Bill C-26

An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply

This enactment authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the provinces and territories for the purpose of improving housing supply.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deviate slightly from protocol, as I would like to speak about a colleague who is held in high regard by all. His zest for life is unmatched. I am, of course, referring to our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who suffered a serious medical emergency last week. I would like to commend his assistant, Lauriane, who acted with calm and composure. Without her, our colleague would probably no longer be with us today. I thank her for what she did.

On behalf of the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, I would also like to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have written to wish him a speedy recovery. It is clear that we can rise above our differences and move beyond party politics. This member is clearly held in high regard by all our colleagues in Ottawa. Finally, on behalf of all parliamentarians, I would like to wish my colleague a speedy recovery. May he get plenty of rest and return to us in fine form in the fall. Be well, my friend.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As the parliamentary session draws to a close and members return to their communities, I want to take this solemn moment to offer a rigorous assessment of the past few months, an assessment that, unfortunately, can be summed up in a single word: respect. Actually, it is more accurately described as flagrant, persistent, calculated and insulting disrespect on the part of the Liberal government, day after day, toward Parliament, toward our democratic institutions, and toward all Canadians.

The Parliament of Canada is a sacred place. This is where 343 duly elected members gather to convey the voices, fears, hopes and needs of over 40 million citizens from coast to coast to coast. It is the beating heart of our democracy. What have the Liberals been doing throughout this parliamentary session, and particularly over the past two weeks? They have been stifling democratic debate. They have been shutting down debate over and over through heavy-handed closure motions on bills that are critically important to the future of our country. They shut down debate on Bill C‑14. They shut down debate on Bill C‑26. They shut down debate on Bill C‑20. They shut down debate on Bill C‑9. Finally, they shut down debate on Bill C‑30.

Elected officials did not have the time to study the legislation, question experts in committee or amend the clauses, which needed quite a bit of work. I have a simple question, one that millions of taxpayers are asking: How can Canadians trust the Liberals to manage their money? That is a fundamental question. The Conservatives are asking this on behalf of Canadians, who are still awaiting an answer.

This government's contempt does not stop there. The Liberals have shown that they have no respect for taxpayers' money. Day after day, Canadians send money to Ottawa and ask us to manage it wisely in order to deliver services. That is what we need to do. However, what the Liberals have done is add more bureaucracy and create a never‑ending financial fiasco.

Facts are facts. The Cúram software project had an initial budget of $1.75 billion. It ended up costing $6.6 billion. Instead of calling for an investigation, expressing outrage and saying that this is unacceptable, what did the Liberals do in the economic update? They added another $500 million to that project. Employees are telling us that what they need is not more money, but to be heard.

Employees working with the Cúram system have written to me and spoken to me over the phone. They say that the system is not working and that they are not being listened to, unfortunately. I reached out to the minister. I offered to meet with her and with the employees who use the Cúram system so that they can tell us what is not working so that she could fix it. She turned down my offer. Employees are willing to help us and to help the Liberal government fix this fiasco, but what did the Liberals do? They turned a deaf ear.

The situation involving Maritime Launch Services is a financial scandal. A private company is leasing a parcel of land for $13,500 and subleasing it to the federal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, for a total of $200 million. Then the government asks Canadians to send a portion of their hard-earned paycheque every Thursday, telling them that it is going to manage the money properly. It is embarrassing.

I asked the minister some clear questions. Who signed the contract? Who read the contract? When did the minister meet with that company? I did not get any answers.

For the past few years, we have been fortunate to have social media to keep us connected to the population. People are furious. They are writing to ask me whether the minister gave me an answer and whether he told me who signed the contract. They are asking why I am not allowed to know who signed the contract. This is a flagrant breakdown in transparency on the part of the government.

I asked the minister if I could go meet with the government employees who are telling us that things are not working right but that they are prepared to help us. They have been working with the system for years and are ready to help us because they know it inside out. I am asking the minister to let me go meet with these employees so that they can explain what is going wrong, because that is our role. The minister refuses to meet with them. This is no joke. People working for the government want to help us, but the government refuses to meet with them.

