endeavours, whatever they might be, and I want to acknowledge his family, staff and friends, who I am sure are very sorry to see him go. Others will get a bit more time with a loved one.
Having said that, I want to get right into the discussions and talk about some of the things I heard coming from the Conservative Party today. I often talk about how the Conservatives like to mislead Canadians. Today, again, we are getting a good sample of that.
I believe the Conservative critic for housing is a former mayor. He can correct me if I am wrong. He stood in his place and said, in essence, that municipalities do not require, need or want any sort of assistance in dealing with bureaucracy and reducing the cost of planning. The individual should go and visit some municipalities, and I would really encourage members opposite to do likewise. Some of them have. I can recall a letter campaign that went around among a number of the Conservative MPs, in which they were asking for financial support.
If we take a look at it, the city of Winnipeg has benefited immensely from national policies dealing with housing. I am thinking about the accelerator fund. If we talk to the mayor and the city councillors, we will find that there was wide support for that program, and as a direct result, hundreds of homes have been built. To say, as the Conservative Party consistently does, that the national government should just get out of the way and it does not have a role to play in housing, is misguided at best. Ultimately, it is potentially threatening, if we think about how the Conservatives might ever again take the reins of power, especially the far-right Conservatives we see day in and day out here on the floor of the House of Commons.
Today's Conservative Party would never have supported things like the CMHC, which has been around for generations, provided stability within our mortgage regime and enabled millions of Canadians to acquire the finances that are necessary in order to be a homeowner. I question where the Conservative right and its policies are today. Its members have made it very clear that they do not support Bill C‑20. Imagine my shock. I am not shocked.
I can tell the House that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party is once again making a mistake by not realizing the difference between, let us say, the CMHC and Canada Lands and what we are proposing within the Build Canada Homes legislation.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Arnold Viersen
We know the difference.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, no, they do not really know the difference. At least, they have not demonstrated that they do, because they constantly stand up and ask what the difference is. They do not understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand it, but the Conservative Party does not understand it. At least, the candidates who have stood up obviously do not understand it, because if they did, they would see the value in having this legislation passed. Build Canada Homes has the potential to do a wide variety of things, which the Conservative Party should recognize, given the time. The fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue is that we, the vast majority of Canadians and all provinces and territories, because they participate in the federal programs, recognize that the national government has a role to play in housing. This should be indisputable.
We would think the Conservatives would understand and appreciate it. I am not surprised, because if we take a look at it, when the Leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, he built six houses. I do not know where they are, but apparently he built six homes; not him personally, but apparently, his department. Is that any shock? I do not think so, given what the Conservatives are saying today.
If they were to listen to what their communities are saying and wanted to add value to the housing stock, or if they were to take a look at what this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, said as a part of our election platform to deal with the issues of affordability, which includes housing, they would see results. One year later, housing and rental prices have gone down. We have a government that is aggressively pushing the expansion of our housing market. Meanwhile, we see the Conservatives saying, “Get out of the way.” I do not understand how they believe that affordable housing is going to appear out of nowhere.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
That is a solution.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, no, that is not a solution; it is a dumb idea being promoted by Conservative members.
At the end of the day, a vast majority of Canadians recognize—
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. I believe the member was referring to Conservatives and our ideas and he called us a bad word, an unparliamentary word. I would like him to retract that word.
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
It was not directed at any individual member, and even then, I do not think it would be unparliamentary.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that, while the Conservatives say how much they love freedom and do not want censorship, the member is trying to say that I cannot say the Conservative Party has dumb ideas.
When one really stops and thinks about it, their solution for the housing crisis in Canada is to stand back and do nothing. There are provinces, municipalities, non-profit organizations and stakeholders out there saying that the federal government should do something, which is what Bill C-20 would do.
Through Bill C-20, we would develop a corporation that would support the expansion of Canada's housing industry and our housing stock. For example, we are talking about promoting modular homes; increasing housing co-ops and other forms of non-profit housing; and working with municipalities and provinces to add value and to increase the amount of affordable housing. That is what Bill C-20 is all about.
The Conservatives say, “No, we do not want that.” Why is that? I do not understand it for the life of me. They say that they understand the needs of Canadians, but they do not. They are going to vote against Bill C-20, just like they vote against any idea that comes out of the government to be affordable for Canadians—
Third ReadingBuild Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and share some thoughts on important issues that Canadians have to face, and hopefully give an explanation as to where I am coming from and why it is very important that the Government of Canada continues to push forward on building opportunities to see more people being able to afford homes and ultimately more homes being built here in Canada.
A number of years ago, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, my first responsibility was tied to being the critic for housing and the deputy party whip at the time. It was something that I appreciated being a part of, because it gave me a very good understanding of the housing industry back then. I have never lost interest, and in fact I have had many debates over the years on the issue of housing. When I came to Ottawa, I continued to have discussions and debates on the important issue of housing.
From the very beginning, I have always recognized that the national government does, and should, have a role to play in housing in Canada. This has been an issue for a period of time. The minister made reference earlier, in response to a heckle and comments that were coming from the opposition benches, to the fact that the issue we have before us today is not something that just came out of the blue. What we have is an issue that has been there and has taken more than a generation to get to this point.
There was a time, in the early 1990s, even going into the 1980s, when governments of different political persuasions and levels were talking about the national government withdrawing from housing responsibility. In part, we are realizing why the national government needs to not only be engaged but demonstrate leadership on this critically important file. When we think of housing, it affects all of our communities. Not only does it impact homeowners and future homeowners, but it affects the community. Whether it is about growth or, in some cases, infill housing projects, it could have a very negative impact if the national government is not directly involved.
I have seen that involvement in a very real and tangible way. Let us take a look, for example, at what Habitat for Humanity Canada does in our communities. I represent a riding that has likely benefited the most, or is one of the top five or 10 ridings that have benefited the most, through Habitat for Humanity making housing affordable. In Winnipeg North, I would estimate that well over 100 homes, which is 100 families, have benefited from one incredible non-profit organization, just focused in one federal riding. Everywhere, from the Point Douglas area to Shaughnessy Park, The Maples and into the suburbs, Habitat for Humanity has helped build homes that individuals living in them otherwise would not be able to afford. It has made homes affordable.
Today we have a government that recognizes that and supports Habitat for Humanity. I would hope that this support continues into the future. I think of revitalization programs from the past where governments were working together to establish a pool of money so they could refurbish housing stock, and in some situations, such as the promotion of housing co-ops, see co-ops being built.
Before I was a parliamentarian, I used to be involved in the Weston Residents Housing Cooperative, and we were able to build affordable housing. We very much needed the support of government. At that time, it was the provincial government that provided the support, but today we have not seen much in terms of the expansion of housing co-ops.
However, under this Prime Minister and this administration, the Build Canada Homes act would, once again, provide support for housing co-ops. Housing co-ops play a very important role. Again, looking at Winnipeg North, I think of Willow Park, arguably the oldest and most established housing co-op in Canada, possibly even in North America. That community has benefited because of direct government involvement.
Direct government involvement takes many different forms. I referred to housing co-ops. I can talk about infill housing, directly or indirectly, but I would also suggest non-profit housing built by government. Back in the day, maybe 25 years ago, I would see affordable government-built homes, and tenants living in those homes were paying less than 30% of their annual income, no matter what their annual income was. Affordable homes are built because there are many generational issues at times. Individuals find it difficult for a wide spectrum of reasons and are very dependent on government-built homes.
Many organizations in Winnipeg North, from the Ukrainian community, the German community or the Polish community, have built homes. When I say “homes”, I am referring to apartment blocks. The Canadian Polish Manor has a dozen-plus floors. It is the same with the Canadian German Society Manor that was established. The Ukrainian community has built a few of them. Even though they might not necessarily have the management of them today, or not in all cases, these homes were built, in part, with federal dollars. They provide homes for seniors. Seniors who live in the community and maybe have children who are grown up or a spouse who passed away often want to stay in the community. Often, these buildings that are built by communities and non-profits are there to support and provide that home so seniors can get out of a single detached home and into a different home environment.
There have been all sorts of programs over the years to support affordable housing. There were a number of years when that virtually came to an end because governments at different levels made the decision to withdraw. We saw it, I would argue, during the peak of the Harper era. That is why I referred to the leader of the Conservative Party, when he was minister of housing, and I reflected on the number of non-profit housing units that were actually built when he was responsible for housing. It was fewer than 10. Then we wonder why we have this issue today. It is not something that occurred overnight.
I like that the issue was elevated to the degree that, during the last national election, just over a year ago, Canada's Prime Minister made the decision to be more aggressive in supporting our communities and Canadians by making housing more affordable. That has taken different forms.
We know that the price of housing has actually gone down since the last election. We know that the cost of rentals has actually gone down. We also know that the Prime Minister and the government today have put in place specific actions to look at ways to increase housing, both the stock and, where we can, the housing conditions overall, through different types of programs.
When we take a look at Build Canada Homes, we think of it in the form of an arms-length corporation that is being funded to the tune of $13 billion, which has already been allocated in the 2025 budget. It is going to ensure that there is more affordable housing across our nation from coast to coast to coast. It is showing that the Government of Canada is working collaboratively with the different stakeholders and our provinces to ensure that we can maximize the benefit of housing.
I would be interested in hearing from the Conservative Party today. Is there anyone in the Conservative Party today who believes there is a role for the national government to play on housing? To date, I have heard that, no, there is no role. I would very much appreciate hearing from any Conservative who can stand up and say that, yes, there is a role for the national government.
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Alto high‑speed rail project, which will be completed toward the end of the next decade, 2040, already has 13 vice‑presidents at that agency who are already receiving bonuses, with not an inch of track being laid.
The hon. member described Build Canada Homes as an arm's-length federal agency. How many vice‑presidents will there be, and are they going to be receiving bonuses already?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the question, I guess, to a certain degree. It is completely off‑topic.
However, when we take a look at what is being proposed and what the government is pushing as a major project, working with the Province of Quebec in a collaborative fashion, this is a project that has received support from Progressive Conservatives. It has also received support from Conservatives.
The member will find that, in previous governments, under the Harper regime, there were members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus who actually supported the project and who were in opposition to what today's far-right Conservative Party is saying. The Conservatives are trying to portray something that is not the case. Hopefully, we will hear a lot more on this project in the days to come.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated the insights being provided. I think this is important legislation, and I personally believe the federal government has an important role to play when it comes to housing.
In Waterloo, constituents have really appreciated the federal government stepping up and returning to the housing scene and having different levels of government working together. We have received some substantial investments from the federal government when it comes to increasing the affordable housing supply, a supply that will remain in our community for generations to come, with some of the most historic kinds of projects that we have not been able to dabble in before.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts as to why the Conservatives are taking the approach that the federal government does not have a role to play. Why are they so concerned that the federal government will help Canadians and give them a hand?
In the region of Waterloo, I have been asked by constituents about Conservative members voting against the bill, our legislation and our budget, yet when it comes to housing projects, the Conservatives offer these hollow letters of support for those projects. We know that in the past Conservative members were reprimanded for asking the minister of housing for support for their communities.
Clearly, there are Conservative members who want to see the federal government support housing initiatives in their communities. I would like the member to build upon some of those comments. It is unfortunate that this is not the chorus that the whole Conservative Party is singing, but I am confident there are some Conservative members who are confident that the federal government has a role to play. What are the member's thoughts?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I guess I would break it down into a couple of things. One is the House leadership of the Conservative Party today, which, I would suggest, very much has that get-out-of-the-way, far-right attitude. That is the group that was very critical of the more progressive Conservatives within the caucus. They are much smaller in number but are the ones who really see the value and are the ones who were actually writing letters to the government saying that they supported the project and wanted it.
They were reprimanded. They were told to stop writing support letters for their community. This came from the Conservative House leadership team, or the leadership team as a whole, and many of the members who, I would suggest, are on the far-right scale of thinking that the federal government has absolutely no role to play in regard to housing.
Contrast that with the beginning of the question that my friend from Waterloo posed. She highlighted how important housing is to the city of Waterloo, and she is a consistent advocate for Waterloo, not only on housing but on a wide spectrum of issues. She is advocating for Waterloo and sees the value of working collaboratively, and that is exactly what the federal government is doing, because we understand that the end goal is to increase Canada's housing stock, especially on the affordability front.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the affordability issue did not happen overnight. I actually agree with him, but the key thing is that the issue has expanded for the last 11 years. Yes, that is under the Trudeau Liberal government and now under the current Liberal government.
In my riding, which I am proud to represent, London—Fanshawe, I have gone door to door, connecting with constituents. The key thing is that I have talked to parents whose adult children still live in their house. They get misty-eyed and choked up because they want their children to excel, but the dilemma is that their children cannot afford a house.
The Liberals promised to deliver 500 new homes every year, but according to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 by 2028. What do I tell the parents who love their children but want them to move out? What do I tell them, when they know there are not enough houses being built?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member can indicate the following very clearly, because the numbers and the facts clearly demonstrate it. Just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with incredible credentials on the economy and how it works. There have been positive results on the housing file. Houses have become more affordable; they have dropped in price. Rents overall have dropped in price. The government has been working collaboratively with the different jurisdictions, and the housing stock is in fact increasing. The affordability issue is also being addressed in different ways.
Within a year, our new government and the new Prime Minister have already made a positive difference, and I am optimistic about the future and being able to hit the targets that have been established.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thought that the last exchange was interesting. We just received an example of a Conservative member's wanting more investment in housing and more affordable housing built, recognizing that his constituents need the federal government to play a role, yet rather than working with the government to ensure that we can have more successes for Canadians, the Conservatives would rather slow things down and have Canadians hurting.
I find it fascinating, and we experienced this at committee yesterday as well, that the Conservative Party is going out of its way to almost amplify the hurt of Canadians rather than being part of the solution. That is probably why the Conservative Party remains the professional opposition: It actually does not want to be part of the solution.
Could the parliamentary secretary please expand on the importance of the legislation, the federal government's role and how it would actually help the people like the ones the member for London—Fanshawe has just referred to?
I have to say that I am starting to miss the previous member for London—Fanshawe, because I do believe she would have at least fought hard to ensure that the constituents were fought for, rather than standing in the way and hoping that they hurt. I want Canadians to succeed. I will fight for the people of Waterloo. I would like to hear the member's comments.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, when I think of the residents of London—Fanshawe, much as I do for many different constituencies, I think about how Bill C-20 would make a positive difference. It is not an issue of just blindly following the Conservative leadership, even because they are so wrong on this issue. Build Canada Homes is about looking at different ways we can build, such as modular homes. There are ways we can look at how, by working with the stakeholders, we are going to have more homes being built.
