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.

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Trois-Rivières whom I have the great honour of working with in our shared roles as parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing.

I am thankful for the great privilege to speak today to 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.

Over the past year, Canadians have navigated a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world, and Canada is not immune to the economic uncertainty that this has caused. We are dealing with a new reality that is more complex, more volatile, and for many people, more costly and unpredictable. In response, our government remains focused on solutions and on doing the hard work to support our communities, our industries and Canadians.

The current government was elected on a strong mandate to build, and a key area of focus for the Prime Minister and our whole caucus is easing the housing crisis. Put simply, far too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford. Bill C-26 is an important part of our comprehensive plan to address this decades-old issue, which is why we need to get it passed and to get it passed quickly.

The legislation would authorize the Minister of Finance to make immediate payments to provinces and territories to support measures to increase housing supply. The proposed funding, totalling just over $1.7 billion, would help make housing more attainable for Canadians. These federal funds would be transferred to provinces and territories to be used exclusively for measures that increase housing supply, including but not limited to reducing development fees or levies on new home construction and making incremental investments in provincial and territorial programming already in place to spur housing development.

Across the country, far too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford. That is why we are taking action on multiple fronts to tackle the housing crisis. We are cutting red tape, investing in housing-enabling infrastructure and modernizing the homebuilding sector. Bill C-26 is part of that broader approach.

We have seen encouraging signs of progress in many parts of the country, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation confirmed that there is cause for optimism. Its “Spring 2026 Housing Supply Report” showed that housing starts increased by 6% in 2025, driven by record levels of rental construction, construction completions and growing activity in missing middle housing. These are encouraging signs, but we know we have more work to do.

We have implemented several federal initiatives to increase housing supply. Last week, the House passed legislation to establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with the mandate to scale up the supply of affordable housing nationwide. In less than a year, Build Canada Homes has already advanced thousands of projects across the country to increase Canada's affordable housing supply. Soon, Build Canada Homes will have even more tools to get housing built across the country.

Other measures, including targeted tax relief such as removing the 5% GST on new purpose-built rental construction, are lowering upfront costs and helping projects move forward. Programs such as the apartment construction loan program and CMHC's mortgage loan insurance projects help builders secure the capital they require to keep building, while the housing accelerator fund helps to unlock supply by cutting red tape and speeding up approvals.

We are also investing in the infrastructure that makes housing possible. The Canada housing infrastructure fund and the new build communities strong fund support housing-enabling infrastructure, including water and waste-water systems, because homes cannot be built without the underlying systems that support them. A tangible example of this is a recent agreement with the Province of Ontario that reflects our commitment to help municipalities reduce development charges by 30% to 50% or more. These types of costs directly affect whether housing projects move forward. They have a direct impact on the economics that determine whether a project proponent moves forward with construction now or waits until another construction season.

When we talk about thousands of units across the country, we are talking about real places that people will be able to call home. Whether it is families or young people getting their first start, seniors, or individuals who find themselves in need, thanks to the work of the government, these individuals will have the stability, the opportunity and the safety that having their own home provides.

These projects would also mean thousands of jobs for labourers, carpenters, plumbers, framers and other workers across the country. They would mean opportunities for local suppliers and local businesses. At a time when our economy faces the risks of an uncertain world, the government is making the choice to invest in ourselves and to strengthen Canada. Bill C-26 would help to further address these pressures.

The $1.7 billion proposed in the legislation would give provinces and territories the flexibility to take targeted action to unlock housing supply quickly and effectively where the communities need it most. This funding could and would make a real difference. Ontario's recent HST rebate announcement on new homes is a key example of how these transfers would improve supply.

As part of tax relief efforts, the Ontario government, thanks to federal support tied to the bill, plans to rebate the full 13% harmonized sales tax on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving buyers up to $130,000. This has already had a positive impact on home sales, as the low-rise sector surpassed its 10-year average for the first time in three years, according to BILD, the Building Industry and Land Development Association. With the passage of this legislation, we could continue to make a positive impact across the country based on the local needs and priorities of the provinces and territories.

Addressing Canada's housing crisis requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach. It demands a unified, all-hands-on-deck effort rooted in partnership, flexibility and immediate action. Bill C-26 would help bridge the gap between national ambition and local delivery, with targeted funding for provinces and territories to accelerate housing starts. By empowering our partners, we can build more homes faster and help ensure that every Canadian has a place to call home.

Bill C-26 has been designed to unlock new housing supply across the country. Its passage would ensure that the needed funds contained in the legislation would get to the provinces and territories more quickly. I urge all members of this great House to support the legislation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member if she can just tell us what the $1.7 billion would accomplish, because we have already thrown a lot of money at the situation. We have empty condos now that do not suit the market in Toronto. Now we would give the development industry more money when there are empty lots to be developed once the actual economics make sense. We keep aiming for these problems that we are creating, yet what the government suggests is a crisis is something of its own making. How is it going to square this by just throwing another $1.7 billion of taxpayer money at it, thinking it would solve everything that the government's last few billion dollars thrown at it has not solved so far?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a comprehensive approach to addressing housing in this country, and with this bill we would help provinces and territories remove barriers that are holding back homebuilding. This includes measures such as 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.

The bill would build on the work we are doing with Build Canada Homes to catalyze a new industry of modern methods of construction, accelerate the construction of affordable housing and build on the work we are doing with the provinces to lower development charges.

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

Mr. Speaker, as things stand, conversations about housing are, naturally, conversations about Build Canada Homes. However, for the past year, Build Canada Homes has been having a lot of trouble getting its programs up and running.

We have been told a number of times that the CMHC no longer exists and that people have to contact Build Canada Homes instead. Build Canada Homes' own standards dictate that it must provide responses within 30 days. However, Build Canada Homes is not meeting that deadline. I think this is a very serious problem.

Now, people are being told to contact the CMHC, which is no longer supposed to have any files. Can someone set the record straight? Who is in charge now? Is it the CMHC or is it Build Canada Homes? When can we expect useful answers?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so excited that the legislation for Build Canada Homes has passed through the House. It will enable them to increase the tools that are available to them for financing affordable housing across this great country.

They will have new tools that they did not have before. They will be able to go beyond grants and beyond loans. They will be able to really look forward at things like guarantees and equity and a whole bunch of different financial tools that were not available to them before. We all look forward to the ramping up of this great new agency and building affordable homes across the country.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I just want to celebrate the Guelph & District Multicultural Festival, which celebrated its 40th anniversary this weekend. I congratulate Anu Saxena, their chair, and also Cinthuja Leon, who is their executive director. It was another amazing weekend.

When I am out at these community events, people really want to know how soon we can see the waiver of the HST on new homes in Ontario.

My hon. colleague was a municipal councillor, as I was. What is the urgency in passing the legislation and getting the money flowing?