Canadians are frustrated about the way things are being handled, and opposition members are frustrated about how we are being treated right now. When I asked the minister a question about the lease, he said he would set up a meeting so I could get to know some astronauts. Quite frankly, that is embarrassing. I do not want to meet with the astronauts; I want to meet with the managers. Our role is to manage the money that Canadians entrust to us. We must manage this money the way good fathers and mothers do and, above all, the way good managers do. We need to use that money wisely. We must give Canadians services that are worth the money they entrust to us. That is our role.

However, right now, the government is operating by stifling debate over and over. The government is muzzling the opposition and working without respecting Canadians and the money they entrust to us.

We are getting ready to go back to our ridings, get back to our communities and see our constituents. I hope that my Liberal colleagues will also go out and meet with Canadians and listen to them.

I have had the privilege of serving at both the municipal and provincial levels, and now I have the privilege of serving at the federal level. I have always said the same thing: It is a great privilege to be the eyes, ears and voice of our constituents. I hope the Liberals will be the eyes, ears and voice of their constituents this summer, because they are probably going to be surprised by what they hear. Canadians are not happy that their public finances are being mismanaged. They do not like that.

In closing, I would like to share my hopes for when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I hope the government will respect Parliament and answer questions honestly, so that we get real answers. I hope the government will invest in the community rather than continuing to fund bureaucracy. I hope the government will manage Canadians' money in a responsible, disciplined and transparent manner. The people listening to us are probably thinking I am dreaming.

On this side of the House, we will always be there to stand up for Canadians and to ensure that their money is managed wisely.

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

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

Mr. Speaker, coming out of the last election, the Prime Minister and the government made it very clear that housing was going to be a priority of this government, the issue of housing affordability, and we have seen that demonstrated in budgets and legislation. Once again, we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would give literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians the opportunity to have a more affordable home. To me, that is what this is all about.

There are two aspects that, I believe, would be profoundly and positively impacted by this particular piece of legislation. The most obvious is those who would have the opportunity, through this substantial break in terms of costs, to purchase and acquire a home. Another aspect that I would suggest we need to take into consideration and that would really benefit is our construction industry as a whole.

I would like to provide comments on both of those issues, but first I will provide a quick comment, because I know members have raised the issue, on timing and concerns in regard to how quickly the government is trying to get this legislation through before the summer break. It is absolutely critical that we are there to deliver for Canadians in a very real and tangible way, which is exactly what Bill C‑26 would do.

One thing that members need to recognize is that we brought the legislation into the House just last Thursday. The very first speaker on the legislation took two hours and 45 minutes of speaking time before he decided to let other members within the Conservative caucus speak. There should be no surprise coming from the Conservative benches that the government is concerned in regard to why, once again, we are seeing a Conservative opposition that tends to not want to see legislation pass, and then starts to criticize the government for not passing legislation. We have found, just like Stephen Harper, that at times the government needs to have a programming of legislation in order to be able to get the legislation passed. That has become very clear here in the House of Commons over the last number of months. The Prime Minister and every Liberal MP understand how important it is that we get the monies in that are so critically important.

This is one aspect. It was not long ago that we were debating legislation for Build Canada Homes, which had a focus on affordable homes and has already been having tangible results because we had co-operation, independence and opportunities to expand through collaboration in that area. We are talking about thousands of homes in the making as a direct result of that piece of legislation. That is exactly what we are going to see here.

We now have a Minister of Housing who has already had the discussions necessary with a province we should all be concerned about. The province of Ontario has some serious issues with housing starts. I am from Manitoba, but I understand the importance of trying to push those housing starts in the province of Ontario and other jurisdictions. I was very pleased to see the collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, and it was to the degree that we now have an agreement where we will see the sales tax that would normally be applied to the construction of a new home dropped. That is going to save Ontarians tens of thousands of dollars. By presenting it in a fashion in which Ontario and Canada, in co-operation, are collaboratively working together, we are providing an incentive that will see many people in Ontario make the decision to build.