There are the constituents for whom the member wants more homes to be built. The national government is showing compassion and moving in that direction. His very leader is saying to stop. In fact, the member for Waterloo might have gotten him in trouble by signalling that the member is someone who might be somewhat sympathetic to his constituents' needs.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
I am happy to stand today and represent the fine folks of Ponoka—Didsbury. I am happy to report that my leader does not yell at me in caucus meetings and that he listens to all my concerns when I bring them to his attention.
I humbly rise to speak against this piece of government legislation, Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.
The Liberal Prime Minister and his government have been big on their promises over the last year, much like they are big on their bureaucracy, big on their spending and big on creating big-time failures. This piece of legislation is a fraction of the action off the back end of a big promise that guarantees big bureaucracy, big spending and an even bigger deficit.
When elected to a minority government last year, the Prime Minister said he was going to “build, baby, build”, but, oh, baby, he has not built a thing. How did we get here? Well, it was through broken promises and the promotion of failure. Failing upwards is all we are seeing, it seems. The Prime Minister ran an election campaign on a promise to double our homebuilding construction to 500,000 homes a year and to move at speeds not seen in generations. They have not been seen because we cannot see anything moving when nothing is moving. There is nothing to see.
Whom did the Prime Minister hand-pick to help him deliver on this promise to complete the most housing completions in Canadian history? He chose the member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby. Listen to this: When he was the mayor of Vancouver, the member raised development charges by 141%, increased the price of homes by 149%, watched the average rent jump by 50%, and saw homelessness increase by 38%. Wow, talk about failing upwards. Under his watch, Vancouver became one of the most expensive markets in North America. It is not just one of the most expensive markets in North America but one of the most expensive in the world.
The member is whom the Liberal Prime Minister tasked with delivering on this housing crisis, the same minister who said on day one of the job that home prices in this country do not need to come down at all. It is no wonder homes are not being built in this country. Nothing is being built. There is a theme here: no homes, no pipelines, no energy projects and no infrastructure. The Prime Minister cannot get anything built. It has been more than a year since the PM's grand promise to build half a million homes a year, and the result is in: fewer permits, fewer starts and a housing crisis that is rapidly becoming a nightmare.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one of the government's four housing bureaucracies, has declared that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for up to a decade to restore 2019 levels of housing affordability. The Prime Minister promised he would build these half a million homes a year, and he said that a big proponent of this building would be the new Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes.
However, the reports since that promise suggest that Build Canada Homes has the capacity to build only up to about 400,000 homes across six different Canadian cities. This is a mere 1% of the Liberals' original homebuilding promise of 500,000 homes. Where will the other 496,000 come from, if not from this new $11.5-billion agency?
Those six sites across the country are not even new announcements, I will remind everyone. Each and every project is an old project that the Canada Lands Company, one of the government's other housing bureaucracies, was already working on. The government has taken these sites and reintroduced them under a new agency, and it is calling this progress. It is not progress; it is an abject failure. No new homes are being built. It is an expensive photo op, just like the fake construction site the Prime Minister spent $35,000 on last September when he announced this very Build Canada Homes project in Ottawa, a fake solution to a very real Liberal housing crisis.
The CMHC says that housing starts in Canada are projected to drop from 270,000 this year to 212,000 by 2028. National housing starts will drop by 18.1% over the next two years as developers are facing skyrocketing building costs. This is an issue that is compounding. Every day it gets worse, and we simply do not have any more time to waste. A year after the promise of half a million homes a year, there is a catastrophic collapse in the market.
Maybe the Prime Minister's new Major Projects Office that has not approved a major project yet will take this lofty goal on. The problem is delivery. Deliverology is not working for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds never seen before, at a generational speed, but here we are, a year into his term, and we are just now debating Bill C‑20, which has the capacity to build only 1% of the homes the government promised.
The minister said a key component of Build Canada Homes is speeding up housing construction. He is not off to a very good start. It took him nearly a year just to bring legislation to the House, which is still not getting anything done. In recent years, the CMHC's data, which is the government's own data, shows that housing starts are falling in this country, and they will continue to fall nationally this year and next.
The Canadian Real Estate Association says national home prices have increased 2.2% from this time last year. The average home price has increased in every province across Canada. The territories have seen a worse fate. The average home price in the Yukon has increased by over $80,000 from this time last year. The housing crisis is not getting better. It is spiralling out of control. What is the government's solution? It is more bureaucracy, consultants, photo ops and broken promises.
The job of His Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government accountable, promote sound policy and correct the government when it needs correction. One would think the government's job is to listen, but that has not been working. The role of the opposition is integral to the function of Parliament, and it plays an even more important role in the rightful minority Parliament that the Liberals were elected to last year. This job as opposition was given to us by over 8 million voters across the country. Our leader has been clear that we will oppose bad policies and support good ones. This policy is bad policy. It is expensive, it does not deliver any new homes, it pays bureaucrats and consultants and it duplicates the work that several other federal housing agencies already do. It is needless.
When the housing minister took office as the mayor of Vancouver in 2008, the average price of a detached home in the city was $942,000. On his last day in office, that same home price had soared to $1.8 million. This is the same theme we are going to see nationally. Home prices have remained at unattainable values and costs, there are no buyers, sellers or new builds, and there is no market. The Liberals' response is an $11.5‑billion housing agency that may have the potential to build up to 4,000 homes. My hon. colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka has offered a substantive, good housing policy that will move the needle and get homes built across the country, but the housing minister will not listen. He is stuck in his ways. They are the same ways that saw Vancouver become the most unaffordable housing market in North America and one of the most expensive in the world.
The Conservatives do not support adding more bureaucratic red tape to our already highly regulated housing sector. We support and have encouraged the government to do the following things.
Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. In turn, this would save families up to $65,000 on the purchase of a new home and unleash new building in every market across the country.
Tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding to incentivize construction and new builds. Municipalities would have to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year in order to receive federal infrastructure spending.
Cut development charges by 50%. The Liberals promised this during the last election campaign, but refused to deliver. This would lift a massive fiscal anchor off the backs of Canadian builders and allow them to do what they do best, which is build houses.
End the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada. This would unlock billions of dollars of investment in our country's homebuilding sector.
These are substantive, difference-making policy proposals for our housing sector, but they are met with crickets from the government benches. The GST tax cut on all new homes under $1.3 million, for example, is a policy proposal that building experts, both Liberal and Conservative, have been calling for for over a year now as a policy that would actually enact change.
The housing minister is not listening. In fact, on a podcast last summer, the minister referred to our proposed GST tax cut as “a big, large sweeping change to make”. Under the government's watch, Canada is facing a housing crisis we have not seen since the Second World War. Instead of rising to the occasion, the government has failed and has made things even worse. Maybe big, large, sweeping changes are exactly what we need to get Canadians into the houses they want.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. We came forward with a substantive piece of legislation to have more homes built here in Canada. The member tries to give a false impression, but I can tell him that Build Canada Homes will, in fact, build thousands and thousands of affordable homes.
The Conservative Party's position is, “Get out of the way. We do not need Build Canada Homes.” This is coming from an opposition party that is led by a leader who used to be the minister of housing and built six non-profit homes in that role.
Why should we listen to the Conservative Party?
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would love to revisit the Harper-era policies. Some of the main housing-related policies were the home renovation tax credit in 2009, which saw massive investments in Canadians to invest in their own home. It helped with expenses of over $1,000 and up to $10,000. There was $1,350 in tax relief for people to stay in their homes and keep those homes current.
The first-time homebuyers' tax credit in the 2009 budget was worth up to $750 at the time, helping offset the closing costs for the purchase of new homes. With the expansion of the homebuyers' plan, the government increased the amount Canadians could withdraw from their RRSPs from $20,000 to $25,000.
Economic action plan infrastructure spending invested in lots of community housing.
We tightened mortgage rules. We made sure that we did not get into a fiscal crisis. We regulated the environment, rather than try to do everything for everybody else. We built two million homes while the population grew by only 3.2 million. We kept up with the increase in population, which is something these guys have failed to do, miserably.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, here is what really confuses me about this. I was part of a government in Saskatchewan that had a housing plan. It actually had numbers in it. This plan in 2011 by the Saskatchewan government said head start on a home would build 1,000 homes, the affordable home ownership program would build 600 homes, the rental construction incentive would build 2,900 homes, with $35 million for rental housing, and Habitat for Humanity would build 30 homes.
When someone actually has a plan, they put numbers in it. This plan promised to build 4,690 homes in five years. Why does the Liberal government not have the number of homes in its plan and the kinds of homes it would build?
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague knows the answer to this, but here is how the Liberals do it. They take whatever the global agenda happens to be. Financial markets and central bankers, like the current Prime Minister, create global scarcity for a certain product, drive up the demand for it by creating that scarcity and then come up with socialist-type deficit spending to solve the problem, which all of the insiders, their friends and their big corporate interests, then grift on. That is why we are in this mess. They can apply this to housing or any of the other aspect of our economy.
Have members ever noticed that nothing ever gets done in this country unless the government spends a bunch of taxpayers' dollars along with it? It does not seem to work, does it? All that happens is our deficit goes up and things get worse.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member's comments about really being there to meet Canadians with what they need and finding out ways to do it are not lost on me.
Just last month, the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta stated in a press release that they are going to invest $323 million in affordable housing. There will be 41 projects in the province of Alberta. They will also build more than 70 new shelter spaces for Albertans in need. This press release, which was signed off on by both the Government of Alberta and the Canadian government, talks about Build Canada Homes.
I would like to know if the member supports the 41 projects in here, including the projects in Red Deer, Lacombe, Calgary and Edmonton. The list goes on.
Does he believe the federal government has a role to play—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to cut off the member to give the member for Ponoka—Didsbury a chance to respond.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will tell everyone about an incident that happened in this House. It was the day the former prime minister announced the consumer carbon tax. The member opposite came and sat beside me, trying to pitch to me that my kids were going to love this new consumer carbon tax because it was the woke thing to do. Right now, my kids make great money and they are living in the basement in my house. They cannot afford a house because she has been a member of Parliament here for the last 11 years, making a total disaster of this country.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act that seeks to establish the Build Canada Homes bureaucracy, at third reading.
As I mentioned during the debate at second reading, this bill is the latest attempt by the Liberals to solve a problem they created. Unfortunately, their solution is to create yet another Crown corporation, which they promise will deal with their housing issue. It is their third Crown corporation, no less.
Over the last 10 years, our young people have watched rents and the prices of homes double. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future, and the prospect of owning a home has slipped away.
We all remember the promise the Prime Minister made during the last election to build at speeds not seen in a generation. This generation is losing out. He has invoked grand speeches since, reminding Canadians that for much of our history, our country was able to build vital projects and the housing it needed. I am deliberately saying “for much of our history”, because over the past 10 years under the Liberals, companies have been forced to downsize and lay off workers, businesses have had to shut their doors and our builders have been unable to build because of increasing costs and regulatory burdens.
After promising to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, the PBO estimates that Canada's housing completions will average only 222,000 per year, which is well below the number needed and the number promised. However, rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, the Liberals are building yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they have created.
While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, it is going to deliver and all it needs 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. After 10 years of getting it wrong, just how much time do the Liberals need to get it right?
Now we find out that their grand plan is to build yet another bureaucracy. It is completely out of touch to believe that doing the same thing over and again will somehow produce a different result. Rather than repeal overburdensome regulations or legislation, the Liberals' plan is to create yet another massive, multi-billion dollar Crown corporation to do what the private sector already does, except it would move slower, cost more and require more red tape.
The Liberals' record of overseeing Crown corporations is not stellar either. Let us consider Canada Post. This Crown corporation became insolvent under the government and has received not one but two $1-billion loans that taxpayers are on the hook for. This is all because the Liberals failed to act and approve its strategic plan for five years.
The Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is another Crown corporation, handed out a $1-billion loan to a Chinese shipbuilding company, instead of giving that work to capable, hard-working Canadians in B.C.
As for the Canada Lands Company, its responsibility to develop federal properties and convert them into housing units will now become the responsibility of Build Canada Homes. The six projects that were announced, as my colleague pointed out earlier, had already been approved and development was well under way. Only 49% of federal land commitments from the Canada Lands Company will be built by 2028. According to the Auditor General, federal property disposals take six to eight years per property. These delays are not one-off incidents. They are slow, repeat failures that demonstrate a true lack of will to address the issue in a meaningful way. There is no reason to believe that by transferring these properties to the new bureaucracy, things will speed up or be any more effective.
Reorganizing is not reform. Still, that does not seem to resonate. Believing that giving paycheques to policy advisers on bureaucratic boards will deliver results is a failure of imagination and a failure to recognize that a change in approach is needed.
Getting back into the business of building cannot mean being in the business of hiring consultants or layering on more delays. A new board of directors would not fix the supply crisis the Liberals have created. What builders need is for the cost of building to come down, and that means bringing the cost of government down. It means recognizing that the cost of government is more than just the development charges and it is more than the cost of GST on the sale of a home. It is the cost hidden in the complex rules that present the first barrier to a shovel hitting the dirt. These rules drive away competition, slow progress and gradually increase cost.
We do not catalyze an industry by competing with it, using $13 billion of its own tax dollars. We do not build homes by adding more process to the country's system that already has far too much of it. For greater clarity, the OECD has identified restrictive zoning permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as a principal constraint on housing supply in Canada. Build Canada Homes will not fix this, and there is a real human cost to all of this.
Young Canadians are being forced to work longer in the hopes of entering the housing market later in life. We must also acknowledge the lost potential to our economy as construction workers are laid off and home builders stop building at a time when housing starts, job creation and affordability are needed the most.
Building has become complex. The regulatory burden has become expansive. It is not Canadians who need to be reminded of a time when we used to build here in Canada. It is the government here in Ottawa that needs reminding that there was a time when it did not stand in the way of letting people build. If the Liberal government is serious about wanting to tackle the housing crisis our country is facing, it needs to stop blaming outside factors and rather look inward to determine a new approach, which is needed in our capital. A new approach would deliver the results Canadians need.
The new is often uncomfortable. This would mean a departure from an “Ottawa knows best” mindset and a return to common sense, wherein young people are free to innovate, businesses are able to adapt and the market drives demand for growth. The government, as a customer, cannot drive demand forever, create the jobs we will need nor house every Canadian, and it should not want to. Canadians are the most capable people in the world, and the government needs to remember that.
Young Canadians should not be asked to sacrifice more than they already have. They deserve a fair chance to work hard and build the homes, lives and families they choose. The 500,000 homes a year that are needed to solve this housing crisis will not be built by a fourth housing bureaucracy with red tape that prevents shovels from hitting the dirt. Boardrooms have never built homes. Builders and capable workers do.
Canadians do not have to settle for a $13-billion project that will build just 5,000 homes a year. Better is possible, but it requires a change, not more of the same. The bill we are debating today is just more of the same.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne Québec
Liberal
Sherry Romanado LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I know we are talking about Building Canada Homes and creating this stand-alone agency, and the previous speaker mentioned that no homes have actually been built. I was at the inauguration of a building in my riding in March with 30 units for transitional housing, so I have seen in my own riding that we are building. We are building to make sure that we provide the supply to allow more Canadians to find a place to live and to buy their first home.