How important is that money, in terms of ensuring that people can buy their home now, a new home that would be built in the future, in terms of smoothing out the construction, so that, in fact, we are seeding builds for the next several years?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is good news for Ontario residents and for the residents of Guelph. The deal that we have made with the Province of Ontario will be backdated to April 1 of this year. All new homes purchased since then will have a waiver of the HST. As I mentioned, that is the equivalent of saving $130,000 on a $1-million home. We are not stopping there. We also have affordable housing projects that are under way, from coast to coast to coast, including in Guelph. We look forward to working with the member so that we can have shovels in the ground in her community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my excellent colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and Minister Robertson, of course. It is a pleasure to work with them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary. Ministers are not to be referred to by name in the House. They should referred to by their title.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to continue her speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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.

This bill would authorize the Minister of Finance to make immediate payments to the provinces and territories to support measures aimed at increasing the housing supply. The proposed funding of more than $1.7 billion would help make housing more affordable for all Canadians. This federal funding would be transferred to the provinces and territories and used exclusively for measures aimed at increasing the housing supply, such as reducing development and new home construction fees, as well as for additional investments in existing provincial and territorial housing creation programs. Because we know that the housing market varies from one province or territory to another, we believe that they are in the best position to ensure that the funds are invested where they will have the greatest impact for Canadians.

Unfortunately, after calling for such measures for months, the Conservatives are once again trying to throw a wrench in the works and stall this bill in order to prevent the provinces and territories from accessing these funds. Earlier today, the Conservatives moved to adjourn the House instead of allowing this bill to move forward. This is the third time that the Conservatives have moved such motions to adjourn in recent days. Why are they doing this? They know full well that the measures that we are proposing, such as Bill C‑26, will have a positive impact on the housing market. We know that they do not like good news.

I am a new MP, and I never thought that elected officials could take satisfaction in the headwinds we are facing, with the tariff war affecting businesses and the geopolitical turbulence that brings new challenges every day. However, we on this side of the House are rising to the challenge. The Conservatives know that Bill C‑26 is part of a series of concrete measures that our government is creating to make a difference and fix the housing crisis. They heard this from many experts, developers, non-profits and government officials who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to testify about the importance of lowering building costs and increasing the supply of affordable housing in order to ease the pressure on rents. This is part of what Bill C-26 proposes. They know that this bill complements Build Canada Homes, the new investment agency working to increase the supply of affordable housing across Canada. Since its launch last fall, Build Canada Homes has already reached agreements to build over 11,400 units, most of which is affordable housing.

I am tired of hearing them mislead Canadians day after day by saying that Build Canada Homes has not done anything yet. I will provide a few examples.

In Nova Scotia, there is a partnership worth up to $300 million to build up to 1,430 affordable housing units.

In Manitoba, Naawi-Oodena, a historic redevelopment project carried out in partnership with Treaty 1 first nations and the Canada Lands Company, will see 320 affordable homes built. A total of 2,100 units could be built on the entire site.

In Quebec, our governments announced in April a joint investment of nearly $200 million to build 865 new affordable housing units across Quebec. This is on top of the 1,055 units that had already been announced in Longueuil in December 2025.

In the north, we have reached an agreement in principle with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to build 750 units, including affordable public housing with support services.

In Ontario, we partnered with the City of Ottawa to build up to 3,000 affordable homes for mixed-income households.

To sum up, the number of agreements and projects that are shovel ready far exceeds the time I have to speak.

These projects also mean thousands of jobs for construction workers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and many local businesses across the country. In an uncertain economic environment, our government is choosing to invest in Canada and Canadians. Last week, the House of Commons passed the bill to make Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation. We now hope that it will be passed quickly by the Senate so that this new agency can have all the tools it needs to speed up housing construction.

It is important to note that the Conservatives did not make any changes to this bill. However, they voted against it. They voted against the thousands of affordable housing units that will be built across Canada, in the ridings of all my colleagues here in the House. They voted against affordable housing for families struggling to make ends meet. They voted against better housing for seniors who need a bit of a break. Now, once again, they are opposing Bill C-26. I hope that the Canadians listening to us today take note of this and understand what it means, specifically that the Conservatives do not care about affordability.

Bill C-26 is part of a package of measures we are introducing to accelerate housing construction in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities. These include measures like the build communities strong fund, which will invest more than $51 billion in our communities, including in infrastructure that enables housing construction, such as water and sewer systems. Housing cannot be built without the underlying systems needed to support it, and the need is great across Canada.

Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, together with the Premier of Quebec, announced a historic agreement between Canada and Quebec for $10 billion in investments to build more housing across Quebec. That includes $2.6 billion for infrastructure. This is the kind of constructive federalism we support. Our goal on this side of the House is to work and serve Canadians, not to play political games.

Bill C‑26 includes other measures, among them targeted tax relief, such as the elimination of the 5% GST on new rental housing. Here again, the goal is to reduce upfront costs and move projects forward. Programs such as the apartment construction loan program and the CMHC's mortgage insurance products are available to help builders secure financing.

The proposed $1.7 billion in Bill C-26 would give the provinces and territories the flexibility they need to take targeted measures to increase the housing supply quickly and effectively where communities need it most. This flexibility is essential, because housing needs are not the same in Whitehorse, Montreal, Halifax, or Iqaluit. The provinces and territories are best positioned to determine the measures that will rapidly increase the housing supply in their communities. Collaboration with the provinces and territories is at the heart of this bill.

Solving Canada's housing crisis requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach. It requires a concerted effort in which everyone pitches in, an effort based on collaboration, flexibility, and immediate action. On this side of the House, we understand that. Bill C-26 will help turn our ambitions into meaningful results. We must act now. Canadians need more housing, communities need support, and our economy needs us to keep building. Above all, Canadians need the opposition to get to work. I therefore urge all members of Parliament to support Bill C-26.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard from the member opposite that 11,000 homes were built. Of course, that is assuming agreements. I also heard "will allow” four times and "MOUs". The government's promise was 500,000 homes per year. Minus 11,000 homes, my calculation says that we are short 489,000 homes for $13 billion.

Would the member opposite agree with my mathematical calculation of 489,000 homes short this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that we never said the government was going to build 500,000 homes. Our job is to bring together the conditions needed for the market to build them. The homes themselves will be built by developers and builders.

We are working with the provinces to create a regulatory framework that will keep things moving quickly and put financial tools in place to get projects started. We are indeed very proud of the 11,400 housing units to be added to the 260,000 housing starts already made last year.

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

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, a technical briefing was held about Build Canada Homes. During that meeting, it was stated that Build Canada Homes would provide a response to the organizations within 30 days so that they would know what to expect. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today, several months later, is that Build Canada Homes is unable to meet these deadlines because it does not have the necessary staff. Worse still, it is referring organizations to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is no longer supposed to be accepting applications.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit to ensuring this 30-day deadline is met and to following up with her minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes is not yet a Crown corporation. In fact, we are awaiting the Senate's approval of Bill C-20.