That is the purpose of providing this incentive. It makes it more affordable, and we will see more homes being built this year in the province of Ontario as a direct result of two levels of government working together collaboratively, recognizing a problem and coming up with a direct action, a direct action that would complement other aspects of housing that the Government of Canada is working on.

It is not just provincial governments that we recognize. We also recognize municipalities, and how it is that municipalities can benefit from working with the different partners, whether it is the provincial government or the national government. I remember having a discussion with the mayor of Winnipeg and the mayor talked about the hundreds of homes that have been built directly because of the support that the city has received from the federal government. I say that because it is a different level of government, and it demonstrates clearly that Ottawa, our national government, does have, and should have, a role when it comes to housing in our nation.

I was pleased with the Bloc members who indicated that they would be supporting the bill. It is not too often that I say nice things about the Bloc, but this time, I will, because I see that members of the Bloc have recognized the value of a national government being able to support and work collaboratively with a provincial government. They recognize how residents of Quebec would actually benefit from it, as demonstrated by the Canada and Ontario benefit. I hope the Province of Manitoba will reach some sort of an agreement shortly. The sooner the better, I would suggest, so that the residents of Manitoba will likewise benefit under the program.

I believe that our new Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, made it very clear how important it is as a government to work collaboratively, where we can, with provinces to the benefit of Canadians. Housing is one of those areas where we have actually been somewhat successful.

We have already had buy-in on Build Canada Homes, first the agency and now the Crown corporation. There are different stakeholders and different industries getting involved, like modular homes, non-profits, housing co-ops and other forms of housing. Today, we are talking about that $1.7 billion. Injecting that into the housing industry will enable many Canadians to have the opportunity to save, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of our construction industry. It is the workers who have the skill sets, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the roofers and the pipefitters. These professions are so critically important for building Canada strong.

Putting in policies and bringing in legislation of this nature is going to provide jobs and opportunities in many different ways, whether it is for training facilities or for those who are currently employed in construction. It is also for those purchasing the homes, selling the homes and building the homes.

There are many winners, because we recognize how important it is for the federal government to continue to work with provinces in a collaborative fashion to enhance the number of homes in Canada's housing stock. We are committed to increasing that housing stock, dramatically, in the coming years.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 gives the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees of results, targets or accountability to build homes. In fact, the word “housing” is in this bill only twice.

My hon. colleague mentioned the rebate program, the program that was signed with the Province of Ontario, yet there is no specific program put in place through regulation on how that rebate will work. That is my understanding. I have had developers call me as late as last week. They cannot find out from the Ontario government how the rebate works. When they are told by the province to go to the CRA, the CRA is telling them it does not know how this program works. Perhaps the member can tell us how this rebate program will work.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I rise today in the chamber in support of Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

At its heart, this bill is intended to make it easier for Canada to build more homes and the kinds of communities where people can truly live. For many Canadians, housing is not an abstract policy issue. When we think about housing, we must consider it as the starting place for the way Canadians imagine their future, where workers can live close to their jobs; seniors can remain close to their communities and age in place; and young people can rent, own or raise a family. This is an issue that even my preteen son is thinking about, wondering how he can remain in the city he loves.

It comes as no surprise that global economic pressures have reshaped the housing market. Rising construction costs, labour shortages and wages that have not kept pace with inflation have all contributed to the challenges we face today. We know that without secure housing, it is impossible to plan for the future, to build stability or to fully participate in Canada's economy. I see this clearly in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront.

Spadina—Harbourfront is one of the densest communities in this country. It is a riding of high-rises, condominiums, co-operatives, rental buildings, shelters, supportive housing, student housing and seniors housing. This is a place where people live vertically. They share public space, rely on transit, walk to work, gather in parks, hang out at STACKT market, the Waterworks Food Hall, One Love market, Sugar Beach or The Island Cafe, and build community in ways that are deeply urban and deeply Canadian.