As such, I am not quite sure why the members opposite are saying no homes are being built, when I know for a fact that in my riding there have been. In fact, Longueuil was actually identified as one of the six projects initially announced.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest this: My hon. colleague does not need to take my word for it. She does not need to take the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. Maybe she should go back and look at the Auditor General's report or the PBO's report that was tabled last fall. In her report last year, the Auditor General found a clear lack of transparency in reporting numbers on the government's housing initiatives, which further undermines the trust Canadians have in the government's ability to address the housing crisis. Under its own definition of housing units, the government refuses to be transparent with the kinds of housing it is building and whether it will meet the needs of families. I would remind the member that she needs to also take a look at what others are saying about this crisis and how they are doing.
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for a strong grasp of the numbers and the facts. I would note that 11 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment was $1,432. The average monthly rent payment was $973 a month after 10 years of Conservative government.
Maybe the hon. member can reflect on the fact that now in Canada, a third of the cost of building a home is government taxes, fees, levies, delays and permits. In my community of Hamilton, Ontario it is actually 36%. This is driving up the cost of housing and it is preventing young people from entering the market.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague probably has a much better grasp on the numbers than I do. I would simply say this. I am a mom of four adult children who have recently bought homes, trying to get into home ownership, and the cost to do that is incredible. We know it is still the dream of young Canadians to one day own a home, and we know the government is losing valuable time by creating bureaucracies instead of actually doing something different and addressing the issue to get more homes built for our young people.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Build Canada Homes bill is not a bad bill because we are in the midst of a housing crisis and any attempt to correct the situation is more than welcome.
However, the way the bill is worded, the federal government is encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, which always makes me feel a bit uneasy. Quebec and Ottawa made an agreement on a number of things, which should help close loopholes.
I would like my colleague to tell me this. In her view, would it not have been better to simply transfer money to the provinces by proposing that they look after housing in each province and in Quebec, according to the priorities and problems that each Canadian province is facing?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that partnerships between municipalities, provinces and the federal government are important when addressing this issue. Conservatives believe the goal for these partnerships where housing is concerned should be to reduce the costs and delays that prevent housing from getting built, and to be doing that in partnership with other orders of government.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I will be sharing my time with the ever-energetic member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
I want to talk about a recurring pattern with this government, one that I have observed since the beginning of this Parliament. There are two crises that are affecting us. I will focus on two major crises, although there may be more. The first is the housing crisis, and the second is the tariff crisis.
In a previous life, when I was studying philosophy, we were given a definition of “crisis” that was quite simple. It is when a body goes through a period that puts it on the brink of life or death. Responding to a crisis means ensuring the survival of a body. If nothing is done, then that body will die. That was a definition that I had in my philosophy courses.
What does that imply? Why do I raise this? It is because during a crisis, what is needed is prompt action that produces results. The best example is perhaps a heart attack. If someone has a heart attack, they would not be satisfied with me telling them not to worry and to keep breathing because it will eventually pass. They would want prompt action. They would want medical care to stay alive.
What I am seeing today from the government is precisely a lack of prompt action. Now we have Build Canada Homes, and I will give an example. Loge m'entraide, an organization in my riding that received funding from the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, to build social housing, was supposed to receive money from the affordable housing fund, or AHF, which was administered by CMHC.
That was at the beginning, in 2024. This organization received its SHQ funding. CMHC officials said that if SHQ funding was secured, then AHF funding would be coming. Several months passed. The affordable housing fund disappeared. The government said that it would reach a new agreement with the provinces and that it would then follow up to see whether SHQ projects would qualify.
Now, after 18 months, Loge m'entraide is still waiting for federal funding. The government scrapped the AHF, which was supposed to be refinanced by the government in the budget. However, what we learned from the budget is that there would be a new program instead. This new program was going to solve all the problems. This new program is called Build Canada Homes, but in the meantime, no social housing is being built in my riding because the federal government is unable to respond to the crisis.
Another point that strikes me as essential is that, throughout the election campaign and even afterward, I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources say that there is one sector that has been particularly affected by tariffs since 2017, and that is the forestry sector. We were already dealing with U.S. tariffs even before the tariff crisis. These two people told us that they knew that the lumber sector was particularly affected, but that they were going to resolve this issue through a major initiative. The Prime Minister said that during the election campaign. The Minister of Natural Resources repeated it ad nauseam. They said they were going to resolve it through a major initiative that would allow homes to be built using Canadian lumber.
I am a guy who is all about co-operation. I thought to myself that we have been asking for this since I arrived here in 2019 and that this government may have understood that it had to support the forestry industry.
However, where do we stand today? If I look at the Build Canada Homes bill, is there anything that clearly states that Canadian wood has to be used? I do not know whether anyone else has seen that, but I have not. Apart from the Liberal Party's lip service, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that construction will be done with wood. This brings us to another major crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, which mainly affects Quebec, but also Ontario to some extent as well as British Columbia. However, there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest that the federal government wants to prioritize wood as a material, apart from the statements that have been made.
I say that because it is very important; I remember that in 2025, for the first time, a federal government said in response to the softwood lumber crisis that it would provide liquidity. In August 2025, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that there would be a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector who are going through one of the worst crises they have ever experienced.
Eight or nine months later, people in my riding have contacted me to express interest in accessing the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, program, but it is still vague and the rules are so hard to understand that no one I know can access it. Eight or nine months on, we are in a crisis, as I said earlier. If a person has a heart attack, they want an immediate response. Eight or nine months later, absolutely nothing has been done to support the forestry sector. Then, the federal government announces that it is going to launch a broad strategy to use wood in building construction.
How is it going to use wood in building construction when the majority of businesses, whether small sawmills or lumber producers, are shutting down?
How can the same momentum be recreated when companies in the forestry sector are being left to die?
We sat down and came up with proposals. We are in collaboration mode. It is true that we sometimes criticize the government's measures in the House. However, we gave the government a suggestion. The first thing that we did was to go and see people in the forestry sector to tell them that there will be business opportunities. The government wants to launch a major construction project, and so we asked business owners in the industry what they have to offer. These people told us that, before they can offer anything, they have to keep their companies afloat and get through the tariff crisis with the United States, and that the best way to do that would be for the government to cover some of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the end of each month.
Today, more than $13 billion is being held captive, in trust, at the border by the Americans. That amount belongs to the forestry sector. If we could inject that $13 billion into this sector, everybody would be thrilled. However, this $13 billion is being held captive. People in the forestry sector are accommodating. They do not want to get that money back right away. They want to exhaust all available recourse with the international trade tribunals. In the meantime, they are asking the government to take care of 50% of these countervailing and anti-dumping duties and tariffs at the end of each month. A 10% tariff brings the total tariff amount to 45%. Furthermore, this is not a subsidy, because this problem will eventually be resolved. The forestry industry is asking the government to adopt this proposal so that it can keep its ecosystem alive. When construction starts up again, forestry companies will be there and they will not have all disappeared.
The government rejected this proposal.
The government was given another proposal to maintain the ecosystem and the value chain that allows us to use wood in construction. The proposal was for the government to provide the equivalent of a wage subsidy, which would be an easy thing for the government to do.
The government also rejected this proposal.
Last week, the government announced with great fanfare what the task force strategy entailed. It is very interesting. The government talked about $10 billion over 10 years. Will this amount actually be distributed? I do not know, but it was announced with great fanfare.
Are there any conclusive solutions and results today that will allow the forestry sector to respond to what will be a vast construction site for the Build Canada Homes projects? There is absolutely nothing.
In closing, Build Canada Homes is a great strategy but, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is being done. This government likes to talk about what it wants to do but is very slow to take action. That is what is disappointing.
I look forward to hearing my colleagues' questions on this matter. I also look forward to seeing their record so far.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Before moving on to questions and comments, 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 Calgary Crowfoot, Finance; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Marine Transportation; the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are very serious concerns and issues surrounding our forest industry in Canada. The government, through its buy Canada policy and other initiatives, is doing what it can to support it.
The question I have for the member is in regard to the legislation itself. The Build Canada Homes act would allow the Government of Canada, at an arm's-length distance, to work collaboratively with the different governments. It has been very successful with the Government of Quebec, with the agreement. I wonder if the member could just provide his perspective on why it is important to have the legislation go through and to work collaboratively with the different stakeholders.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am in collaboration mode, but I am not seeing any results. I sometimes wonder about the government's interest in the forestry industry.
What struck me the most about the “Canada Strong for All” fiscal update is that the words “forest” and “forestry” appear only nine times. However, a search for the words “oil” or “oil company” shows that they appear 130 times. “Canada for all” seems to be Canada focused on western Canada's energy sector. It is not Canada focused on the forestry sector.
As we know, politics is a balance of power, and unfortunately, when it comes down to the forestry industry, right now our balance of power is non‑existent.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Will the Bloc be supporting this bill? If so, how can it justify supporting a bill that would not deliver tangible results for Canadians or real support for the forestry industry? Can the member outline the position his party is taking in terms of whether it will be supporting the bill?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, our position is quite simple: We want more housing construction, and we want support for the forestry industry.
Our criticisms concern the government's slow response. If it does not take immediate action to support forestry, this industry will lose its lifeblood. Small regions like mine, whether in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi or the north shore, are being hollowed out and will pay the price. The government is turning a deaf ear and is unwilling to listen to the industry's legitimate demands. It is still making announcements rather than responding to the crisis.
We are still going to vote in favour of this initiative. If it comes to fruition and is good for everyone, then we will not vote against it. The goal is not to oppose for the sake of opposing. That is not what we do.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech, which was as engaging and passionate as he is.
I must say that I was surprised as I listened to him speak. In my view, building a house starts with wood. Ask any six-year-old kid in school what is needed to build a house, and the first thing the child would say is wood. My colleague tells us that in the budget, wood is mentioned only nine times in I do not know how many pages. One might think that this was an oversight, except I understand that my colleague from Jonquière has frequently asked government members about what they are doing for the forestry industry. Unfortunately, it seems that they have turned a deaf ear.
Can my colleague explain the government's apparent insensitivity or closed-mindedness regarding the forestry industry?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The answer is quite simple: The federal government has never been willing to fight for softwood lumber. We are at the mercy of the Americans. Not only that, but we also have an economic sector that is currently unable to access federal assistance, because it is constantly being referred to Global Affairs Canada and told no.
What the federal government has been doing for the past few years is unconscionable. It has allowed the situation to deteriorate, and now we are facing deeply troubling consolidations in the forestry sector.
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act. I do so as the proud member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets. Any day we get to rise on behalf of our constituents is always a great day.
I want to talk today about our housing crisis and how it is not just theoretical. It is something that I hear about every single day from residents, businesses and my community leaders. Across our communities, all the way from Shag Harbour to Tantallon in my riding, there is a message that is clear. We need more housing, not someday, not eventually, but right now.
In South Shore—St. Margarets, the challenge is not just affordability but also availability. Most of what we have talked about today is between those two things. I would like to talk about our responsiveness to both affordability and availability.
We have employers that are looking to hire in South Shore—St. Margarets but are unable to attract workers because sometimes there is no place for them to live. We also need the infrastructure to support that. We have young families who want to stay in the community but cannot afford a home. We have seniors who want to age in place, in community, but have limited options. We have growing communities that are being held back, not by a lack of opportunities but by a lack of housing supply. This is not just a housing issue. It is an economic issue, a workforce issue and also a community sustainability issue.
I do not want to sound like a negative Nelly. I would like to talk now about why Bill C‑20 matters. This legislation would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, as we have been discussing today in the House, giving it the independence, flexibility and tools needed to actually deliver housing at the scale required. This is about action.
Build Canada Homes would not just fund projects one at a time. It would act as a builder, a partner and a catalyst, working alongside municipalities, provinces, indigenous communities, non-profit organizations, co-operatives and the private sector, an opportunity that is also backed by $13 billion in initial funding to get the work moving.
I want to speak directly about what I have been hearing from the people in my riding. I have met with developers, builders, tradespeople and community housing organizations, and they are all aligned on one thing: They are ready to build, but they need the conditions to do it. They need access to land, in some cases. They need financing that works in today's market. Perhaps most importantly, they need infrastructure to support growth. Without infrastructure, homes cannot be built.
In South Shore—St. Margarets, we are already seeing the kind of collaboration that makes housing possible. A strong example of this partnership in my riding is between the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and the Town of Bridgewater. They have led a joint venture with their wastewater system, and this is exactly the kind of forward-looking investment we need.
I was very proud to be one of the only members of Parliament right now to have one of those announcements in our larger announcements just a couple of months ago. When municipalities work together, they expand core infrastructure like water and wastewater systems, and they unlock the ability to build housing to scale. These are foundational investments, and for too long, there has been a bottleneck. We have seen this as a government, and our new government is here to respond. Build Canada Homes recognizes this. It understands that if we want homes built, we must also support those systems that make these homes possible.
Another reason this legislation matters to people in my rural riding in Nova Scotia is that it recognizes the diversity in housing needs. Housing affordability in South Shore—St. Margarets does not look the same as in many other areas, in urban centres.
This is why Build Canada Homes uses both a place-based and an income-based definition of affordability, ensuring that housing reflects the realities of local incomes. This matters because homes must actually be affordable to the people who live and work in our communities, not because they are on some type of abstract national average.
I was also very impressed with, and helped host, one of our round tables with our minister last summer as he was going all over the nation listening and learning, and now, through this legislation, responding. I met with the developers and the whole spectrum of builders at these round tables who gave their concerns, the good, the bad and sometimes the ugly, in response to the minister having these consultations.
Rural communities are often overlooked in national housing strategies, but we know that they are essential to Canada's economy, culture and identity. From forestry, to fisheries, to tourism, to small business, rural regions like ours are vital. However, without housing how do we sustain that vitality? The recognition of rural needs through Bill C-20 includes support for infrastructure, transportation considerations and community revitalization. It is an important step forward.
This legislation is also about partnership, and in South Shore—St. Margarets partnership is how we get things done. We are seeing municipalities collaborate. We are seeing non-profits and co-operatives step forward. I was recently at an announcement for shovels in the ground for an eight-unit co-operative shared housing unit in the small town of Liverpool. Although there are only eight units, that is huge in our small rural and coastal communities.
We are also seeing leaders come together to think bigger and aggregate projects to create scale. That type of collaboration is exactly what Build Canada Homes is designed to support, because when communities align with federal resources and private sector capacity, we can move forward from ideas to construction and from plans to actual homes.