Yes, this remains one of Build Canada Homes' commitments. We are working very closely, in fact, with the Société d'habitation du Québec on all projects from Quebec that are submitted to Build Canada Homes. We work jointly and are in regular contact with all the organizations that submit projects. I myself meet with dozens of them every week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful and glad that we have already made an agreement with Canada's most populous province. There is an agreement with Ontario now. The minister has been able to work with the province and in collaboration with Premier Doug Ford.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on just how important that is, not only for the people who are going to be purchasing homes but also for the construction industry as a whole in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, we are already seeing the results of these announcements. However, developers are telling us that they need certainty that this bill will pass and that the funding will actually get out the door. That is what they are waiting for. That is what is making them nervous right now.

They testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities last week and told us that the market is accelerating and has become much more dynamic since the bill was announced.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member opposite was talking about Conservatives not caring about affordability. I would argue that all we talk about, day in and day out, is affordability.

What we have an issue with is how many times the Liberal government fails, over and over again. For the grocery plan, the finance minister brought the CEOs to Ottawa to give them what for, but it did not lower the price of groceries.

Now we have had an announcement in front of a fake house. When are we actually going to get things built?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what my colleague on the other side of the House said. Yes, the Conservatives talk about it every day in the House, but they do not do anything to support the arguments they are making in the House today. They voted against Build Canada Homes. They voted against the national school food program. They voted against the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. They voted against the Canada child benefit—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time today with the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

Before I turn to the business at hand, I would like to share that I was in Hamilton this morning for the change of command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have had the honour of serving and sailing with both naval officers, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee and Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois. After four years of distinguished service and amazing leadership, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee has turned over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I think of all the amazing things he did, and he should be acknowledged for his care of those sailors and the others who worked for him. As well, I want to send my congratulations to recently promoted Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois, who will be taking over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have no doubt that he will lead with distinction.

Today, I rise to oppose 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. As always, I rise on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island, the seniors, the young families, the trades workers, the veterans, and the men and women who get up before dawn, work hard, play by the rules, yet watch the dream of owning a home drift a little further out of reach every year that passes.

In the Cowichan Valley today, the benchmark price of a single-family home sits above $780,000. Across Vancouver Island, it is close to $800,000, and in greater Victoria, including Langford, the average sale price is now nearing $1 million. However, there are people behind those numbers, and I know many of them by name. I know veterans, men and women who once wore this country's uniform, who are now living out of their trucks. I know forestry and mill workers who have been knocked down by mill curtailments and closures and are now living in campers. I know people who have been taxed out of the very homes they worked their whole lives for, who are now living in trailers and tents. I know young couples who have all but given up on the idea that they will ever stop renting.

When I speak about housing in this chamber, I am not speaking simply about a line in a budget. I am speaking about the greatest single worry in people's lives right now. This bill is such a disappointment to me because the people I represent do not need another illusion. They need a home.

The government has a real gift for illusion. Bill C-26 is dressed up as Emerald City on the Hill, with $1.7 billion announced with a great deal of fanfare, and all of it said to be for housing. What I would ask of every member of Parliament is that they pull back the curtain and reveal what the illusion is. When they do, they will find that the whole substance of this bill is in a single small section that says, “The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion”. It also says, “The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance.” Those payments may be made “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.”

That is the entire bill. There are no conditions attached to it. There is no requirement to come back and report to Parliament, no definition of what “improving housing supply” is even meant to mean, and nowhere does the government commit to building so much as a single home. The government claims there will be 11,000 for the $13 billion it is spending. What we are being asked to approve is not a housing plan at all, but a blank cheque, and we are being asked to trust the one man who gets to fill in that amount.

We have seen this before, and not long ago. Buried inside division 16 of the last budget bill, Bill C-31, was the Defence Investment Agency act. I studied it closely as a member of Standing Committee on National Defence, and tucked away in it was a remarkable power: the authority for a single minister to draw up to $1 billion at a time out of the very same consolidated revenue fund. It is the same fund, the same kind of open-ended discretion, and it is once again being slipped quietly into a budget where most Canadians would never think to look. I spent a better part of three decades in uniform, and I can plainly tell members of Parliament that we do not rebuild a military or a country on a blank cheque, a fancy press release and announcement.

Now, here we are again with Bill C-26. It is a different minister and a different file, but the very same approach. The Minister of National Defence was reaching into that fund $1 billion at a time, and now the Minister of Finance is reaching into that fund for $1.7 billion more. The illusions have many names, and it is my job to pull back that curtain and expose the reality.

This is not a coincidence. It is becoming a habit of the government to gather the money and the decisions into as few hands as possible, strip away the accountability that ought to come with them and trust that the fancy announcement of the day will carry the day. I would gently remind the House where that kind of governing tends to lead. When enormous public resources can be moved around by a handful of powerful people with little real scrutiny, we are no longer describing a healthy democracy. We are describing something closer to an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is never built one dramatic stroke at a time. Rather, it is built quietly, one billion unaccountable dollars at a time. When money on that scale can move on the say-so of one minister with no criteria and no audit, I think we all know who tends to benefit in the end, and it is rarely the young family in Langford or the senior in Duncan. Instead, it is the well connected and the well placed.

This brings me to the real question at the heart of this bill. It does not ask us to trust an institution with all of its checks and balances and safeguards. It asks us to trust one man: the Minister of Finance. I think it is fair to ask whether that trust has been earned.

Let us consider the record. The minister told Canadians he had recused himself from the Alto high-speed rail file, one of the most expensive projects in our country's history, because his own wife serves as vice-president at the very corporation building it. He wrote a letter, he announced a screen, and he assured us he had stepped aside. However, when a motion came before Parliament that would have stripped the high-speed rail provisions out of the government's budget bill, the minister did not step aside at all. He stayed and voted to protect the project.

Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Either he genuinely recused himself or he voted on a matter that reached his own wife's employer. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and poured into that project, and the track has yet to be laid.

I do not raise this to make anything personal. I raise it because accountability is the whole purpose of Parliament, and this is the same minister who is asking for the same trust on the same terms, only now the figure is $1.7 billion higher. I have not risen here only to criticize and to show the illusion. The people of Vancouver Island deserve better than what this bill offers, and there is a better way forward, so let me set it out.

First, we could tie the money to results rather than to announcements. The funds should flow against real, measurable increases in housing starts and completions that are verified and made public. Second, we would put the conditions in the legislation itself, not in one minister's head. We need clear criteria, clear timelines and clear reporting back to Parliament. Third, we would bring in the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General to follow this money, from the first dollar to the last nail, and tell Canadians honestly whether it worked. Finally, we could direct the funding to the communities that are actually developing, improving and building homes, be it on Vancouver Island or across the country, rather than rewarding the ones that stall. That is how a government could actually improve the housing of Canada.