In my riding, I see the beauty and possibility of density every day. Density can mean a senior is better able to live closer to health care, groceries and neighbours who can check in. It can mean that a young person can walk to school or work. It can also mean that families can share playgrounds, libraries, community centres and waterfront spaces.

Just last weekend, the waterfront was vibrating with excitement as we welcomed the world for the FIFA World Cup, with thousands cheering for Canada right from their condo balconies and watching the crowds gather in the streets.

We could live in communities with less sprawl, stronger transit and more vibrant main streets. Vertical living can work when we plan for people instead of units. We see examples of this across our community. Harbour Square, for example, has long shown how vertical communities can include shared services, including shuttle services that help residents move through the city and remain connected.

Across the riding, we see buildings where neighbours organize, support one another, share amenities and create a real sense of belonging. This is the kind of city building we should be learning from.

We also know the best housing solutions do not come from government alone. They come from housing co-operatives that show us that affordability, stability and community ownership go hand in hand. They can also come from organizations like Eva's Initiatives, which supports young people experiencing homelessness and reminds us that housing is not only about a roof, but about safety, connection, trust and the chance to rebuild a life.

The best housing solutions also come from thoughtful public planning, like the work of Waterfront Toronto, which has shown that the when we build with intention, we can create communities that include housing, transit, parks, public space, climate resilience and access to water. This is the vision that we need more of in Canada: not just buildings, but more homes where people feel they have complete communities.

The housing crisis has also placed enormous pressure on the construction sector. In the greater Toronto area, new home sales fell to just over 5,300 units in 2025, which is the lowest level in more than 45 years. That slowdown has already led to job losses in the skilled trades and construction sector. These are the very workers Canada needs if we are going to build the houses people are counting on.

Approximately 80,000 people are leaving the GTA because of affordability pressures. A study by Altus Group for the Building Industry and Land Development Association found that without urgent action, nearly half of all residential construction jobs in the region could be at risk and housing starts could fall by more than 60% compared to 2024 levels. We must act in order to protect housing supply and keep skilled workers on the job. We must make it easier to build, to build quickly and to build well.

Through Bill C-26, our government is proposing to provide $1.7 billion to provinces and territories immediately so they can implement measures to increase Canada's housing supply. This funding is designed to help remove the barriers slowing down homebuilding, including by lowering development charges, fees, levies or sales taxes on new homes. It would also support efforts to harmonize rules, improve internal trade and increase productivity in the residential construction sector.

At a time when the housing market is under real pressure, this bill would keep projects moving, maintain construction activity, protect skilled jobs and unlock the homes Canadians urgently need.

Fixing Canada's housing issues will require a wide range of solutions and, above all, close collaboration. No single order of government can solve the housing crisis alone. The strongest housing systems are built when public, private, non-profit and community partners are all at the table.

We are already seeing what that collaboration can look like. In March, the federal government and the Province of Ontario signed a historic partnership agreement to build homes, transit and communities, backed by $8.8 billion in joint funding over 10 years. This agreement supports housing-enabling infrastructure and helps reduce the cost of building new homes. It includes support for municipalities that reduce and maintain low development charges. This includes an HST rebate to incentivize new home construction and support for major transit projects to connect people to jobs and services. Ontario's removal of the full 13% HST for eligible buyers of new homes valued up to $1 million, for one year from April 2026 to March 2027, is one example of what this kind of partnership can make possible. Through Bill C-26, our government has agreed to cover the 5% federal portion of that HST relief. This is a practical measure because it supports near-term construction activity while longer-term work continues to lower the cost of building homes. Since that announcement, new home sales in the GTA have begun to recover. In April alone, approximately 1,100 new homes were sold, nearly triple the number sold during the same period last year.

In Toronto, housing and infrastructure must be planned together. This is why investments like the waterfront east transit project are so important. This project will connect communities such as East Bayfront, the Port Lands and Ookwemin Minising. It is not only a transit investment, but a housing strategy. Good transit helps unlock new neighbourhoods and connects people to work, school, child care and community. It supports the construction of thousands of new homes in places where people can live with dignity and connection.