We also want to highlight some of these economic opportunities in this approach. Build Canada Homes is more than just housing. It is about building Canadian capacity. It is about Canadian workers, Canadian materials and Canadian expertise. For South Shore—St. Margarets, that means opportunities for tradespeople. It means opportunities connected to our forestry sector and supply chains. Our colleagues have just talked about the lack of support for the forestry sector. I have met with multiple different lumber mills in my riding and some of our prefab manufacturers on how they are working specifically within our supply chain locally to get these homes built. It means good jobs that support families in our region. It is like having multi-generational families like Freeman Lumber in my riding working together with others like Lloyoll Prefabs, Walls and CLATTCO Construction in my riding on a common goal, which is to get roofs over people's heads. At a time when global uncertainty is increasing, investing in Canadian industry is solving problems with respect to our housing shortage. This is the right approach. Innovation is key.
I want to address directly the idea that this legislation creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Respectfully, I disagree. This legislation is about streamlining, not adding layers. Build Canada Homes brings expertise, financing tools and partnerships together under one organization with a clear goal.
The housing crisis did not emerge overnight and will not be solved overnight. What Canadians expect of us is progress. They expect us to work together. They expect us to take bold, practical steps. Bill C-20 is one of those steps. For the young family in Bridgewater who is working and looking for their first home, for the nurse who is considering a job on the South Shore but is unable to find housing and for the senior in Lunenburg who wants to stay close to their community, this bill matters.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer data indicates that, if enacted, this bill would produce barely 1% of the homes that are needed on an annual basis. How can a member justify spending billions of dollars on a massive Crown corporation when it would have such negligible impact on the housing crisis?
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague from Ontario about Carolyn Whitzman. I was a member of HUMA, where we had this on our desk to study. I want to read something that she said about Build Canada Homes and how it needs the independence of a Crown corporation. She said that it had been clear from the start that it was merging the existing Canada Lands Company into it. The real question here was affordability, targets and what this kind of economic and social return was expected to generate, and how we needed these plans for a national housing strategy. She was a huge proponent of this.
Therefore, I would like to remind my colleague that we have people who are doing the work and I would love to see the responsiveness of our minister in this.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, it seems like it is always the same old story.
The federal government is proposing strategies, like the Build Canada Homes program. It is also proposing to retool the forestry sector, but that will not happen in six months. It will take 10 years to see results.
The federal government is not agile enough to act in a timely manner.
That is why, in my speech earlier, I gave the example of the affordable housing fund, which has gone from CMHC to Build Canada Homes, meaning that, today, projects that would have received this funding 10 or so months ago are now stuck waiting.
That is the problem with these initiatives.
Perhaps my colleague is seeing the same thing in her own riding.
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, we have been experiencing similarities with our ridings. Although I am in a coastal community, we still have small-town pride.
I would like to say to my colleague that we have been with our new government for only a year. We have been laying infrastructure. We are trying to pass this bill that would help unlock everything and get those shovels in the ground. In my own riding, I have had multiple announcements and multiple shovels in the ground.
I have talked to the people in my forestry sector. My colleague wants to talk about lack of support in the forestry sector. I have talked with Derek Nighbor of the Forest Products Association of Canada regarding how I can work with my local mills and my local prefab people and build those partnerships together to get more shovels in the ground for private, non-market and co-operative housing.
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned municipalities in her speech. I am a former municipal councillor. Municipalities at any given time have a lot of balls in the air that they have to balance. One of the big ones is housing. I am wondering if my colleague could comment further on the role she sees municipalities playing and how this legislation would impact municipalities positively.
Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, as a former municipal councillor, the example that I used in my speech today in regard to our municipality and district in Lunenburg and my town of Bridgewater is how people were trying to put together a larger supportive housing complex just outside of the town of Bridgewater, but they did not have the waste-water system. Therefore, they are working with the town. They are working with the municipality and collating a larger project that is going to help over 3,000 people in my riding, so these partnerships are key.
I would ask members who are negating this legislation whether they have sat down with all the different key players and stakeholders. What are they doing, as their representative, to help make these plans to get these shovels in the ground?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate on Bill C‑20, Build Canada Homes, which was a promise the Liberals made in the 2025 campaign. I cannot remember the name of the Liberal guy I ran against, but he was very excited about this, saying that he was going to get these homes built and that this was going to be a great policy.
I remember thinking, from a Saskatchewan point of view, that we are home to many Crown corporations. I know how Crown corporations work. I have been in government in Saskatchewan. I cannot recall a lot of situations when Crown corporations were involved and became more streamlined or development happened faster and things got done more quickly. That was not really the case when Crown corporations get involved with development on a local scale. However, I do have a couple of points I want to make during this speech.
I will read testimony from actual experts in homebuilding. Mike Moffatt, from the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “BCH lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents and prices will be, or over what time frame.”
At HUMA, David Wilkes, Building Industry and Land Development Association, said, “To put that [housing] crisis into perspective, in 2025 just over 5,000 new homes were sold in the GTA, the lowest level since we began tracking in 1981. That is an 80% decline from the 10‑year average and follows similarly weak years in 2024 and 2023.” He also said, “It is important to note that 95% of the housing in Canada, both ownership and rental, is delivered through the private market.”
At HUMA, Scott Andison, Ontario Home Builders' Association, said, “When new home construction slows, the impact extends beyond the housing industry alone. Communities lose jobs, government loses revenue and fewer homes are being built for families to create memories.” He also said, “As the industry association representing home builders across Ontario, we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government.”
I will be honoured to share my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre.
That got me thinking back to when I was in government with the Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan. In 2011, we brought forward the Saskatchewan advantage housing plan. Most Liberals will not believe this, but we actually put numbers and targets in this housing plan so that people knew what we wanted to accomplish. We had five programs during that housing initiative called head start on a home, affordable home ownership, rental construction incentive, $35 million for rental housing, and habitat for humanity partnership. The numbers actually coalesced with the programs. We wanted 1,100 units for head start on a home, 600 units for affordable home ownership, 2,900 units for rental construction, 160 for rental housing and 30 for habitat for humanity, so a total of 4,690 homes. Can colleagues imagine a government bringing forward a program with the actual targets of what it wanted to build so that citizens knew what they were voting for?
That is my problem with the Build Canada Homes program. My problem is that the government threw $13 billion into a pot to create a whole new bureaucracy. I would love it if one of my Liberal colleagues would tell me how much of that $13 million is going to go into bonuses for executives. How much is going to go into actually paying bureaucrats to sit in Ottawa and not put shovels in the ground?
We did just get a lot of numbers related to bonuses for Crown executives this past year. What was the total payment for Crown executives? I think millions and millions of dollars went to executives of Crown companies who did not provide any results.
My fear with Bill C‑20 is that there are going to be a lot of bonuses for executives and hardly any homes for Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member's colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions.
Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be very bold. I think the provincial governments do need some federal funding. I do not think the federal government needs to have another bureaucracy in order to listen to municipalities and provinces and get them the funding they need to build homes. It does not have to be in the business of homebuilding. It can actually help the provinces when it comes to funding. The government does not have to pick winners and losers, which I know Liberals like to do. After Build Canada Homes comes to fruition, I am very sure that Brookfield will be building a lot of homes in Canada.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well.
I want to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the interest rate and the value of our money, how that affects homebuilding, and what the government is doing to affect those things.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, we know that the value of the Canadian dollar has gone down. Actually, it has just gone down again over the last couple of days, so our dollar is not going as far as it did in years prior.
When it comes to interest rates, what has happened to the Canadian dollar and our purchasing power is that the more the government spends, the greater the deficits are. The PBO just said that the deficit is actually going to be $50 billion higher than first projected only a couple of months ago. When the government continues to have a reckless spending problem, it leaves Canadians with less money in their pockets, and inflation goes up.
Government members talk about procuring wood to build homes in Canada, but having 36 mill closures over the last couple of years in B.C. and Quebec is also going to make homebuilding less affordable. They cannot get a softwood tariff deal done with the United States, which they promised to do.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some good points. The number one project in my riding for Build Canada Homes is a project to serve some individuals with intellectual disabilities. We know that many people with intellectual disabilities are served by L'Arche Canada, L'Arche Comox Valley in my riding. I am sure it is L'Arche in Regina—Lewvan.
Right now, Build Canada Homes is holding the project up. It is saying that it does not meet the criteria for supportive and transitional needs. How can people with intellectual disabilities not meet the criteria for transitional needs? This is a project that is supported by L'Arche Canada. Build Canada Homes is saying that it cannot do anything right now. The minister's office says it cannot talk to Build Canada Homes and cannot get involved. These people have nowhere to go right now. They are the most vulnerable people in our society. They count on us.
Maybe my colleague can speak about how this is such a disaster right now.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague's comments go to the heart of my argument. The federal government should not be picking winners and losers. The provincial government and municipalities can put programs forward to make sure that the people who most need homes can get them. The government can supply some of the funding, but the people on the ground doing the building should be able to get that money and help build those homes. I was proud to be part of the Saskatchewan government that brought forward the Saskatchewan assured income for disability program. We have to look after the most vulnerable people in our society.
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, when the current Parliament started, I had the opportunity to meet in the middle of the floor with the new housing minister to talk about what his new portfolio would entail. At that point in time, I told him very clearly that he should just throw out what he had and start over anew, because all the advice he had been given, and what I have seen over the last six years since I have been in the House, has been a bunch of garbage and a bunch of non-results from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The entire bureaucracy that he is in charge of at this point in time has just layered on more and more spending but has accomplished nothing.
That is a preamble to my speech about where we need to go in this country.
Since 2019, the federal government has introduced or expanded roughly a dozen major housing programs and initiatives, layer upon layer on top of its existing strategies. Today we have a system with overlapping funds, loan programs and agencies, and now there is a brand new Crown corporation added to the mix. All of this sits within a $100‑billion‑plus national housing strategy that was designed not as a single focused solution but as a collection of complementary programs.
The problem is not a lack of federal activity. It is that this growing web of programs is not translating into the number of homes Canadians actually need, but instead of focusing on why that is happening, the proposed bill would take us in the wrong direction. Bill C‑20 is not really about building homes. It is about building another federal bureaucracy.
We have to be honest about what is driving housing costs in this country. The number one factor is not a lack of ideas or a lack of programs. It is the cost of building, and that cost is increasingly driven by government: taxes, fees, regulations and constant changes to the rules of the game. We heard this across the country when I was chairing the economic growth council. Every time the government changes a building code, adds a requirement or delays a permit, it adds costs, and those costs do not disappear. They get passed on directly to the homebuyer or the renter.
We have seen what happens when governments overreact with broad, top-down policies. In Ontario, there are now entire segments of the housing market dominated by 500‑square‑foot condo units. They were being built not because families were demanding them but because policy decisions pushed the market in that direction. That is what happens when government tries to centrally shape outcomes instead of enabling the market to respond to real demand, and we are seeing a similar lesson play out in my hometown of Calgary.
Over the last four years, the municipal government in Calgary took a blanket rezoning approach, promoted as a solution to affordability. What actually happened? A recent assessment showed that the primary beneficiaries were not homebuyers. They were land speculators and developers who captured the increased value. Communities suffered, while affordability did not materially improve, and Calgarians took notice. That is why there was a political reset at the municipal level. Politicians were thrown out for their false start and what they said they were trying to do versus what they were actually accomplishing. People understand that simply changing zoning everywhere without addressing costs and implementation does not automatically result in affordable homes.
This brings us to Bill C‑20. Instead of addressing the structural cost drivers in the system, the government would be expanding its footprint. Build Canada Homes would have sweeping powers in financing, land acquisition and development authority, and it would come with a significant price tag: another $13 billion over five years.
However, the question Canadians should be asking is simple: What would we be getting for that money? The evidence suggests that it would not be very much. Even government-backed analysis shows that the program would deliver only a fraction of the homes that are promised: 5,200 projected homes per year. At the same time, we would be expanding the size of government, with more administrators, more overhead and more layers. That cost does not build homes. It builds bureaucracies.
We must also consider the cost per unit. When the government steps in as a developer, costs tend to rise, not fall. Projects take longer, risk increases, accountability becomes less clear, and ultimately, taxpayers are left carrying that burden. We would, effectively, be asking Canadians, who are already dealing with high housing costs, to also fund an expanded federal structure that has no clear targets for delivery.
Experts have already warned about this. They told the committee that Build Canada Homes lacks clear goals, lacks targets and lacks accountability. We would not only be expanding government; we would be doing so without a clear measure of success.
It is clear that the cost of housing is too high in Canada, but it is also important to be clear about the causes. Those are the taxes, fees and regulations that drive up construction costs. Every new regulation, every delay, every change to the National Building Code creates additional costs, and those costs are paid for by Canadians.
Bill C‑20 does not resolve those issues. On the contrary, it expands the size of government and creates more bureaucracy. As the experts said in committee, there is neither a clear target nor an accountability mechanism. What we need is not more bureaucracy. We need an environment where builders can build faster and at a lower cost.
How do we stop the cost escalation? We bring discipline and stability to building codes, reduce delays and uncertainty in approvals, limit the growth of government structures that add costs without adding supply, and ensure that public money actually delivers measurable results. Canadians are already under significant financial pressure. There are rising debt levels, and more households are stretched to their limit. Canadians cannot afford policies that increase costs, whether directly through housing prices or indirectly through higher government spending.
At the end of the day, this is all about outcomes. Would we be building more homes? Would we be lowering costs? Would we be improving affordability? On all three counts, the bill would fall short. Bill C-20 would expand government, increase spending and avoid the real work of addressing the cost drivers that are holding back supply. I will continue to support solutions that focus on what actually matters: lowering the cost of building homes Canadians need and making home ownership achievable again for Canadians, including the people of Calgary and across Alberta.
There are many ways we can get involved in this from the federal perspective, but as I told the minister when he first took the housing portfolio, the main thing he can do is second-guess the people who have been giving the government advice for the last 11 years, because all they have done is added cost to the system, cost to the building of homes and cost for Canadians, including more debt. A ridiculous amount of money is continuing to be spent in the sector for housing. People need housing. It is the number one expense for all Canadians now across the board. We cannot continue to add more cost to the basic needs of shelter in our society, not to mention what is happening with food inflation in this country.
Housing inflation is definitely something we have to get under control. The bill would do nothing of the sort. It would add costs, and those costs would be borne by Canadians. Let us think about the cost of debt per household in society. The cost of paying for debt is about $3,400 per household. The average rent in Calgary for a two-bedroom house is $1,700 per month, so every Canadian family in Calgary is actually paying two months' worth of rent to cover the interest being paid on the federal debt right now. This is an atrocious amount of money that adds to the cost of everything we have to pay in society at this point in time.