The people of Vancouver Island are not easily fooled. They have been shown the Emerald City before. What they are asking for this time is a home they can afford in a community they love and a government they can actually trust with every dollar it spends. They are watching this debate right now, and they are waiting.

Let me be clear: I cannot support Bill C-26 as it is written. If it does proceed to committee, it must not pass unchanged. It must be fixed. It must be amended to carry the safeguards I have set out today. We need real conditions, real reporting and real oversight so that every dollar is tied to a home built and not one more announcement.

The people of Vancouver Island deserve nothing less. The people of Canada deserve nothing less. They deserve a government they can trust and a Parliament with the courage to hold $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to account. I urge every member of Parliament on all sides to summon that courage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is wrong on so many counts. In one sense, he needs to realize that what we are talking about is $1.7 billion, working in collaboration with provincial and territorial jurisdictions, to increase Canada's housing stock.

The best example is the one that has already been negotiated in collaboration with the Premier of Ontario, which is a Progressive Conservative government. We have come to an agreement where we are going to have residents purchase new homes and save literally tens of thousands of dollars on each home. To deny that this would motivate more home constructions and more home ownership is denying reality. Why will the member not recognize reality?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be frank, I am absolutely not worried what the member opposite thinks, and neither are Canadians. There have been 11,000 homes built so far under a project for $13 billion that is looking for an extra $1.7 billion. Let us be serious. There is absolutely no accountability. The Prime Minister pledged 500,000 homes per year, and there were 260,000 starts last year. My math says we are short 240,000. That is what Canadians care about, not what the member opposite has to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his thoroughness. He has the ability to keep things in perspective, which is nice to see in this Parliament, especially after the two very partisan speeches given by the parliamentary secretaries.

I enjoyed hearing my colleague's ideas on how to improve accountability. I would like him to expand on that. How does he propose that we cut more costs, especially in relation to housing? Housing falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Would transferring money to the provinces with no strings attached not be the best way to cut down on paperwork and red tape, cut costs, increase housing construction and improve access to housing for those who need it most?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great question.

I appreciate my colleague's kind words and the opportunity to speak a little, very briefly in the time I am allowed, about some of the improvements. I laid it out fairly clearly in my speech, but it is about accountability. Look, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada. We are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians. No, we are voting against lousy bills that are wasting money and are not building houses, and we have seen that with $13 billion for 11,000 houses. That is what we are voting against. We are voting for Canadians. I encourage my colleague to review my notes and go over the four points for bringing accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague brought up concerns with regard to Bill C-26 and also the spending of $1.7 billion. My concern with this spending is the lack of accountability. Over the last 11 years, there have been various scandals provided by this Liberal government, such as the WE Charity scandal, the arrive scam scandal and the PrescribeIT scandal. With the lack of accountability, there could be opportunities for another scandal with this bill.

I would like my colleague to possibly comment on that and tell us what he thinks.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke of accountability and scandal. He listed some of these scandals, and the list goes on and on and on.

My concern is both the lack of accountability and the illusion. We heard in an earlier statement from the members opposite claims of rejoicing. That is an illusion. We have heard claims, for example, of 2% NATO spending when SIPRI, the global standard for reporting NATO spending, reports it is only 1.6%. It is all an illusion. There were 500,000 homes pledged per year, and only 260,000 starts. Again, that is another illusion.

Canadians are tired of the illusions. They are tired of the scandals, and they are tired of this government.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father's Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father's Day to Dad.

Let me get back to the matter at hand, which is Bill C-26, the so-called improving housing supply act. Before discussing the details of this legislation, it is important to recognize why housing remains one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians.

For generations, home ownership was part of the Canadian promise. If someone worked hard, saved responsibly and played by the rules, they could reasonably expect to purchase a home, raise a family and build a future in the community they loved. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions. They are postponing marriage, postponing starting a family and postponing putting down roots in their communities because the cost of housing continues to rise faster than their ability to save.

According to the OECD, approximately 35% of low-income Canadian households are cost-overburdened, meaning they spend more than 40% of their disposable income just on housing. Renters are watching an ever-larger share of their income disappear each month, making it even more difficult to save for a down payment. The average rent on a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in Canada rose 5.1% to $1,550 per month in 2025, and that is if one is lucky. In my home community of Hamilton, the 2025 average rent was over $1,600 per month. Under the Harper Conservative government in 2015, the national average was just $942 per month.

Increasingly, it has become a question of whether future generations will enjoy the same opportunities that previous generations of Canadians took somewhat for granted. That is why all members of this House should be focused on one goal: building more homes. Unfortunately, while there is broad agreement on the problem, there is far less agreement on how to solve it.

Bill C-26 is presented as a measure to improve housing supply. The legislation itself is relatively short. It is only two paragraphs. In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results. At first glance, that sounds like a big number and maybe that would achieve something. Canadians do want more homes built. The Conservatives certainly want more homes built. The question is whether the legislation would actually accomplish that objective. That is where concerns begin to emerge.

When Parliament is asked to approve $1.7 billion in spending authority, Canadians certainly have the right to expect a clear plan. They have the right to expect measurable objectives. They have the right to expect accountability. Yet, when members examine Bill C-26, they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively? What reporting requirements would exist to ensure that taxpayers could evaluate the results? This legislation provides few answers. Instead, Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial amount of public spending while placing considerable discretion in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If a municipality came before taxpayers asking for $1.7 billion, citizens would expect a plan. If a private company sought $1.7 billion from investors, shareholders would expect measurable outcomes. Surely Canadians deserve no less when it comes to federal spending.

Let me be clear. Conservatives support working with the provinces to increase housing supply. We support reducing the tax burden on new homes. We support measures that make it easier to build. The partnership with the Province of Ontario promises funding over a 10-year period to boost housing supply. However, in the announcement, there are no clear benchmarks on how many houses would be built. In fact, buyers, home builders and even the Government of Ontario are still unclear as to how this rebate would be implemented. In question period today, the Liberal government gave no clear answer to the question from our shadow minister of housing about when the rebate would be implemented.

Time and again, Canadians hear announcements. Time and again, Canadians hear promises. Time and again, Canadians are told that relief is just around the corner, yet housing affordability continues to worsen. The reality is that after Liberal housing programs over the past number of years, with billions of dollars spent and countless announcements, Canadians are still asking a simple question: Where are the homes? The CMHC cautions that Canada needs 430,000 to 480,000 new homes per year through 2035 to restore affordability to pre-COVID levels.