We are also moving forward with Build Canada Homes, an ambitious initiative to accelerate homebuilding across the country, including transitional, supportive and deeply affordable housing. This program includes a $13-billion initial investment, the development of federal lands, support for factory-built housing and measures to preserve long-term affordability. It is already supporting thousands of new units and has the potential to deliver tens of thousands more. The legislation before us would give these efforts the flexibility and tools they need to accelerate delivery, take on risk responsibly and build the housing Canadians are counting on.

In a city like Toronto, where affordability remains one of our greatest challenges, this kind of relief can make a meaningful difference. It helps more buyers enter the market and supports the construction of the homes we so urgently need. This why this bill is so important. It is a measure that has been called for by housing advocates, including organizations like BILD, and it represents a clear win for builders, workers and residents in my riding.

Canada's housing market is going through a period of adjustment, but that does not change the reality that we are facing a structural housing supply shortage. Our government has been clear: We will build more homes faster and more boldly. Bill C-26's purpose is to support housing supply, protect Canadian jobs and maintain capacity in the construction sector. By acting now, we can keep construction activity moving, retain skilled workers and ensure that builders can continue to plan and launch new projects at a time when that continuity is critical.

The housing crisis did not happen overnight and it will not be solved overnight, but the choices we make today will shape the future of housing in this country for generations to come. Our government is here today working to provide Canadians with the tools they need to build that stability. Bill C-26 is one important step toward that goal. We are taking meaningful action to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today. We are working closely with provinces, territories and municipalities, because we know that collaboration is essential in a moment like this.

In Spadina—Harbourfront, I see every day that density can be beautiful, that vertical living can be full of community and that good planning can help people build real lives in the heart of a city. This is the future we should be building toward. For that reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-26.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the Bloc supports Bill C-26. The key thing is that the bill would give the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantee of results, targets or accountability to build homes.

With those concerns, why does the Bloc support the bill?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Mirabel, a riding to the north of my riding. I really enjoy his sense of humour and quick wit. I like that in my colleagues.

My colleague just told me a short while ago that he is leaning slightly in favour of Bill C‑26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. It would indeed allow housing construction to move forward as quickly as possible.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that, considering that this is federal legislation. We are in a federation.

What are his thoughts on this matter, since we will be able to build housing faster in the provinces, the territories and his riding, Mirabel?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her. I mentioned behavioural issues because she was talking really loudly. However, we really like hearing her voice. That said, she still plans to support a closure motion. She is still going to vote in favour of it.

This is not the first closure motion that we have debated. As Parliament winds down for the summer, ever since the government managed to scrape together a majority by poaching members from the Conservatives and the NDP, it has imposed closure on not one, two, three, four or five bills, but nine. The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly. It is not managing its work in the House properly, and it is having a hard time setting its priorities.

The government has even introduced closure on Bill C-22. This is a bill that could be highly detrimental to Canadians' privacy and that will, in a sense, give the police access to our phones and our private data. Everyone understands that the legal framework needs to evolve, but imposing closure on this today is not something we were expecting. This is preventing serious parliamentary work from being carried out, yet I do not believe there was any real urgency. This is not the economic update. This is not tax legislation.

The same thing happened with Bill C-30. The government turned up in committee. I agree that not all the proposed amendments were sound. However, when the first Conservative amendment was moved, after barely two minutes of debate, the government made its position very clear. Through the member for Whitby, it made it known that no amendments would be tolerated, that the government now had a majority and that, ultimately, committee time serves only a superficial purpose.

The government is muzzling debate on important issues. One example is Bill C‑30. Right now, the government is telling us that it was elected, that it has a job to do, that it has an agenda. The new government, which is now almost 11 years old, says it was elected with a job to do.

Now, the government is changing the law on pesticides to allow cabinet to make decisions that go against the science on pesticides. I am sure that there are plenty of great people in cabinet. However, there are no pesticide specialists or scientists who have conducted studies on the subject. The Green Party member came to talk to us about this in committee. She clearly explained that, when it comes to pesticides and the environment, this bill is the most regressive and the most damaging to human health and safety since possibly the 1970s. That was not in the Liberals' election platform.