It continues. This is just the federal level. Of course, there is provincial debt, municipal debt and corporate debt. There is also personal debt. The bill would do nothing to reduce the debt level that Canadians are facing. It would make things less affordable. It would make things worse for Canadians. We oppose it strongly.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, what we have seen today is the Conservative Party take the position of continuing to deny Canadians the opportunity to have a national housing strategy or a program that incorporates Build Canada Homes, which is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
Does the member, in principle, support a national government addressing a national issue by providing mechanisms to ensure that the issues can in fact be resolved—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the narrative that we are denying Canadians a solution. The Liberal government, for 11 years now, has made several attempts to resolve this issue by addressing the problem that they see with homelessness and with housing in Canada, and they have only made matters worse over the last 11 years.
The Liberals have to accept failure at some point in time and realize that the best thing to do is probably to get rid of the infrastructure we have for housing here in Ottawa and transfer the funds to the province, which would be more adept at solving the problem than the government has proven to be.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in the same vein.
Earlier in my speech, I said that the government was adding a layer of bureaucracy. In the past, there used to be programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.
In my riding, I see a lot of social housing development projects that are unfortunately not being funded. They have funding from Quebec through the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, but they have not received federal funding for several months because they have been asked to wait for Build Canada Homes. CMHC used to be able to provide funding, however.
Does my colleague agree that there is an added layer of complexity here? Perhaps he is seeing the same type of problem in his own riding, where projects are ready to move forward but are being held up by the slow federal government.
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague.
That is exactly the issue. If an application comes from a Province of Alberta or City of Calgary organization, it has to have support from the provincial government.
After that, there is another form at the federal level. It requires the organization to put in a lot of time, effort and money. It is a waste of time, human resources and money.
It would be better if there were a single process for applying for housing grants in Canada.
Jagsharan Singh Mahal Conservative Edmonton Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight on this new Build Canada Homes bill.
We have two Crown corporations: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Canada Lands Company. However, over the past 11 years, the Liberals have failed to make use of those two corporations, and now they are pushing for another bureaucracy under the name of Build Canada Homes.
Why are the Liberals so adamant on adding more bureaucracy instead of focusing on results and focusing on the real needs of Canadians, which are affordable homes?
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am getting a great deal of great questions on the subject today. Answering the question goes a little deep into the weeds, so I apologize ahead of time to my colleagues on both sides of the House.
The reason the government is setting up all these Crown corporations right now is that Crown corporations have their own balance sheets at the end of the day, and those balance sheets are not included in the government's balance sheet, believe it or not.
The government is $1.4 trillion in debt right now. However, it has borrowed almost $2 trillion. Where is the other $600 billion? It is on the balance sheets of and borrowed by all the Crown corporations, which have a lack of accountability practices. We have proven in the House many times that there are a whole bunch of expenditures that should have been written off by those organizations that continue to rest in their balance sheets.
The cost to Canadians, at the end of the day, is going to be huge. The actual debt we are paying interest on is $2 trillion. This is going to make that even higher still.
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Government of Canada's Build Canada Homes act, specifically the importance that Build Canada Homes has in relation to supporting the Canadian economy and the federal government's buy Canadian policy.
Since September of 2025, Build Canada Homes has been a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Working quickly and efficiently, this new federal agency has already made significant progress to deliver more affordable housing for Canadians. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate, all while maintaining a clear accountability framework to Parliament. That is why the Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation.
The Government of Canada needs to strengthen its capacity to address Canada's housing crisis, improve housing supply and accelerate innovation in homebuilding. Far too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford. Housing costs are creating havoc, and productivity in the construction sector is low.
Traditional construction and funding approaches alone are not delivering the scale or speed Canadians need. Build Canada Homes will centralize functions that were previously spread across multiple departments, agencies and programs that limited the government's ability to have maximum impact. It will act as a developer, a financier, a convenor and a catalyst for a more productive homebuilding sector. Canadians need more homes, and the Build Canada Homes act would help make it possible to build more quickly, more efficiently and at the scale that is required.
The global trade landscape is rapidly changing. In response, we are building a more resilient and more independent Canadian economy. At the core of this strategy is an ambitious plan to construct nation-building projects, more affordable homes and stronger local infrastructure. We are forging strong relationships among all levels of government, municipal, territorial and provincial, and with indigenous partners. We are making strategic investments to build a stronger, more sustainable economy that works towards cutting red tape, eliminating barriers to international trade and making new deals that will drive local economies. This will in turn require a strong skilled trades workforce.
That is why, on April 29, as part of the spring economic update, the Prime Minister announced team Canada strong. This is a $6-billion nationwide effort that will recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal trade workers in the next five years. Team Canada strong will transform the skilled trades and bring more apprentices into the workforce. It will ensure that young Canadians are ready to build the housing and infrastructure that we need. It will create new jobs, good careers and strengthen Canada's future workforce.
The Government of Canada is taking decisive action now, making Canada's economy one of the fastest-growing and most competitive in the world and ushering in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians. The Government of Canada, also building on the solid foundation of strong industries, will do so by promoting the buy Canadian policy.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would be funded through the initial envelope of $13 billion that was announced in budget 2025. It is designed to bring federal supports for affordable housing together in one place, working in tandem with other government departments and organizations. It would move quickly to leverage federal land, support innovative building approaches and partner broadly across sectors to deliver affordable homes.
Build Canada Homes is a key part of Canada's new industrial strategy, driving a more productive homebuilding sector. Build Canada Homes will prioritize projects that use Canadian-made materials such as mass timber, lumber, steel and aluminum. It will promote modern construction methods such as modular and prefabricated housing to reduce build times, material waste and environmental impact.
The federal government is leveraging key stakeholder relationships with private developers, businesses and community and not-for-profit organizations, as well as with other government and indigenous partners. By working together, we are creating job opportunities here at home and supporting the Canadian workforce. Together, we are building stronger communities and a stronger Canada.
The Government of Canada introduced a new buy Canadian policy framework, effective as of December 16, 2025. The policy leverages federal investments by prioritizing Canadian domestic suppliers, content and materials to help make Canada's economy stronger, more resilient to global shocks and better able to support Canadian workers and businesses. The policy is comprehensive, covering not only direct purchasing but also the breadth of federal investments. It is being applied by federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
Build Canada Homes adheres to the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy. It will do so by strengthening domestic supply chains, and every new home will mean more demand for Canadian steel, lumber and aluminum, helping workers and businesses thrive. The buy Canadian policy also provides flexibility and a framework for recognizing the provinces and territories, which may also apply their similar standards. These changes to procurement rules will help Canadian industries become more self-sufficient and resilient to changes in the global economy.
The buy Canadian policy supports strategic sectors, such as the Canadian construction and defence industries, and it applies to projects such as buildings, bridges, aircraft parts and much more. It requires that large federal construction and defence purchases use Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood products.
The Government of Canada is also increasing economic opportunities for first nation, Inuit and Métis businesses. Through the federal procurement process, federal departments and agencies are required to ensure that a minimum of 5% of the total value of contracts be held by indigenous businesses. This includes businesses owned and operated by elder, band and tribal councils; businesses registered in the Government of Canada's indigenous business directory; or businesses registered on a modern treaty beneficiary business list.
Through the new buy Canadian policy, we are making the government a force of nation building, becoming our own best customer, protecting Canadian businesses and empowering our workers through high-paying careers that build prosperity at home.
The Government of Canada is moving forward with legislation such as the Build Canada Homes act in order to build strength at home. We are investing in Canadian industries and creating more jobs as a result. Build Canada Homes is a part of the federal government's strategic effort to invest in our modern nation, protect Canadian interests and make our economy one of the strongest in the G7. By making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation, the Government of Canada would be better placed to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable housing. Across the country, we want to build more homes quickly and efficiently using Canadian materials, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.
The Build Canada Homes act would enable the federal government to have a greater and more positive influence on Canada's housing system. Together, investments made through Build Canada Homes, in collaboration with key partners, would help strengthen our economy and create lasting economic benefits for communities right across our country.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, we do miss the member on the government operations committee. He is welcome to come back anytime.
He talked about how the plan has support for affordable housing, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer states that, with all the billions of dollars in spending, the government is expected to build only 13,000 low-income units, and that, further, the money would come from stripping money from the affordable housing fund and other supports for at-risk Canadians.
Why would the government punishing vulnerable Canadians and spend money on an added bureaucracy that would create only 13,000 new homes?
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite for his effort to be moderate during OGGO briefings, as chair. We do appreciate his manner. In this case, though, I want to let him be better appreciative of the effort of the Build Canada Homes act to coordinate all these agencies into one in order to minimize costs and to elaborate and expand affordable housing.
The president who has been appointed to that housing agency is one of the leaders across the country in affordable housing, and we welcome her initiatives and her endeavours to produce greater value for homes in Canada.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, as with anything, the simplest solution is usually to entrust these matters to the levels of government that are in the best position to meet the needs.
Yes, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement for housing, but Quebec knows its own housing needs best. That includes social housing and other types of housing.
Unfortunately, Build Canada Homes will add another layer of bureaucracy. That is neither efficient nor effective. It will slow down the entire process.
My colleague is a member of Parliament from Ontario. I wonder if the same applies in his province.
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is wrong, because what the Build Canada Homes act and the agency itself have recognized is that there are a number of other provinces that already operate procurement practices. We want to use those practices concurrently. We would not be duplicating them. We want all of Canada, including Quebec, to benefit from lower costs, greater efficiencies and greater speed, enabling Quebeckers to afford homes here in Canada.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's excellent speech. He knows what he is talking about. Yes, this is a major component of the government's plan to build more housing faster and ensure that every Canadian has access to affordable housing.
What impact does my colleague think this will have in his riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore?
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is essential to my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. We actually have a Canada Lands property.
A lot of people are talking about the redevelopment and revitalization of our waterfront, but we also need affordable housing. As a result, there are now three projects in my riding that are being initiated and built. There has been great support from Peel Region to facilitate those projects, because the federal Government of Canada stepped up to the plate and enabled it to happen.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I take great offence at the member's calling me “moderate” as chair. It hurts me to my soul.
One of the Liberals' campaign promises was that they would cut municipal development charges in half. In Alberta, B.C. and across the country, this has not happened. Why has the Liberal government broken its promise again?
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member is moderate, except on this question.
The fact of the matter is that we are reducing costs and working with other provinces. Ontario has actually matched some of those cuts, and that is important. We have to work collaboratively. I reach out to the members of the opposition to come on board to help their citizens and constituents lower their cost of housing. Let us join together to make housing more affordable right across Canada.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise today to speak in support of the Build Canada Homes act. This landmark legislation will establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation tasked with building and expanding affordable housing for Canadians.
Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis. To date, federal efforts have been spread across multiple departments, agencies and provinces, limiting the government's ability to have maximum impact. Traditional approaches to construction and financing do not provide the scale and capacity that Canadians need. That is why we are taking a new approach.
Every Canadian deserves an affordable place to call home. Housing is a basic need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. Build Canada Homes was created to act quickly and effectively. This legislation will give Build Canada Homes the flexibility and operational autonomy it needs to carry out its mandate.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will maintain a clear framework of accountability with respect to the government. That will strengthen its ability to develop partnerships across the housing ecosystem and provide affordable housing at the scale and speed that Canadians need.
Build Canada Homes will streamline federal housing efforts by acting as a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. It will play a central role in building strong partnerships with all levels of government and indigenous communities. It will also work with non-profit organizations and other key stakeholders in the housing sector to stimulate the construction of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations.
As members know, people in Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles are already engaging with organizations interested in working with Build Canada Homes. We already have community housing, built with community organizations, in Saint‑Eustache, Boisbriand, Deux‑Montagnes and Rosemère. Obviously, we all want to build affordable housing.
Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its initiatives depends on partnerships. Greater collaboration among all levels of government, whether municipal, federal or provincial, and with key partners, is needed to address the housing challenges we face across the country. Build Canada Homes will streamline and accelerate the delivery of large-scale affordable housing projects. The agency will attract public, private and philanthropic investment, maximizing its impact.
The Build Canada Homes act will foster partnerships across the housing ecosystem to connect the right funding to the right projects. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will consolidate access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools through a single entity. It will speed up the delivery of affordable housing by working with non-profit organizations, indigenous organizations and all levels of government. This approach will limit risk, eliminate barriers and guide projects throughout the development process.
Build Canada Homes will also work in close collaboration with developers, investors and manufacturers on securing funding and building homes. It will work directly with builders and housing providers that are focused on long-term affordability. That includes non-profit organizations, co-operatives, community housing providers and organizations that promote different housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships will make it possible to create affordable housing for a wide range of households, regardless of their income.
We are working with stakeholders in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles to fast-track the construction of affordable housing across the riding.
Build Canada Homes will have the authority to work under agreements with all levels of government and community partners on financial support, joint ventures and joint development initiatives.
The agency will seek to establish close collaboration and coordination with the provinces and territories, which will help advance priority projects. This could include making land available, expediting approval processes and waiving applicable fees.
I will now turn to partnerships with indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples face unique housing challenges. Build Canada Homes will collaborate with first nations, Inuit and Métis governments, indigenous housing providers and urban indigenous organizations on proposals that will deliver consistent housing outcomes. Build Canada Homes will work collaboratively to address the housing needs of indigenous communities. The Government of Canada respects indigenous sovereignty and supports self-determined housing solutions that apply an indigenous lens to design and implementation. Our indigenous partners know how to integrate culture and adopt housing solutions that enable their communities to thrive. Build Canada Homes is committed to fostering close collaboration with indigenous peoples and advancing indigenous housing priorities.
I would now like to talk about provincial partnerships. Since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to initiate housing projects. The Government of Canada has identified public lands that can be converted for housing. We have partnered with local governments to cut red tape and speed up approvals.
In April 2026, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced an initial partnership to support the construction of about 865 new affordable housing units across the province. The total investment in affordable housing, supportive housing and transitional housing in the province amounts to $200 million. Build Canada Homes is providing approximately $100 million, and Quebec is contributing $100 million.
Supportive and transitional housing is very important for people experiencing domestic violence. Addressing domestic violence is one of the priorities of the Liberal women's caucus. This new housing is a direct result of the memorandum of understanding setting out the principles of collaboration for the rollout of Build Canada Homes in Quebec. Signed in January 2026, this memorandum of understanding will guide future collaboration and ensure the coordinated rollout of Build Canada Homes projects across Quebec. Through their collaboration, the federal and Quebec governments will speed up the approval process and identify additional housing projects. The combined investments will help build more affordable housing in the communities that need it most.
In March 2026, the Government of Canada, through Build Canada Homes, and New Brunswick partnered to build affordable housing. This partnership is accelerating the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel‑ready homes, with the potential to scale to 1,500. At least half of the homes will be for low-income Canadians, and at least 160 will be supportive or transitional housing. Approximately 30% of the homes, representing up to 450 units, will be built in smaller rural communities. I have been a member of the rural caucus for several years, and one of the comments that I often hear is that we must ensure that affordable housing is built in rural communities as well.