The government frequently talks about ambition, but Canadians are looking for results. The government frequently talks about investments, but Canadians are looking for homes. The government frequently announces new programs, but Canadians are asking why housing remains less affordable today than it was a decade ago.

One of the most notable aspects of Bill C-26 is the government's agreement with Ontario regarding the decision to remove the HST from eligible new homes. Conservatives have long argued that taxes imposed on home construction ultimately make housing more expensive. That is why we support lowering taxes on housing. However, we also believe that Canadians deserve something better than temporary measures and complicated rebate programs. Our position has been consistent: We would permanently remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million. That would be permanent, not a one-year fix.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association agrees with our vision. It too would like relief on taxes to be made permanent. A permanent GST cut would provide certainty for homebuyers, builders and the housing market. It would reduce costs while encouraging the construction of additional housing supply. That is the difference between a measure designed to generate headlines and a measure designed to generate the building of homes.

Another concern is the government's continued focus on creating programs and bureaucracies instead of a focus on outcomes. Canadians do not measure success by the number of announcements issued by governments. They measure success by whether they can afford a home, whether housing starts are increasing and whether their children have a realistic path to home ownership. Those are the metrics that matter. Canadians understand that housing affordability will not improve because government creates another program, fund or bureaucracy.

After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Conservatives believe that federal funding should be tied to those outcomes, and that is what we have proposed.

Municipalities that increase housing construction should be rewarded. Municipalities that continue to block growth should expect that taxpayers will not subsidize that failure. The objective should be simple: more homes built every year, not more paperwork, bureaucracy or announcements but more homes. Canada already has the workers, materials, expertise and entrepreneurial spirit needed to address the housing crisis. What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged.

Conservatives continue to advocate for policies to get homes built. We continue to push for lower taxes on housing. We continue fighting to remove barriers to construction. We will continue standing up for young Canadians, families and workers who simply want the opportunity to own a home and build a future in this country. Canadians deserve those results, they deserve accountability for $1.7 billion, and most importantly, they deserve a government focused on building homes instead of building bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about wanting results and output. When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing, six non-profit houses were built. That is how much he was able to accomplish. He was the worst minister of housing in the history of Canada.

Let us compare that to just over a year ago. Thousands of affordable housing units are on their way to being built, and a record amount of money is being invested to encourage housing development. The Cadillac, of course, with this particular bill is likely going to be the province of Ontario, where there is tens of thousands of dollars in support. Individuals are already making decisions to build homes in the province of Ontario because the Province of Ontario and the federal government are working together collaboratively in order to make it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about reality in his question to the previous speaker. Let me get to that in a moment, but the Province of Ontario, the government itself, home builders and buyers are waiting to see this program actually be implemented. They do not understand how this rebate is going to actually happen. That is one thing. Here is the reality faced by Ontarians, Canadians and young Canadians in particular. Before these Liberals, 11 years ago, because of the taxes and bureaucracy they support, the average monthly mortgage payment in this country was $1,432. The average rent was $943. People could afford to buy a home. Now, a third of the cost of building a home is government, and this is symptomatic of the problem of the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-26 is a good time to take stock of what the new Liberal government has accomplished after a year in office, even though the Liberals have been in power for 10 years, as we all know.

When it comes to housing, there has been talk of cutting spending and eliminating immediate affordability supports, such as the Canada housing benefit, and supports for existing social housing. Budget 2025 also indicates that spending will drop to just $4.3 billion in 2028-29, a 56% drop compared to the funding allocated for 2025-26.

If housing were really a priority for the Liberal government, would it be making such drastic and predictable cuts over the coming years?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point is valid. It is not the spending, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and we have debated that, that is resulting in the construction of homes. We need builders to have confidence. We need an economy that is, as it was 11 years ago, the strongest-performing economy in the G7, the strongest-performing economy in the OECD, not the only economy in the G20 that is in recession. That is what is going to help build homes and ensure that they are affordable for young Canadians to actually enter the market.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the story is the same, same and not different with this bill and all of the other money that has flowed through provinces where housing starts did not increase and the price has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up. Earlier today, we asked the Minister of Housing how many houses the $1.7 billion would build. We even asked the parliamentary secretary, who had a slightly better answer than the minister, but there is still no answer at all about how many houses the $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money would build.

I ask my hon. colleague if he knows how many houses the $1.7 billion the House is being asked to approve right now will build.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that. In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period. We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening. We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.

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

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday. I would like to tell him that I am very proud to be his father and offer him my sincerest congratulations, especially since he made a name for himself in Quebec with his performance at the Quebec Games last summer, where he won two gold medals in swimming, for the breaststroke.

I also want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Let us start by saying something important about Bill C-26: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill simply because it is necessary to transfer funds quickly and without delay to help Quebec build and set its housing priorities.

It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone. This system is renowned and has proven its worth.

Transferring the money directly to Quebec will allow Quebec to manage its affairs as it sees fit and in accordance with its own reality. That is precisely what Bill C‑26 does. It transfers the funds earmarked for affordable housing to the authority that has jurisdiction in this area. As a result, Quebec will be able to ensure that it develops strategies based on its priorities and aligned with the realities of the various communities within its territory. It will be in a position to develop its own strategy for social and affordable housing.

Another advantage is that it reduces administrative costs, because the province already reports on its own expenditure through its own budget. Instead of duplicating costs, the government sends the money directly, cutting red tape and eliminating duplication, which means that everyone wins. Since the money comes without conditions, Quebec will be able to use a variety of means to influence the rental supply, whether that means building housing-related infrastructure, such as sewers and water systems, introducing tax relief or building social and affordable housing. In short, Quebec will have the tools it needs to take effective action using the various levers at its disposal.

Transferring this $1.7 billion allows the provinces to take immediate action, and that reduces wait times. It differs from the strategy of Build Canada Homes, which is just another Crown corporation that creates more duplication, more management costs, more public servant hiring and so on. Transferring the money to the provinces reduces the size of government and gives responsibility to the governments that are actually responsible for housing. Quebec and the provinces each have their individual realities. Quebec's reality differs from the reality in British Columbia. Yukon's reality is completely different from New Brunswick's reality. If every province takes charge of its responsibilities based on its own reality, we will end up with more tailored, more flexible programs.

Over the past few months, at meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have personally questioned various departments about their definitions of urban, rural and remote regions. As the member for a region that could be described as rural and remote, this question concerns me tremendously. What we observe is that the federal government has a distorted view of rural regions. To the Government of Canada, any census area with a population of 100,000 or less is a rural region. Geographic factors apparently do not matter. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is located six or seven hours from urban areas, depending on the destination. That makes it impossible to compete with cities located in the suburbs. The reality is that transferring the funds to Quebec ensures that realities like mine are respected.