Privatizing airports to funnel money into their so-called sovereign wealth fund, which does not have a single penny in it, was not part of their campaign platform. Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation, who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.

Even though filibusters may sometimes be necessary in cases of parliamentary deadlock, members of Parliament must still be allowed to do their jobs. They must be given the chance to do their jobs. Closure is a measure of last resort that is imposed when there is a genuine deadlock. After all, there is a reason why it exists in the rules. However, it is not meant to be imposed eight, nine, 10, or 11 times in two or three days simply because the government has not done its job properly.

I said it was not doing its job properly, so I will give some examples. Bill C-26 is one such example. Then there is Bill C-31. People need to understand that when a bill is introduced, opposition members must study it. To study it, they must be able to ask public servants very technical questions to have the bill's clauses explained to them. This is called a technical briefing. These briefings are generally provided shortly after we receive the bill, so that we can do our jobs.

When the Liberals imposed closure on Bill C-31, we had been asking the Department of Finance for a briefing for three weeks. We had not received a reply. Eventually, we were given a briefing on a Thursday, I believe, while everyone was attending committee meetings and almost none of the critics were able to attend. The following Monday, the Liberals introduced a closure motion. They claim that there is filibustering happening and that closure motions are necessary, but that is simply not the case. Now, we are in the same position with Bill C-26. We agree that Bill C-26 provides for unconditional payments to Quebec. This is rare; we welcome it and believe it is a sound approach. However, we have been asking for a technical briefing on Bill C-26 for about two months now. For two months, we have wanted to study and understand it, and now we are being hit with time allocation.

We finally came to understand it during consideration of the estimates. I was there for consideration of the estimates, and so was the Minister of Finance. There were many questions about this. At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill. I had to stand up in committee of the whole to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intended to transfer the funds to Quebec with no strings attached. Only once we got answers in committee of the whole were we able to continue our own consideration of the bill. The bill states that the “amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister”.

This means that, once Bill C‑26 is passed, the Minister of Finance can get up tomorrow morning and decide how much to pay each government. He has the right to do whatever he wants with this money; it is at his discretion. The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.”

Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate. What is more, the explanations we got so we could understand this bill came from a press release. We had to pore over the press release to try to understand the government's intentions. It was almost like analyzing a religious text. Despite all that, we are in favour of Bill C‑26. However, the government is telling us that there is interference, that there is work to be done, that they need to move quickly, that this is very important and that the opposition is blocking the process. That is not what is happening in this case. What we have here is a case of poor management of House of Commons time and poor management of committees by the office of the government House leader.

I should point out that Quebec is the only province with permanent social and community housing construction programs. In Quebec, the definition of “social and community housing” differs from the definition of “affordable housing” used by programs in the rest of Canada. When it came to programs managed by CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with the possible exception of the rapid housing initiative, Quebec rarely received its share because these programs focused on high-rise apartment buildings in cities in the rest of Canada.

During the minute of time that I have left, I wish to say that under the current circumstances, with the construction and community ecosystems that are familiar with Quebec's programs, what is being done here today is important. It is important to recognize that the most effective approach for these programs is to take 20% or 22% of the amount and pay it directly to Quebec. I will end by saying that this would prevent the Liberals from doing what they did with Canada's national housing strategy, in other words, setting tons of conditions like the Trudeau government did and ending up in negotiations for three or four years, while we miss out on tens of thousands of completed housing units.

We are pleased that the minister has agreed to pay Quebec its share. We are convinced that it will lead to housing starts on the ground and benefit Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hear that the Bloc sees the merit in voting for Bill C-26. He might want to revisit the whole health equation and also factor that into discussions that have taken place where there were tax points transfers in favour of fewer cash transfers back in the late seventies or early eighties. I might be a little bit off on the years there, but that should also be taken into consideration.

Having said that, since equalization payments came into existence, my home province of Manitoba has been a recipient. One of the nice things with Canada being part of a federal system is that there is a sense of fairness in the different regions through equalization payments. I, for one, look at Manitoba, which has been a very big beneficiary of equalization payments—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel, the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”.