In conclusion, developing and strengthening partnerships is vital to building homes for Canadians. By pooling resources and finding innovative solutions with its partners, Build Canada Homes is laying a foundation for sustainable solutions. The Build Canada Homes act will make Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation with its own mandate, governance structure and clear powers. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the operational independence, governance and flexibility needed to deliver affordable housing at scale. This legislation will allow Build Canada Homes to operate at arm's length from the government, manage its assets, deploy innovative financial tools and make long-term investment decisions more effectively. That is the true strength of partnership: implementing transformative changes. We are working together to develop a strong, more unified approach to housing across the country.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I just have a very simple question: What are the targets for the next 12 months on how many homes will be completed through Build Canada Homes?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will give a very simple answer: Please support our bill.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Long Range Mountains asked a very clear question. Canadians deserve a clear answer. I will give the member opposite another chance to answer, please.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question correctly, he would like me to provide a more detailed response to the question from my colleague opposite.
Obviously, if we want to ensure that Build Canada Homes can build houses, the first step is to vote in favour of the bill so that it can be implemented.
Then Build Canada Homes will actually be able to get to work and start building homes.
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are certainly people in my colleague's riding with very interesting projects who are excited because they may be able to access land or funding.
What is she hearing in her riding?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent question.
My riding is home to Deux-Montagnes, Saint‑Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. People may not remember, but in 2017, we had once-in-a-century floods. Homes in Deux‑Montagnes were demolished. We are waiting for approval from the Montreal metropolitan area to reuse that land.
Thanks to the federal government, there is a fund dedicated to the effects of climate change. That land is now inside a dike. Housing can be built there quickly. That is what is going on in Deux‑Montagnes.
In Saint‑Eustache, there are already community projects. They will be ready for implementation as soon as the government moves forward.
The other two cities, Boisbriand and Rosemère, also have projects. I encourage members to come and visit Rosemère. We are going to find a way to build apartment buildings.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come up a lot this evening is the fact that, unfortunately, the government makes many announcements, but it is neither effective nor efficient.
I gave the example of an organization in my riding, Loge m'entraide, which was supposed to receive its funding through CMHC. Unfortunately, it was told to wait and see whether that CMHC program would be funded again.
Now the organization has been told to wait for Build Canada Homes to take over. The federal government is now delaying the construction of social housing in my riding.
I wonder if my colleague is experiencing the same thing, because right now, the delays mean that social housing projects may have to wait up to 18 months to see the light of day.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
Yes, we are transitioning from CMHC to Build Canada Homes.
This new structure will be more flexible. The funds can be used in collaboration with organizations. As I said earlier, whether in the public or the private sector, we will be able to get these projects up and running faster.
This transition will provide increased operational autonomy, the ability to take on risks and an appropriate governance structure that includes a board of directors and executive leadership appointed by the government.
A bit of patience will be required, but we are going to wrap up the session.
What I am asking my colleague specifically is that he support Bill C‑20, so we can move on to the next stage.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is something the government decided to create to build more bureaucracy rather than build homes, so my question for the member opposite is really simple: How many houses has Build Canada Homes built in her riding since it was created?
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles must reply in 30 seconds.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, with just 30 seconds I would say to my hon. colleague that we need to make sure we pass the bill first.
When the Leader of the Opposition was in government, I believe he built six homes.
We will definitely do better than that and do it quickly.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight with my friend and colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
It is a pleasure to rise today, as it always is, to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Long Range Mountains on a topic that I am passionate about, and that is housing.
Before entering politics, I spent almost 20 years in the real estate industry as an agent, broker and real estate coach. My husband is a builder, and my daughter is a sales agent. I have watched markets right across the country, as well as in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I intimately understand the current pressures and frustrations around housing supply and home ownership.
I have watched the changes in the market, and I am extremely concerned not just for the young person looking to enter the market but also the senior looking to downsize, which would create inventory for another family. I am concerned for those who currently own homes but have dreams of building another home that suits their needs, and for move-up buyers who, again, create movement and space for others to enter the market.
In today's market, we see historically low inventory and upward pressure on pricing as a result, and little to no movement for others to enter the market. In addition, construction costs are high and markets are strained, even in areas of the country where there have typically been stable markets and a balance between supply and demand. Rural Canada is a perfect example, but now housing affordability even in these markets is being compromised. Housing affordability is a defining characteristic of rural Canada, and we cannot allow home ownership to become unaffordable, especially in these areas.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors says it best: “Home ownership 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 home ownership 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 hard-working 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”.
However, the saddest housing statistic in this country is that the median age of first-time homebuyers in Ontario is 40 because of affordability, higher carrying costs, longer renting phases and delayed household formation. This means Canadians are not building equity around them until much later in life, and the dream of home ownership is slipping further and further away from young people.
The Liberals' response to a strained housing market is the legislation that we are discussing today, Bill C-20, but instead of a real plan to build homes, the Liberals have continued in the same direction and delivered their fourth costly Liberal housing bureaucracy, far from building at what they call generational speeds. In fact, the Liberal government's own housing advocate stated that at the current pace of building affordable homes, it would take over 1,000 years to restore housing affordability for the poorest Canadians.
Let us look closely at the facts. During the last election, the Liberal Prime Minister went across the country promising to double housing construction and deliver 500,000 new homes every single year. He promised to move at speeds we have not seen since the Second World War, yet over a year into the Liberal Prime Minister's mandate, we see the exact opposite. There are fewer permits, fewer starts and, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, national housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. That is an 18.1% decline over the next two years. The CMHC explicitly stated that we need to build somewhere between 430,000 and 480,000 homes a year up to 2035 just to restore basic affordability.
What about this new $13-billion Liberal Crown corporation being created under Bill C-20? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the Liberals have no real plan to build the 500,000 homes they promised and will only add 5,200 homes per year. That is a mere 1% of what they promised the Canadian people.
However, it gets worse. When the housing minister was asked about the metrics for the $13-billion new agency, he openly admitted, “There aren’t top-line targets set for the number of homes to build”.
Mike Moffatt testified at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, stating clearly about this piece of legislation, “[Build Canada Homes] lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents or prices will be, and over what time frame.”
The witness went on to say, “I can't tell you, five years from now, whether or not [Build Canada Homes] has been working, as there are no benchmarks for success. That's a problem.”
We have watched this movie before: announce billions of dollars, build a brand new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy and never set targets or deliver tangible results for the hard-working, everyday Canadians who pay the bills. Anyone in the private sector knows that if they endeavour to do a large project and do not set targets or key performance indicators, they are unequivocally setting themselves up for failure.
At a critical time when we need more supply and builders are asking for less government, the Liberals are focusing on building a new bureaucracy that is simply an expensive exercise in rebranding.
Just weeks ago, a report from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy showed that in the first three months of 2026, consumer insolvencies rose 8.5% compared to last year. Canadians seeking help under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have reached levels not seen since the 2009 great recession.
Today, the average Canadian owes $1.77 in debt for every dollar they earn. For the bottom 20% of earners, the very people the Liberals claim they want to help with non-market housing, that debt-to-income ratio skyrockets to an astronomical 430%. More than four in 10 Canadians are now just $200 or less away from insolvency each month. They have exhausted their savings, maxed out their credit cards and refinanced their homes just to keep up with food inflation, rising rents and soaring mortgage payments. Clearly, the plan is not working.
Conservatives believe in restoring the dream of home ownership and empowering the private sector to deliver the homes Canadians need, because we know we have the workers. In Canada, we have over 131,000 people with construction experience who are currently unemployed. We have 127,000 Canadians already trained with a trade certificate or diploma who are without work. We have the skilled tradespeople, we have the lumber and we have the land. What we do not have is a plan from the federal government that will empower the private sector and let builders build, especially given that 95% of supply currently comes from market housing.
Do not take it from me. A witness from the Ontario Home Builders' Association testified, “As the industry association representing home builders...we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government” and “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale.”
Conservatives do not support adding more Liberal bureaucratic red tape to the housing sector. Builders across this country are begging for less Liberal intervention, not more. Again I will point out that 95% of housing in Canada is delivered through the private market. We need to bring prices down by increasing supply, and we do that by cutting the costs of construction.
If the Liberals truly want to solve this crisis, they should stop building expensive, unaccountable bureaucracy that drives up costs and instead adopt our plan. We want to restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to restore balance in the market by cutting the GST on all new homes sold under $1.3 million. This single measure would save Canadian families up to $65,000 on a new home and immediately unleash a massive wave of new residential building across the nation.
Conservatives know applying this only to first-time homebuyers is not sufficient to get things moving in a way that would meaningfully make a difference. We also understand that many first-time homebuyers in many markets cannot afford to build. We also know that seniors looking to downsize in new construction could free up much-needed inventory for a growing family that needs square footage. Therefore, limiting this to first-time homebuyers is not the right approach.
We would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. When this incentive is in place, municipalities, large and small, start to develop plans for growing their communities and enabling development. A Conservative government would require major municipalities to increase the number of housing permits they issue by at least 15% each year to receive their federal funds.
There is a clear difference here: a Liberal government that believes the solution to every problem is more spending, more deficits, taxes and a fourth expensive housing bureaucracy with no targets that is not delivering for Canadians; or Conservatives, who believe in the power of Canadian workers, builders and local communities. We want to empower the private sector to increase supply and restore balance by removing the taxes and lowering construction costs so our young people can afford a place to call their own.
For these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-20.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, even with the member's background in the housing sector, I tend to disagree with her. At the end of the day, she tries to give the impression that the national government does not have a role, when in fact many of the things that the government is doing support the private sector. When we take a look at the Build Canada Homes corporation, after this legislation passes, hopefully, what we will see is the expansion of the modular home industry. In fact, we have already been seeing that.
There are different ways the government can contribute to increasing the housing stock. Some of the assertions that the member made, for example, were around the costs. Let us remember that he has been Prime Minister for just over a year. Not only have we already seen the stabilization of housing prices in Canada, but in many areas, we have actually seen decreases. We have seen a decrease of rents.
Obviously the government can make a difference. Would the member not agree that we need to have collaboration?
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question in there.
Conservatives believe in Canadians and in the private sector. Conservatives do not believe that we need another bureaucracy to solve the housing crisis in this country. We regularly talk to stakeholders, experts in this space, and they tell us what they need. This is not the legislation they are asking for.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and good friend has a strong knowledge in this space. I was wondering if she could explain why continuing to build bureaucracy does not actually build homes, and what she sees in her home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, who has strong ties to Newfoundland and Labrador, for that question.
When we build out government bureaucracy, we build out the size of government and we increase government spending, which drives up inflation, which drives up the cost of everything, including the cost of homebuilding. That is not the answer.
We want to unleash the private sector to be able to reduce those costs, so that we can spur on home construction. This would make a meaningful difference. As I said, in rural Canada, home ownership levels are very high. They never want to talk about what the pressure is on social housing, but it is that we are driving affordability out of reach and putting more people into a situation where they cannot afford home ownership. That is what we want to correct.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the constituents of London—Fanshawe. I go door to door and hear from them. With regard to home ownership, there are concerns that youth are affected by the affordability crisis and the lack of opportunity to afford a home.
I applaud my colleague. She and her family members are experts in the real estate and homebuilding industries. I was just wondering if she could expand on that, and tell us what issues they are experiencing with regard to the affordability crisis and young people buying homes in her riding.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, when the cost of everything increases, the people who suffer the most are the young people, especially the ones who want to enter the housing market.
As housing prices increase, rent prices also increase. This means that everything costs more. They cannot save for a down payment, and they feel like they are consistently on this hamster wheel. When they do not enter home ownership at a younger age, they cannot start to build assets around them. This is another reason why we are failing the next generation, by not being more serious about our approach to solve this housing crisis.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères has 30 seconds to ask his question.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. My question will be brief.
The bill we are currently studying seeks to create Build Canada Homes. Personally, I am sad that we are in a housing crisis. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that his government is working to resolve the crisis.
What has the government done that is so special to ease the housing crisis lately, besides finally listening to our criticisms about there being too much immigration?
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration. We have to measure success by results, not by funding announcements, bureaucracies or another conversation to get some more advice that does not actually lead to more homes being built.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, owning a home was once at the heart of the Canadian dream. For generations, Canadians believed that if they worked hard, played by the rules, paid their taxes and contributed to their communities, they would have the opportunity to buy a home, raise a family and build a secure future. That was not an unreasonable expectation. It was part of the promise of this country. Today, however, that promise is further out of reach than it has ever felt before.
After more than a decade of Liberal government, Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis unlike anything we have seen in generations. The cost of groceries has soared, utility bills continue to climb, families are paying more at the gas pump, more at the checkout counter and more for virtually everything, every necessity of life, yet nowhere is this failure more evident than in the housing sector. Home ownership is increasingly becoming an unachievable goal for hard-working Canadians. Young people who did everything right are losing hope. They pursued an education, entered the workforce, saved diligently and delayed major life decisions, only to discover that the dream of owning a home continues to move further and further away.
The statistics paint a sobering picture. According to the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, the number of Canadians seeking relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act during the first quarter of 2026 reached levels not seen since the aftermath of the Great Depression. Consumer insolvencies increased by 8.5% compared to the same period last year, and mortgage delinquencies have reached their highest levels since 2021.
Canadians are carrying an astonishing $2.6 trillion in household debt, and the average Canadian now owes $1.77 for every dollar earned, yet the burden is heavier for lower- and middle-income earners. Testimony before the finance committee revealed that, for the bottom 80% of earners, debt-to-income ratios exceed 200%. For the bottom 20%, they approach 430%. These numbers are more than just statistics. They represent families draining their savings, simply trying to keep up. They represent seniors worried about their financial security. They represent young couples wondering when they will ever be able to save enough money for that down payment. They represent Canadians who have refinanced mortgages, maxed-out lines of credit and taken on additional debt simply to afford rent, groceries and other necessities.
Canada is facing a housing crisis, not a housing challenge, not a housing issue, but a housing crisis, and it is a crisis that has been years in the making. I have seen the aftermath of this crisis in my hometown of Fort McMurray, where we have had booms and busts for as long as people have known that the oil sands existed. However, never was this more true than in the last decade when we had the Liberal government in place, which told people in my community that it would transition their jobs away, and that they should not actually be in that kind of industry.
What we saw, effectively for the last 10 years, were housing starts dropping to nearly zero, which means that, right now, we do not have the builders ready to build, because most of the builders have left town. Most of the construction workers have left town, because there were no jobs to be had as people were not buying houses. What we saw, and what we are continuing to see, are people upside down on their mortgage, which means they owe more than they have paid. If they want to sell their house, their choice is either to pay a whole bunch of money or go bankrupt. That is not a space where Canadians want to be, but this is where we are careening down, because of the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy for the last decade.