Another issue is all the regulatory requirements in federal programs that do not apply to Quebec because it has the Civil Code. Basically, this creates new obligations for Quebec stakeholders, resulting in additional delays and costs to meet a requirement that does not even apply in Quebec. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynda Perreault, a member of my team who works in my office and helps organizations navigate the complexities of organizations such as CMHC and Build Canada Homes.

To date, Build Canada Homes still cannot meet its own 30-day deadline for responding to proposals. It made that commitment during a technical briefing on February 17. The truth is, Build Canada Homes does not have enough staff to review the applications. As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves.

For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season. Unfortunately, our summers are shorter than elsewhere. We lose years to administrative delays. Mortgage costs are often passed on to the organizations that wanted to balance their budgets without taking out a mortgage. Winter construction in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is not t really an option. Our winters are very long, so we have no choice but to be more efficient during the summer. Delays result in additional costs for many non-profit organizations that are just trying to create social and affordable housing for vulnerable populations. They end up with extra costs, forcing them to cut back on their operations, which means they end up helping fewer people.

A lot of construction is happening in Abitibi–Témiscamingue right now. However, it is private development. While that is a good thing, it means that families and lower-income individuals are unable to afford these new properties. Furthermore, several developers were told that their applications would be transferred to Build Canada Homes. The reality is that this has not happened. They have to start all over again and resubmit their projects. This means even more hours of work lost for non-profit organizations. If the money had been transferred to Quebec, this sort of problem would not be happening. The solution is so simple.

That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years. The result was an agreement under which Quebec received only $1 billion of the program's $6-billion budget, or 16.6%, which is far less than its share of the population. This is also what is known as a fiscal imbalance. Quebec should have received $1.3 billion to match the figures calculated using the needs identified by the Union des municipalités du Québec, yet we received $300 million less.

The Liberal members from Quebec do not boast too much about that. If we add the inflation of the past two years, we must acknowledge that that money will not go as far today as it could have. It is important to remember that Quebec municipalities are currently experiencing one of the most serious housing crises ever, while a lot of the infrastructure is aging and no longer suitable to today's reality. It is time for Ottawa to do what it must do, which is to unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces as soon as possible. This would be a win-win situation for everyone.

I want to give some examples. In 2016, funding for major housing-related infrastructure was also announced, and that funding was immediately allocated to Ontario. It is interesting because the programs in Ottawa are designed with Ontario's reality in mind. It took over three years to reach an agreement with Quebec. I have to talk about inflation again. Then came COVID-19. Then came the skyrocketing cost of housing. Because of this, we were not able to build as many housing units. The amount of housing built was much less in Quebec because of all these constraints. If Quebec's reality had been respected and this money had been transferred with no strings attached, the housing shortage that we have been seeing across Quebec, and particularly in Abitibi-Témiscamingue for the past 20 years, would not be as significant now. That is not without consequences.

I can give a wide range of examples that show that federal programs do not work in Quebec and in rural and northern regions like mine. Energy efficiency requirements are problematic. Ottawa wants to tell us how we should manage energy efficiency, but Quebec City's criteria are different. This means we have to send an inspector on site. That results in additional costs and delays. All of this means we cannot meet deadlines. We cannot finish construction on time, and we lose years of construction time.

It is entirely Ottawa's fault. Ottawa should mind its own business and do what Bill C-26 thankfully calls for, namely, respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and transferring the funds unconditionally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe that federalism works when we have collaboration between different provinces. For the member to try to give the impression that one province is given a priority over other provinces is just wrong. There is a collaboration that works with different provinces. Different provinces have different time frames.

What I do know is that Canadians in every region of the country understand and want to see the federal government play a role in regard to housing. If there had been a stronger role from 2006 to 2014, we probably would not have the serious issue regarding affordable housing today. Some provinces might do better than other provinces, but the federal government does have a role to play and it is not just to be an ATM.

Does the member not believe that working—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes. When will we see a program that is truly adapted to the regions of Quebec? When will the government stop focusing solely on Toronto and its suburbs? When will the government take an interest in the true rural regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada? Not all of Canada's regions are within 200 kilometres of the U.S. border.

Unfortunately, such programs do not exist because they are designed for towns with a population of 100,000 or less. We do not have those resources or that expertise in our municipalities.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits. For each household, that amounts to $3,400 a year in federal government debt and $3,000 a year in provincial government debt. That money is being thrown down the drain. We are paying more in interest.

Is supporting this government bill a waste of money?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre, whom I hold in particularly high regard.

As I said, this is one of the few bills that involves an unconditional transfer. In effect, this means that Quebec's money will be returned to Quebeckers. For that reason, we are somewhat open to it.

We generally find that, with programs such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund, Quebeckers pay their full share, namely 22.5%, corresponding to their share of the population. However, they receive only 16.6% of the funding, meaning that Quebeckers are paying to create housing elsewhere rather than at home, even though Quebec has significant housing needs.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is anything my colleague has not mentioned. This evening, we are considering Bill C-26.

Is there any aspect of Bill C-26 that has not been mentioned that my colleague would like to address?

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

Mr. Speaker, one issue that is very important to me, particularly as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is access to housing for first nations.

I would like to see a program created by and for first nations. I am thinking in particular of the Yänonhchia' program, which aims to develop indigenous expertise but is not necessarily reaching the communities because of the way federal programs are designed. In every budget, the federal government allocates billions of dollars for indigenous infrastructure, and it presents that as though it is something really wonderful. Even today, $4.5 billion is being set aside for access to clean drinking water.

In reality, however, expertise is not being developed within first nations. So many unattainable standards and requirements are imposed on the communities that, one year later, because the deadlines are extremely tight, Ottawa takes its money back and puts it back in the coffers. It then pats itself on the back for properly managing the money, since, in the end, it spent less than expected.

At the end of the day, the needs remain unchanged and the quality of life for first nations is getting worse.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer.

What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following:

The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply.

This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so.

The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance.

The second subclause provides the following:

Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.

The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later.

Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa.

This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers.

We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction.

We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March.

We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said.

The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.”

The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.”

What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real.

Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec's share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population.

The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it.

We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun.

Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister's refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season.

Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual.

There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%.

The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed.

I do not understand the government's position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the last point, we just introduced the bill, on Thursday, for some debate time. The first Conservative member to speak to it spoke for two hours and 45 minutes, which was a good sign, given that the Conservatives oppose the legislation. They have no intention of passing the legislation. If we had not brought in this process, we would never be able to pass the legislation. The member opposite says that he supports the legislation, and he is criticizing us for not passing it soon enough.

The roots of my family tree, my ancestry, go back to the beautiful province of Quebec, a province of which I am very proud. I want Quebec to succeed in a wonderful Canadian federation where we have collaboration, whether the federal government is working with the Quebec government or the City of Montreal, on building homes and building projects.

I wonder if the member could provide—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does during question period. I am going to deflect the question and not answer it.