It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26. The Bloc Québécois has often advocated for an unconditional transfer of $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories and that is what this bill provides. This money will go directly to the territories to address the major housing crisis we are currently facing, without going through any new structures. That is the best part, that this money is not going through new structures, action plans, or some sort of federal entity as we saw with Build Canada Homes.

Not long ago, in fact, I rose to speak to Build Canada Homes. We quickly realized that although this initiative had its appeal, with $7.3 billion to invest, it was slowing down social housing construction. I gave the example, in my riding, of a group called Loge m'entraide, which received funds from the SHQ, or Société d'habitation du Québec, for a major project, and was waiting for an answer about the federal government's contribution through the affordable housing fund. As often happens with federal initiatives, CMHC's affordable housing fund was set aside with assurances that a new initiative was on the way. The new initiative never materialized and had to be picked up by Build Canada Homes, with the result that the Loge m'entraide project is now in limbo.

However, that is not what we are seeing with Bill C-26. It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities. We have said many times that the federal government should instead focus on straightforward, unconditional and predictable transfers to the provinces. That is what we are seeing with Bill C‑26, I might add.

However, my job is certainly not to sing the government’s praises, so I would like to take this opportunity to address a glaring problem: federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Why can I do this in the context of Bill C-26? Because it is, in a way, the exception that proves the rule. There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has repeatedly acted in an unjust and unfair manner when transferring funds.

This gives me an opportunity to once again address the most glaring injustice in the federation: the fiscal imbalance. We need to talk about this again because the reason the government can transfer $1.7 billion dollars at this point is that it has the fiscal capacity to do so. It has that fiscal capacity because of the fiscal imbalance. It has more revenue than expenses. What I mean by the fiscal imbalance is quite simple. Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue.

Essentially, the provinces and Quebec provide most of the services, such as education, health care and social programs, to name just a few, but the federal government's social mandate is typically limited to old age security benefits and family benefits. Note that employment insurance is not included because the employment insurance fund is not financed through taxation. It is funded by employers and workers.

The federal government has no social mission and a lot of revenue. The provinces and Quebec have a lot of social missions, a lot of spending and little revenue. That is the fiscal imbalance at work. That is why, year in and year out, over the past 10 to 15 years, the government has had to focus on transfer programs to the provinces. These transfers were often accompanied by the federal government's involvement in areas of jurisdiction that it knew very little about, through strategies that were not always efficient. We have seen examples of that. Like me, we have experienced that. We could talk about the dental insurance program, which was a disaster.

However, the worst disaster in the federation is the fiscal imbalance, which mainly affects health care. I want to emphasize that point because it seems to me that we have not talked about it in a while. If memory serves, 1969 is when the public health care system was put in place. For every dollar invested in health care, 50¢ came from the provinces and 50¢ came from the federal government.

The Bloc Québécois has fought this battle. We have come back to this issue on numerous occasions over the past few years because barely 22% of today's funding for our health care systems comes from the federal government.

When only 22% of funding comes from the federal government, this implies that the remainder is borne by the provinces. Health care is the Quebec government's most important responsibility and the largest budget item. Looking at the current projections, it quickly becomes clear that between 42% and 45% of the Quebec government's total budget is devoted to a single responsibility: health care. This means that there is just over 50% of the budget left to cover all the government's other responsibilities such as education, the fight against poverty, the needs of local authorities, infrastructure requirements or support for Quebeckers.

The federal government sometimes implements industrial strategies to support businesses, but they are not always appropriate. Allow me to give a rather striking example. We are currently experiencing one of the worst slumps in Canada's economic history due to our relations with the United States. The two hardest hit sectors are Quebec's forestry industry and the aluminum sector.

The situation in Quebec's forestry industry is the worst. With the combination of countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and additional tariffs of 10%, 45% of these companies' profit margins are going right down the drain. They have no access to them given the tariff issue with the United States. The other major problem affects the aluminum industry, which is being hit with 50% tariffs.