The decisions the Liberals make, and the decisions we make here in Parliament, have real-life impact on the lives of Canadians. This is not just a crisis for families who are looking to buy homes. It is a crisis for workers who build homes: electricians, carpenters, plumbers and welders. It has an impact on all kinds of construction workers. When projects are delayed by government red tape or permits take years instead of months, investment goes away. This is one of those problems, because when the investment goes away, the jobs disappear.
We need to think about that for a moment. Canada has a severe housing crisis and a severe housing shortage. We need millions of new homes across the country. We have skilled trades workers ready to build them, yet government policies are slowing down construction and preventing projects from even getting off the ground. Every housing project that is cancelled, delayed or deemed too expensive to proceed means fewer houses for workers to work on, fewer apprentices getting trained, fewer opportunities for young people entering the trades and fewer paycheques for hard-working Canadians. This is the reality that the Liberal government fails to understand.
What is the Liberals' solution? Their solution is yet another housing bureaucracy. What we are seeing with Build Canada Homes is a fourth Canadian housing bureaucracy because their solution to so much is just to build more government bureaucracy. The reality is we have yet to be able to understand, on the human resources, skills and social development committee, what powers of the Build Canada Homes could not be accessed through either the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which are two existing bureaucracies.
Instead, the Liberals want to put a new shiny bow on things, build something new and say they are going to build at unimaginable speeds, yet the reality is we are seeing construction grind to a halt. Most of the people who came before our committee when we studied this bill did not really understand what Build Canada Homes was going to do. They had some general ideas, but nothing concrete. When we had the CEO come to committee, we heard how many homes the corporation had built. The answer, I think, was nine, which is not speeds that had never before been seen.
The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes annually, yet according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation projections, housing starts could actually fall to approximately 212,000 units by 2028. That is not just a small shortfall. That is a huge failure of historic proportions. Even more concerning is the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that Build Canada Homes would contribute only about 5,000 homes annually. That is only 1% of the government's own annual housing target.
Canadians deserve better than announcements that generate headlines but fail to deliver results. The reality is builders have consistently told government what is needed. The solution is not more bureaucracy. The solution is not more government agencies. The solution is not having Ottawa involved. The solution is not having Ottawa attempting to become a developer. The solution is creating conditions that allow builders to build.
The CEO of the Ontario Home Builders' Association summed it up perfectly when he testified at our committee. He said, “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale.” The Conservative Party of Canada completely agrees and we believe that all Canadians should have the opportunity to own their own home and have access to safe and affordable housing.
That is why Conservatives believe that the federal government can assist home builders across the country by cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000; unleash building by tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding; have municipalities permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year; cut development charges by 50%, which the Liberals promised during the last election campaign but refused to deliver; end the capital gains on reinvestment in new housing in Canada; and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector. Most importantly, we believe the government should focus on the outcomes instead of announcements.
I know that is shocking, but Canadians do not measure success by the number of government programs that exist. They measure success by whether they can afford a home. They measure success by whether their children have opportunities. They measure success by whether their communities can grow and prosper. For too many Canadians, the answer today is no. The consequences of inaction are profound. Canadians are tired of excuses. They are tired of missed targets. They are tired of announcements that never materialize into results. They want action. They want homes. They want affordability. They want governments that remove obstacles instead of creating them.
As the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will continue fighting for the workers, the families, the tradespeople and the young Canadians who simply want a fair chance to succeed, to save, to buy a home, to build a future and to pass on something to their children. This was once the Canadian promise and it should be again. It is time to restore Canada's promise.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to open their eyes and see what is actually taking place. If I were to use the province that my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells comes from, in British Columbia alone, over 1,100 homes are going to be built under this government, working in collaboration with the British Columbia government. What is wrong with that? Hundreds of homes will be for supportive housing.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, sit back and say they know the government cannot do it. I have news for them. The Government of Canada, working with the Government of British Columbia and other stakeholders, will build over 1,000 homes in the next 12 months.
Does the member opposite support the initiatives that are going to deliver non-profit homes for the people of Canada?
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite can get all huffy and puffy, and have all the passion in the world for this, but it does not change the result that over 80% of Canadians want to own a home. They want to own their own house. The government has created yet another housing bureaucracy, so we are now up to four housing bureaucracies at the federal level in Canada. The government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer has even said that Build Canada Homes will add just 5,000 homes per year, which is 1% of what the Liberals promised. I do not think that meets the expectation of Canadians. I wonder if he does.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.
We heard that Quebec, through the Société d'habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty.
Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities' housing needs?
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as well as on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
The facts are crystal clear. We heard from so many witnesses during the committee's study of Bill C‑20. The witnesses said that there was a lot of uncertainty and that they were not getting answers about the point of all this or why it could not be done by existing agencies.
Ottawa decided to create another structure, to add more bureaucracy. It is not going to work. The fact is that we need to work more closely with the provinces, the territories and indigenous governments across the country because what Ottawa is doing is not working.
Helena Konanz Conservative Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, housing is so important right now in Canada. We cannot waste the moment by building more bureaucracy, more talking and not doing. For example, Build Canada Homes is another bureaucracy. In Penticton, housing is getting so expensive. In Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, multiple communities in my huge riding have applied for the housing accelerator fund in the last few years. Not one of them has gotten it.
Why would we build another bureaucracy when that is not working?
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my spectacular colleague from the South Okanagan area for her tremendous work.
She rightly points out the fact that the bureaucracies that currently exist, keyed by the Government of Canada, are too far away to be able to understand some of the needs of communities. This is one of the big problems that we face, but the answer from the Liberals is, “Let us build more bureaucracy. Let us not build more houses. Let us not do anything—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
We will now resume debate.
The hon. member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my speaking time with the member for Guelph.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the Government of Canada's Build Canada Homes act. Specifically, I will talk about why Build Canada Homes is important for supporting the Canadian economy and the federal government's buy Canadian policy.
Launched in 2025, Build Canada Homes is a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Working swiftly and efficiently, this new federal agency has already made significant progress in providing more affordable housing for Canadians, including families, women, single mothers and especially families in need.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate, all while maintaining a clear accountability framework to the government. That is why the Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation. The Government of Canada needs to strengthen its capacity to address the housing crisis, improve housing supply and accelerate innovation in homebuilding. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford. Housing costs are rising, supply is not keeping up with demand, and productivity in the construction sector is low. Traditional construction and funding approaches alone are not delivering the scale or speed Canadians need.
Build Canada Homes will centralize functions that were previously spread across multiple departments, agencies and programs that limited the government's ability to have maximum impact. It will act as a developer, a financier, a convenor and a catalyst for an even more productive homebuilding sector. Canadians need more homes, and the Build Canada Homes act will help make it possible to build more quickly, more efficiently and at the scale that is required.
In practical terms, since the Build Canada Homes initiative was launched, my office back home in Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation has made it a priority to inform local stakeholders and get them involved. We believe that, to address the housing crisis, we need to not only put in place ambitious programs, but also ensure that businesses, developers and municipalities are aware of the tools at their disposal. That is the mandate of all members from all parties. Our mandate is to promote Build Canada Homes in our workplaces, in our ridings. By working together, we can accomplish more in each one of our ridings.
In Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, for example, we have undertaken a major outreach effort targeting the construction industry. We compiled a list of businesses in our area so that we can send them the information about Build Canada Homes. We even made a list of businesses that are located outside of our riding but that do work in our riding and we invited them to participate in the information webinar put on by the federal government.
The goal of these efforts is to encourage local businesses to participate and take advantage of the opportunities that this new initiative has to offer. Sometimes the first step is meeting with municipal representatives. There are 41 municipalities in my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, so it is important to raise awareness among RCM reeves, mayors and municipal councillors. When they get wind of a construction opportunity, we pass on the information. At the same time, we keep all of the municipalities informed about the program's overall priorities. We see municipal governments as our indispensable partners in developing new residential projects. Keeping them informed in a timely manner about the opportunities that Build Canada Homes has to offer is imperative.
Our message has always been clear. We want to ensure that projects carried out in our regions benefit our workers, businesses and communities. That is why we are also focused on using Canadian-sourced materials and modern, innovative construction methods, such as modular or prefabricated construction, to speed up housing starts while supporting our economy.
Build Canada Homes investments are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable, community and non-market housing, while promoting shovel-ready projects that can make a lasting impact. Our role as MPs is to promote those opportunities, connect the right people and support local stakeholders in their efforts. We are fully committed to promoting the program.
I encourage all my colleagues in the House to follow Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation's lead by supporting promising initiatives and working with all partners in their regions. Every new housing project is an opportunity to meet the needs of families, workers, seniors and single-parent families. By providing our local partners with information, encouragement and guidance, we are taking concrete steps to help build more housing and strengthen our communities for years to come.
The team Canada strong initiative will transform the skilled trades sector. It will create skilled jobs for workers, plumbers and electricians. This will help us become more prosperous and create jobs. It will attract more apprentices to the workforce. I come from the construction industry, specifically the trades. When government announcements are made at the right time, it helps attract students who are still in school and get them into apprenticeships. Our goal is to train the next generation of workers and create good jobs.
This initiative will ensure that young Canadians are ready to build the housing and infrastructure we need. It will create new jobs, provide access to good jobs and strengthen Canada's workforce of tomorrow. That is how, over time, we have developed trades that did not exist 20 or 25 years ago, like tiling, roofing and interior finishing. These are trades that involve vocational training and that are expected to continue to grow in the construction industry.
The Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our country and make it more resilient so that it can move from dependence 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.
I am proud to promote Build Canada Homes in Quebec because partners are getting on board. Organizations believe in it; the sector believes in it. Nothing is perfect, but at least we have an accountability mechanism that will enable us to track each individual project so we can deliver as many homes as possible, end the housing crisis and reduce rents. The Government of Canada is achieving this by leaning on solid foundations laid by strong Canadian industries. We are investing in our future and fostering economic growth through Build Canada Homes and the buy Canadian policy.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by the initial $13‑billion allocation announced in the 2025 budget. Build Homes Canada was designed to consolidate federal support for affordable housing in one place by coordinating with other government departments and agencies, including the Government of Quebec. It is a partnership. The Government of Quebec is proud to be working with us to build a stronger Canada and a stronger Quebec.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. One of the things he mentioned was accountability. I was really happy to hear that.
I am going to ask him the same question I asked the other member, which I did not get an answer to. It is a very simple question: What are the targets for the next 12 months on how many homes will be completed by Build Canada Homes?
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Speaker, if you did not get a specific answer earlier, I cannot provide one now, either. It is not a fixed timeline. I have explained the process we are following in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. We send documents out all over the place, reach out to people, meet with entrepreneurs, secure municipal land and work with the RCMs. Our goal is ambitious. You are asking for a specific number, but there is no crystal ball when it comes to such a great program. The answer is that we want to build as many homes as possible.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Before moving on to questions and comments, I would like to remind members to address their comments to the Chair and not to another member.
The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.
We are all familiar with the Build Canada Homes program, which was previously called “Bâtir Maisons Canada” in French. This sparked a lot of reactions, particularly because some people felt the name was a clunky word-for-word translation. This led the government to change the the name of the program.
This brings to mind other situations we have seen, including the discovery in January 2025 that the website of the Liberal leader, who has since become Prime Minister, was riddled with errors and appeared to have been translated with Google Translate.
Then there is the campaign slogan “Elbows up”, which was translated into French as “On lève le coude”. Unfortunately, that phrase actually means raising a glass, as in having a drink.
All of this led us to March 25, 2026, when we found out that there were no francophones on the team that wrote Mark Carney's speech.
When I—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Members cannot use the Prime Minister's name, only his title.
I invite the hon. member to continue his speech.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is new, as my colleague on the other side of the House was saying. Sometimes, we still say his name out of habit.
All these problems show—my colleague on the other side of the House might acknowledge this— that government policies and decisions, as well as their implementation, are carried out in English.
Quebec comes second. French is an afterthought. Ottawa clearly could not care less about our reality.
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is well aware that I am a staunch defender of the French language.
Build Canada Homes is good news. My colleague would rather talk about the French language when we are debating Build Canada Homes. There is nothing but good news when it comes to Build Canada Homes. It is a very good program.
My colleague is attacking the French language because there is nothing bad to say about Build Canada Homes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can pick up on the fact that Build Canada Homes and the government have actually negotiated with and have an agreement with the Province of Quebec. We are seeing affordable homes that are going to be built in Quebec City, Montreal and other, rural communities. It is only a question of time. Those homes will, in fact, be delivered, and it shows the collaboration between both levels of government. I would like his thoughts on that.
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am staunch defender not only of the French language, but also of rural communities and the regions. Members are well aware of that. Throughout the process, I have worked to ensure that the regions and rural communities are included.
I have explained exactly what approach to take in a riding where most of the municipalities are in rural areas. We need to work with the municipalities, municipal councillors, mayors, municipal departments and RCMs to promote Build Canada Homes.
I have good news. It is working. It is working because we are getting responses and requests, and construction is under way.
Construction is under way in rural communities and the regions.
I would invite my Bloc Québécois colleagues and members who represent rural communities across Canada to follow the example of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have an opportunity to speak again 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 the supply of affordable homes for Canadians, truly affordable homes pegged to one's income.
We are in a housing crisis. On that, we all agree. Federal efforts to date have been spread across multiple departments and agencies and programs. This limits the government's ability to have maximum impact. Traditional construction and funding approaches are not delivering the scale or speed Canadians need, which is why we are taking this new, consolidated approach.
Of course, all Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home, but doing it the same way we have been doing it for generations—
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you can clarify something for me.
In my speech earlier, I mentioned the Prime Minister by name because I was simply reading the headline of an article.
I would like to know whether, based on precedent, it is permissible to include the name of a member of the House when reading the headline of an article.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The Standing Orders are clear. One cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. Even when reading a quotation from a paper document or an email from a constituent on a phone or computer screen, members cannot mention the name of a sitting member or minister in the House.
The hon. member for Guelph.
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, housing is a fundamental need, and growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. While the opposition wants to fiddle about with the structure they do not like, we are moving to action.
Build Canada Homes would be created to act quickly and efficiently in a more flexible way than ever before. The legislation would give that Crown corporation the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate. As a Crown corporation, it would maintain a clear accountability framework to the government. It would report on those numbers. This would strengthen its ability to build partnerships across the housing system and deliver affordable housing at the scale and speed Canadians require. Rather than silos, there would be broad collaboration.
Build Canada Homes would streamline federal housing efforts by acting as a developer, financier, convenor and catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. It would have a central position in forging strong partnerships across all levels of government and with indigenous communities. It would work with non-profits and other key stakeholders in the housing industry, including developers and community organizations, to drive the development of truly affordable housing across Canada.
Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its achievement lies in its partnerships. Stronger collaboration among all levels of government and with key partners is needed to address the housing challenges we face across this country.
Build Canada Homes would make it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground. The agency would attract public, private and philanthropic investment, maximizing its impact.