My colleague across the way forgets one thing. I imagine he knows his history. In 1870, when Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation, 50% of its population was francophone. Today, the francophone population is about 2.5% to 2.7%. Why is that? It is because, for years, Manitoba laws prohibited French instruction in public schools.

My colleague opposite has a French last name. I will not name him, since I am not allowed to. Today, however, he does not speak French. Do members know why he does not speak French? It is because learning French in school was prohibited.

It is because of the Canadian Confederation that the member opposite now speaks English rather than French.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not recognize is that since the Province of Quebec changed the law, there are more people speaking French today.

We can go into schools in areas that I represent, like Meadows West and Sisler High, and we will find members of Filipino and Punjabi heritage being able to speak multiple languages. There is a great sense of pride in Manitoba today. My family goes from the province of Quebec to St-Pierre-Jolys in Manitoba. St-Pierre-Jolys is very French. Members can go to St. Boniface, which is a French community. Signs are there.

Never before in the history of Canada has French been spoken more in Quebec. Does the member see that as a good thing?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law.

I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin. While I was there, I met the prime minister of Tibet in exile, who told me that day schools and residential schools currently exist in China where Tibetans are prohibited from learning Tibetan. He told me that it was like what we lived through in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario.

The prime minister in exile of the Parliament of Tibet used Canada as an example of mass, coercive francophone assimilation. The member opposite is proud of that. He is proud that he lost his language. His family lost its language because of a ban on learning French in his birth province. It is incredible.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are discussing a bill that concerns unconditional transfers to the provinces and the topic of Manitoba comes up. I find that interesting.

I had the opportunity to visit its legislative assembly in late summer. Interestingly, Louis Riel has finally been recognized as Manitoba's first premier.

I am drawing a blank. I would like my colleague to remind us what the federal government did to Louis Riel. I think the matter is relevant to a study of this bill.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what happened was that he was hanged. I am not kidding. Louis Riel was hanged because he was fighting for his people.

There are statues standing today. Liberal hero Sir John A. Macdonald had Louis Riel hanged. Today, some members opposite rise in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is unbelievable. A member for Manitoba is applauding Sir John A. Macdonald, who hanged a man who was fighting for his people and for his language.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-26, at 10:33 p.m. This will be the last time members of Parliament will get to debate the bill because the government has brought down the guillotine to shut down debate.

What is this bill? It is an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. That sounds good.

At the outset, let me say this clearly. Canada is not just facing a housing crisis; it is facing a housing affordability crisis. It is not a future housing crisis but a housing affordability crisis right now, which has only gotten worse on the government's watch. Across the country, people are working harder than ever and falling further behind. Young people who have done everything society has asked them to do, studied hard, gotten a job and saved money, are wondering if they will ever be able to afford a home. Families are spending larger and larger portions of their income on rent. Seniors are being priced out of the communities they helped build. Students are sleeping on couches and living in overcrowded housing. More Canadians are finding themselves on the brink of homelessness. In cities and towns across this country, homelessness continues to rise. This is the reality. This is the crisis. It demands serious action.

New Democrats believe government has an obligation to act. We believe public investment has a role to play. We believe Canada must build more housing. We believe governments must be ambitious, but ambition alone is not enough. Public money must achieve public outcomes, including affordability. That is where this bill, Bill C-26, fails. This legislation would authorize the expenditure of $1.713 billion of public funds, yet despite spending more than $1.7 billion, the bill itself contains almost no meaningful safeguards, no measurable affordability requirements and no clear accountability mechanisms.

There are no requirements for affordable housing. There are no requirements for non-market housing. There are no requirements for co-operative housing. There are no requirements for public housing. There are no requirements for indigenous housing. There are no requirements for accessible housing. There are no requirements for rental affordability. There are no requirements that any homes created as a result of this funding remain affordable for future generations. There are none whatsoever. Instead, Parliament would be asked to authorize $1.713 billion dollars and then hand enormous discretion to the Minister of Finance to determine where the money goes and under what conditions.

This is not accountability. This is centralization. Parliament would be asked to write a cheque and hope for the best. New Democrats do not believe that is good enough. If Canadians are investing $1.7 billion, Canadians deserve to know what they are getting in return. Would rents become more affordable? Would homelessness decline? Would social housing waiting lists shrink? Would more co-op housing be built? Would more affordable homes be available to workers, seniors and young families? The bill does not answer any of these questions. This is because Bill C-26 reveals something important about how the Prime Minister understands the housing crisis.

The government says this bill is about supply, but Canadians are not suffering from a shortage of supply. They are suffering from a shortage of affordable supply. These are not the same thing. A luxury condominium counts as supply. A speculative investment property counts as supply. An empty condominium tower counts as supply. None of those things necessarily creates affordability. The question is not whether units are being built. The question is who those units are being built for. The question is whether ordinary people can afford them. The question is whether housing is being treated as a home or as a financial asset.

If members read the government's own background documents, something very revealing emerges. The government is concerned about inventory. The government is concerned about sales. The government is concerned about construction activity. The government is concerned about market conditions. The government is concerned about what might happen if inventories increase and housing markets slow down.

Those are all legitimate matters for economists to discuss, but where in the government's framework do we see the issue of affordability or the issue of homelessness? Where do we see social housing wait-lists? Where do we see renter poverty? Where do we see overcrowding? Where do we see indigenous housing needs? Where do we see housing insecurity? Where do we see affordability outcomes? What we see instead is a framework built around market indicators. That tells us something important: that the government is measuring market distress. New Democrats are measuring human distress. Those are very different things.

Canadians deserve honesty from this House. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is not simply that people cannot find housing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that inventories are rising. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that sales are slowing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that construction activity may decline. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that housing markets are cooling. Those are not the same thing.

A family facing eviction is experiencing a housing crisis. A senior who cannot afford rent is experiencing a housing crisis. A young worker paying half their income to a landlord is experiencing a housing crisis. A worker sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student couch surfing is experiencing a housing crisis. A developer sitting on unsold luxury condominiums is experiencing a market problem. Those are not the same thing, yet this legislation increasingly treats them as though they are.

This is the central flaw of Bill C-26. The government has confused the health of the housing market with the well-being of the people who depend upon housing.

Canadians have seen this movie before. For years, Canadians have been told that if we support the market, affordability will follow. When housing became increasingly financialized and profiteering became the name of the game, we were told affordability would follow. When corporate investors expanded their presence in housing, we were told affordability would follow. When housing prices skyrocketed, we were told affordability would follow. When rents exploded, we were told affordability would follow. When an entire generation found itself locked out of home ownership, we were told affordability would follow.

Today, Canadians are hearing the same message once again: Trust the market, support the market, subsidize the market, and somehow affordability will follow. Canadians have waited long enough. The evidence is in: That experiment has failed. It has failed young people. It has failed renters. It has failed workers. It has failed seniors. It has failed communities across Canada.