What was the federal government's strategic response? It said that we needed to export more energy. That is rather shocking. The strategic response of the level of government with the greatest fiscal capacity was not to look at which sectors were most affected. Instead, the government looked at what opportunities were available to it.

The government had an opportunity to advance the energy sector, one of its primary missions. It therefore chose to support the oil and gas industry, even though that industry was not affected by the crisis. It is true. The oil and gas industry is the only one that has not been affected by the crisis. Here is what I find even more shocking. When we look at the ownership structure of the oil and gas industry, we see that most of the companies belong to Americans.

The federal government has therefore decided to invest Quebeckers' money in strategies aimed at supporting the only sector of the economy that is harming Quebec. This is an example of one of the federal government's major investments. This is of direct concern to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, since he arrived just as I was talking about that. The federal government is making this investment using its fiscal capacity, but it is hurting Quebec.

We will therefore take the $1.7 billion, since it is being paid out unconditionally, but once again it strikes me as a counter-example that proves that we are in a predatory federalist system.

I would love to hear the member for Winnipeg North contradict what I just said.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 would be one tool in a large tool box that we need to activate to get the housing market turned around here in Canada, to get more affordable housing built, to make sure we have a healthy housing market and to make sure the homebuilding industry is innovating and advancing to make housing more affordable. This would be one tool in collaboration with the provinces and territories. It would be a direct investment, a transfer, and would give them the flexibility to apply it where needed.

Ontario is choosing to eliminate its HST for this year, which I think is having a very positive effect on the market in Ontario. Other provinces and territories would have different approaches depending on their markets, but we have many other tools from Build Canada Homes and reaching home, which is supporting homelessness efforts, to the housing accelerator fund, which works with communities and local governments to cut red tape and get housing built.

We have a wide array of tools. We need to continue scaling up the work on those tools, scaling up the investment that is needed to ensure that we have enough affordable housing being built, and to make sure that as a House we are here supporting the efforts and collaboration with all levels of government and the private sector.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain how Bill C-26 is part of the overall housing plan in this country, which Canadians are expecting?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is really eroding the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. He is never here, yet he is imposing some of the most draconian measures on parliamentary debate. The motion before the House would impose on Bill C-26 that there would be one more speaker for each party at second reading, and then after the vote at second reading, it would be deemed adopted at all stages, with no committee study, no report stage debate and no third reading debate.

Housing

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple answer for the Conservative: Pass Bill C-26. Instead of grandstanding in the House, do something, get on with it, work, vote and pass Bill C-26.

We are in touch with our colleagues in Ontario. We are there for the builders and the homeowners, and we will work for the people of Canada.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly entering the home stretch before we head back to our ridings to spend a little more time with our constituents. When Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day rolls around, I think people, especially those from la belle province, want to go home and be with their loved ones. I hope that will be the case, both for the deputy House leader of the official opposition and for myself. In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do.

I point this out as gently as I can to my esteemed colleague, but we were intrigued the other day when the Conservatives voted to extend sitting hours until midnight. I want to emphasize that it was until midnight. We thought we were going to work together and do things for Canadians, but three hours later, shortly after dinnertime, the Conservatives voted to adjourn the House. This contradiction puzzled us and left us a bit skeptical about their willingness to work. We shall see how things play out over the next few days.

This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, followed by debate on the Senate amendment relating to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 12, which relates to the proceedings on Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. After question period, we will proceed to debate on the Senate amendments made to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, followed by second reading debate of Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine act.

As for next week, on Monday we will resume consideration of Government Business No. 12, followed by consideration of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.

Next Tuesday's meeting will be dedicated to the consideration of Government Business No. 11 concerning proceedings on Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

Other priority bills next week will be Bill C-27, the final self-government agreement for the Tlegohli Got'ine act; Bill C-29, the financial crimes agency act; and Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act.

As members can see, we are planning to race to the finish line, and we are optimistic that the Conservatives and all opposition party members will work with us and with Canadians to achieve great things.