Build Canada Homes would make it easier to develop partnerships across the housing ecosystem to bring together the right financing, the right land and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, it would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. This is new.
It would accelerate the delivery of affordable housing, working with non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government. This approach reduces risk, eliminates barriers and guides projects through the development process. Sometimes those non-profits are not large, especially in smaller communities. Build Canada Homes could help guide them through this process.
We want to get housing financed and built. We will work directly with builders and housing providers that are focused on long-term affordability. This includes, as I said, non-profits, co-ops, community housing providers and organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. Those strategic partnerships will create homes that are affordable to a range of households across the income spectrum. Build Canada Homes would be empowered to achieve this collaboration through agreements, financial support, joint ventures and shared development initiatives. It would look for strong collaboration and coordination with the provinces and territories to help advance these priority projects, because working together, we can achieve more. This could include providing land, accelerating the approval process and waiving applicable fees.
We know indigenous people face unique housing challenges. Build Canada Homes would collaborate on proposals that deliver shared housing outcomes with first nations, Inuit and Métis governments, indigenous housing providers and urban indigenous organizations. Build Canada Homes would meet the housing needs of indigenous communities in a 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 culture and adopt housing solutions in ways that enable their communities to thrive. Paired with the infrastructure investments this government has announced and has begun, this could be a game-changer.
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 red tape and fast-track approvals.
In April, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced an initial partnership to create nearly 865 new affordable housing units in the province. The total investment in affordable housing, supportive housing and transitional housing in the province amounts to $200 million. This investment is being shared between Build Canada Homes and the Quebec government.
In Ontario, Arbo at Downsview will be home to 540 new homes and a future 1,700 new homes. In Ottawa, 1,100 homes have been announced. Eventually, there will be 3,000 homes.
The thing is that we do not build this stuff overnight. We have to assemble the land. We need the investors. We have to align the trades. We have to prep the site. We need the site to be serviced. What might start with a small number can actually grow over time, and I think we are missing that point.
By working together, the federal and provincial governments could accelerate the approvals process and identify additional housing projects. Those combined investments would help build more affordable housing in the communities that need them the most. It is local knowledge and local projects with a lot of federal support and guidance.
In March 2026, the Government of Canada, through Build Canada Homes, and the Province of New Brunswick partnered to deliver affordable housing. This partnership is accelerating the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel-ready affordable homes, again with the potential to scale that to 1,500 homes. There are land constraints to be considered as well. Build Canada Homes and New Brunswick are each contributing up to $150 million toward the project. We can see the collaboration. It would be great to have more of it in this place. Together, New Brunswick and Build Canada Homes are working to attract additional municipal, private and philanthropic partners to expand toward a 1,500-home target. At least half of those homes would serve lower-income Canadians, and a minimum of 160 homes would provide supportive and transitional housing. Approximately 30% of those, up to 450 homes, would be smaller and in rural centres, which is so critical. Small numbers are not small potatoes, because those homes matter to every single family.
In January 2023, the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. signed an agreement in principle that will deliver up to 750 much-needed homes across the territory. That is a lot of homes in the Arctic. This will be public, affordable and supportive housing. Through this agreement, Build Canada Homes would again provide a matching investment with the Government of Nunavut. As part of this partnership, approximately 30% of the units would be built off-site to incorporate modern methods of construction. This will streamline building processes and help accelerate the delivery of housing, making the most of the short construction season in the north while keeping costs down. Those first units are expected to be completed soon.
Pacd Homes, in my riding of Guelph, has designed homes that can be flat-packed and shipped. They can be assembled in a matter of weeks. This kind of innovation is a game changer.
In Nova Scotia, Build Canada Homes has secured something that is close to my heart. It would develop 1,430 new affordable homes. That includes 500 units of non-profit and community housing from the province's housing pipeline. Of those, 300 units would be built in Shannon Park, where I went to junior high. That includes supportive and/or transitional housing and public housing.
I do not know about Nova Scotia, but in Ontario, there has been an absolute dearth of investment in social housing. We need it badly. We need supportive housing badly, and this government is moving to create it.
Through Build Canada Homes, all levels of government would come together to address this housing crisis. We would increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce barriers to construction through a structured and collaborative approach. With private, public and government partners showing up at the table, we would get homes built. We would grow and strengthen partnerships because it is an integral aspect of building homes for Canadians. This legislation would allow Build Canada Homes to operate at arm's length from the government, manage assets, deploy innovative financial tools and make long-term investment decisions more efficiently.
This is the power of partnership: implementing transformative change. We are working together to build a strong and more unified approach to truly affordable housing across this country.
Billy Morin Conservative Edmonton Northwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her advocacy. She mentioned the infrastructure needed even before we build homes, for things like water. I note that the Liberals have 11 years of broken promises when it comes to the promises they made about indigenous water, in addition to breaking their promise in this Parliament on water legislation two times.
Let us grant them leniency on that just for now and say they are going to build homes for indigenous communities. There is a shortage of 157,000 homes on first nations reserves alone. What dent would Build Canada Homes put in that? What is the specific number of homes it would build on reserve?
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. It speaks to the spirit of collaboration that exists in this legislation. Because there would be multiple departments that might be involved, Build Canada Homes could help coordinate that.
I also talked in my remarks about the partnerships with the provinces and territories. It would not be up to the Government of Canada to make those decisions. They would be made in partnership with its provincial and territorial counterparts.
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. I would like to know if she is aware of the impact that this new administrative structure, the so-called Build Canada Homes, has had in places like Laurentides—Labelle, where projects have not been allowed to move forward, leaving women who are victims of violence without the safe havens they need. Construction has been put on hold while people figure out where the funding is, and I am not sure it will ever be completed.
Is my colleague aware that, if transfers to Quebec had not been suspended, women who are victims of violence would not have been left out in the cold?
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important problem. If that is really the case, it is a shame that there was such turmoil in the transition between programs. The member has an email address where she can directly make demands and ask questions of Build Canada Homes. I would encourage her to do so.
What I would say is that Build Canada Homes will provide far more housing for abused women and people in precarious situations. We know that affordable housing is key; it is vital for women to be able to escape violent situations. We completely agree on that. The goal is really to invest so that we can build more affordable housing, as well as transitional housing.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words my colleague put on the record. I want her to expand upon the idea of how important it is to work in collaboration, particularly with the provinces, indigenous people and other stakeholders, in order to ensure that we have more affordable housing. I was actually very pleased when she made reference to her home province having somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,400 homes. I believe that is what she indicated. Some of them will be in her own riding. Could she expand on that?
I know Nova Scotia is not alone. New Brunswick will also have 1,000 homes, or it is right around the 1,000 mark.
Again, how important is working in collaboration? Could my colleague reflect on her own riding being able to benefit because of that collaboration working?
Dominique O'Rourke Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, every province is going to have a different municipal act. Every province is going to have different regulations. Every municipality may as well. That collaboration is important, and so is streamlining some of those rules so that we can move faster. The provinces clearly need to collaborate. It is often their responsibility to ultimately provide the supports that go into supportive housing. All of this is intended to accelerate where there is provincial will, territorial will and first nations interest so that we can work together to find solutions for a project that are suitable for its context.
That is the difference with Build Canada Homes. It can bring in land. It can help with financing and it may know of other investors. This new structure creates that flexibility.
Arpan Khanna Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by recognizing a great event that happened in Oxford County not too long ago, the Woodstock Truck Show. It started out in Woodstock 12 years ago, but it has, sadly, moved out to the border with Burford, which falls in Brant County. This group does fantastic work uniting truckers from North America, who come together and raise money for such great causes. This year alone, they have raised almost $150,000 to support the Special Olympics and also WDDS in Woodstock. These guys deserve respect. Our truckers move our goods. They feed our families. They are always there, so we want to recognize them for that great accomplishment.
Today's topic of homebuilding is an important one. The government for the last 11 years has been making these big promises, grand announcements and photo ops, saying it is going to start building homes and going to build 500,000 homes in a single year, but instead, we have had the opposite. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgage payments have doubled. Rent payments have doubled. The down payment needed for a new home has doubled. A whole generation is now out of the market. There are builders who are not building, sellers who are not selling and buyers who are not buying, and that is taking a great toll on Canadians.
Young entrepreneurs and young Canadians have always dreamed of owning a home one day. That is gone. Nine in 10 young folks believe they will never be able to buy a home. They want to have their own home. They want to start a family. We had that in Canada before, where if someone worked hard, played by the rules and had a decent job, they could save money for a down payment, buy a decent home in a good, safe neighbourhood and raise their family with their values. That was the Canadian promise, but we are not seeing that anymore. Instead of standing up for Canadians and actually making their lives easier, what do we get from the Liberals? It is the same old same old.
The Prime Minister made all these big promises, that this is a new government, that it was going to change things and that it was not like the old government, but if I look across the aisle, I see the exact same ministers and the exact same MPs. They are the same MPs and ministers who caused this housing crisis we have today. The former housing minister caused the immigration crisis, and then he became the housing minister and destroyed the housing industry. Now he is justice minister, and he has destroyed the justice system. The Liberals have caused these crises in our communities.
Before someone can even buy a home, they have to survive. Right now, Canadians are working harder and harder but barely getting by. They cannot save for that down payment anymore. Heck, they cannot even buy groceries anymore. We have 2.2 million Canadians visiting food banks in a single month, which is a record high. One in 10 of them are seniors, and one in four of them are young children. As a father, knowing that kids are going to school hungry bothers me. It should bother every single member in the chamber. Children should be going to school with full stomachs, with food in their bellies, ready to learn to be the leaders of the next generation, but thanks to the government, we have seen the opposite.
The Liberals could heckle me. I know they love heckling. They get upset when we talk about the facts because it goes against their narrative and what they are selling to the media, but Canadians know. They see through this nonsense. They are seeing through it. They are seeing that Canadians are struggling.
I can tell the House a few stories from my riding, Oxford, just from this last week. The government said it was going to hand out these food credits. Some people got $18. Some of them got $5, but the government promised them a lot more than that. On this side of the House, we will always stand for tax cuts and we would make sure that money goes back in the pockets of Canadians, but not how the government does it.
Here is a story from Dezmond. He says that “life gets harder for young Canadians with families like myself with additional taxes and the increase in cost of living, as an apprentice I'm losing hours for my full time job [and can't] start a career”. He cannot afford to live in this country.
Tiffany is a single mother raising two teenage boys. Her aging parents, who are retired, are sending her $1,000 a month for food and to help with rent money. This is despite her having a job, and at the end of the month, she has $64 left from that $1,000 transfer. That is a story we are hearing right across our country: Parents are now subsidizing their kids' future.
This new bureaucracy the Liberals announced would do absolutely nothing to fix the affordability crisis, but it would continue to line the pockets of Liberal insiders. They want to make another bureaucracy, another one, on homebuilding, where they choose the executive, they choose the projects, they choose the dollar amount, they try to hide behind closed doors, and there is a lack of transparency. Again, the rich get richer, and average working-class Canadians continue to struggle.
Here is a coincidence. I wonder what one of the biggest real estate asset managers in the country is. Does anyone know what company it is? I wonder. It is Brookfield. Surprise, surprise, Brookfield is one of Canada's largest asset managers. I wonder who has connections to that company. We have to ask these questions. We need transparency in the House. We need to know where the funds would be going. It is not fair that Canadians work their butts off, make the sacrifices, stay away from their families—
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Play by the rules.
Arpan Khanna Conservative Oxford, ON
That's exactly right. They play by all the rules, Mr. Speaker, yet they are being pushed right to the back.
As for the numbers on housing that the Liberals have promised, they are not even meeting those targets. I think they hit 2.1% of the target they themselves set. In what occupation or job is failure rewarded like that? They should be held accountable for their failures.
Canadians see right through these illusions that the Prime Minister is creating. Canadians are waking up. The Prime Minister is great for giving large, grand speeches, and I will be honest. In his Davos speech, the Prime Minister said some of the right stuff. Some stuff made sense, but homes cannot be built with empty words, stomachs cannot be filled with empty words, and jobs cannot be created in this country with empty words, and that is all we are getting with the Liberal government.
There is another concern we have when the Liberals talk about homebuilding. I am seeing this rural sprawl happening into our farmland. We are seeing our farms being taken away. In Oxford County, that is a big concern for us. Our farmers are the backbone of Oxford County. They are the backbone of our country. They feed our families. It is a very big concern for me to see some of that farmland being taken away. Once farmland is paved over, it is gone forever.
In Oxford County, we have class 1 land, which is some of the best farmland in the country. Members talk about a self-reliant country. Food security is a priority. Domestic production, making more, growing more and harvesting more here in Canada, should be a priority. When the Liberals have reckless projects taking away our farmland, that is a problem. One of those projects that we hear about is happening in eastern Ontario. My colleague is here today. She has been a great advocate fighting against the Alto train project, another boondoggle waiting to happen.
The Liberals are taking away land from our farmers. Our farmers need that land, and they will be here in Parliament to raise their voices. I really encourage the members across the aisle to please join the Conservatives, to join colleagues like mine from eastern Ontario, who are raising serious concerns about this.
The Liberals can talk all they want. The words are not meeting the action. We are not seeing the results. It has been over a year now. They have their majority government. They have no excuses.
Homelessness should not be going up, but it is, under their watch. Tent cities are popping up everywhere, in Winnipeg too. I was there a few months ago, and I met with the mayor. He is seeing a crisis in his community with crime, and he is seeing tent cities. They are raising serious concerns. Again, there is money for the wealthy but nothing for those who are struggling. That has to change.
That is why Conservatives have always put forward solutions to make sure we can build more homes at an affordable price that all Canadians would be able to purchase. That is why we raised the issue of cutting GST on new homes priced up to $1.3 million, saving the average family $65,000. That is a big chunk of change that would help stimulate the economy but also give that first-time homebuyer a chance to get into the market.
We have talked about removing the capital gains tax, so investors could invest and those folks who want to buy their first rental property could get into the market. We want to create that economic environment where money is coming back to our country, unlike the Liberals. We have seen money going down south in the last 11 years.
We have talked about incentivizing municipalities, making sure that we could become one of the fastest places to permit. Canada is one of the slowest permitting jurisdictions in the OECD. I think we place 63rd out of 67. That is pretty bad. We have the highest housing cost per capita in the G7 and the highest household debt in the G7. Those are serious concerns.
Conservatives would incentivize municipalities, so if they permitted faster, they would get a bonus when it came to infrastructure funding, as well. We want to get out of the way. These reckless red tape regulations that profit only the insiders have to go. Let the builders build. Let our farmers farm. Let us not block progress happening in our country. That is our Conservative plan, a plan where young Canadians could buy a home, where our seniors could retire in peace, with dignity, and where our workers, when they make that sacrifice, would be able to purchase a home. Let us stop the bureaucracy. Let us get shovels in the ground.
With that, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
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.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I declare the motion defeated.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
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.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-20.
Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)