The private market builds housing where profits are highest. The private market does not automatically build housing where the need is the greatest. That is why we can have luxury towers sitting empty while homelessness rises. That is why we can have speculative investment properties while families struggle to find housing. That is why we can have thousands of vacant units and thousands of unhoused people in the same city at the same time. This is not a natural phenomenon. This is a policy choice. It is the predictable outcome of treating housing as an asset class instead of a human right.

Let us consider what is happening in metro Vancouver. According to publicly reported figures, approximately 2,500 completed condominiums are currently sitting vacant and unsold. The number has doubled compared with the previous year. Analysts estimate that it could rise significantly further. Think about what that means. Thousands of homes already exist, thousands of homes have already been built, yet people cannot afford them.

At the same time, homelessness remains a serious challenge, renters are struggling and working families are being priced out. The problem is not simply a lack of units; it is affordability. The problem is that housing is increasingly being built as an investment product rather than a social necessity, and that housing has become financialized. Unless we address the financialization, we will continue to produce housing outcomes that fail ordinary Canadians.

There is another example that deserves attention. A major residential tower development in Vancouver recently entered receivership after significant financial difficulties and a loan default involving more than $100 million. An institutional lender stepped in, receivers were appointed and creditors moved to recover their investment. Now, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing construction workers, pension beneficiaries or workers whose retirement savings are invested through pension funds. However, this is an example that reveals something important. Parts of the housing development sector are experiencing financial distress. Sales are slowing, inventories are rising, financing is becoming more difficult, projects are becoming riskier, and Canadians have every right to ask a simple question: Is Bill C‑26 designed to solve the housing crisis Canadians face, or is it designed to stabilize a development model facing increasing financial pressure?

When I read the government's own rationale, I see repeated concerns about inventory, market conditions and construction activity. What I do not see is an equal concern for affordability, and that should concern every member of this House.

There is another problem with this bill: the allocation formula itself. Ontario received $875 million, Quebec received $320 million, B.C. received $284 million, meanwhile, Manitoba received $10 million, Saskatchewan received $10 million, New Brunswick received $10 million, and Newfoundland and Labrador received $10 million. The government has chosen to distribute funding based largely on housing market indicators. Imagine if we allocated funding based on need, homelessness or renters' needs. Imagine if we allocated funding based on social housing wait-lists, housing insecurity, indigenous housing needs or renter distress. The results would almost certainly look different. This formula is not built around human need; it is built around market conditions. This is an ideological choice, and New Democrats disagree with it.

There is a larger issue at stake. For decades, governments of different political stripes have steadily reduced Canada's commitment to non-market housing. When I say different political stripes, I mean Liberals and Conservatives. The result is that Canada has one of the smallest non-market housing sectors across many developed countries. We sold the idea that private markets would deliver affordability. Instead, we got speculation, financialization, corporate concentration, rising rents, rising home prices and a housing crisis. Surely the lesson is obvious. We cannot solve a housing crisis created by excessive reliance on the market by relying even more heavily on the market.

We need a different approach. We need a major expansion of non-market housing and co-op housing. We need public housing construction, acquisition funds to preserve existing affordable housing, indigenous-led housing solutions and stronger tenant protections. We need affordability requirements attached to public funding, and we need to ensure that every public dollar creates a lasting public benefit.

At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple question: Who is the government supposed to work for? When renters are struggling, government should stand with renters. When young people are locked out of home ownership, government should stand with young people. When seniors are worried about keeping a roof over their heads, government should stand with seniors. When families cannot afford housing, governments should stand with families.

That should be the test; not whether inventories are optimized, not whether markets are stabilized and not whether investors are reassured. Whether people can afford a place to live is the key. Government programs should not be designed to bail out big developers. That is the test, and Bill C-26 fails it. This bill tells us how much money would be spent. This bill tells us where some of that money would go. However, it never tells Canadians what they would receive in return. There would be no affordability guarantees, no social housing targets, no public ownership requirements and no measurable affordability outcomes, nothing. It is just $1.7 billion and a promise that the market would somehow work things out. We have heard that promise before, and after decades of hearing it, Canada now faces the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. When a former central banker designs housing policy, it looks like Bill C-26 and it clearly misses the mark. It misses the human impact of housing affordability.

New Democrats believe that there is a better path. We believe that housing is a basic human right. We believe that public money should serve public purposes. We believe that housing policy should be judged by outcomes for people, not outcomes for investors. We believe that if taxpayers assume the risk, they deserve affordability in return. We believe that if public money is invested, the public should own part of that outcome. We believe that if government is serious about housing affordability, then affordability cannot be optional.

There are two ways to spend $1.7 billion. We can spend it protecting the housing market or we can spend it protecting Canadians from the housing market. Bill C-26 chooses the first path. New Democrats believe parliamentarians should choose the second, always putting people before profits. That is what we are here to talk about with respect to this bill. Somehow, the government misses the mark.

Before this bill came to this critical stage where the government is bringing forward a guillotine motion to ram through the bill without proper debate in the House, I had a briefing with officials. I asked the officials, “What is the funding allocation? What is the formula? How did they determine who gets how much money?” At that briefing, they said that they could not provide that information to me. They were actually not going to share that information. What they really wanted was for me, for the New Democrats and for members of the House to agree on a unanimous consent motion to pass through all the stages—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I need to interrupt the member.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, it seems there is some sort of party going on in the Liberal lobby. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask them to quiet down, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mirabel for his point of order. I did indeed hear the noise as well, and it was a problem earlier this evening. We will look into the matter to ensure there is less noise.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that intervention. It is kind of outrageous, is it not? We are here at 10:50 p.m., and the Liberals are partying in the lobby area.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an unholy alliance between the few New Democrats and the Bloc members. There is absolutely nothing wrong—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the point where they are making disruptive noises that interfere with the debate in the House, that is inappropriate.

Let me just conclude my comments here. The government wants to ram this through. The Liberals want unanimous consent from all the parties to somehow magically just support them in whatever they want to do, but we actually want accountability. We want the government to deliver results for the people, for Canada, for Canadians who are struggling with the housing crisis, not just to hand over cheques without accountability measures. That is the difference. The market will not fix the problem. What will fix the problem is a policy choice of investing in the people and for people ahead of profits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that Bill C-26 is not the holistic approach that the government is actually taking. It is a part of the housing file that the government is advancing, a very important part.

There is a huge difference, suffice it to say, between the Liberals and today's New Democrats. We believe that there is a role for the marketplace. We believe that by working collaboratively with provinces, even New Democratic provinces and progressive Conservative provinces, and all different levels of government, we can actually have a positive outcome. By using the legislation, providing the funds and working with the Province of Ontario, thousands of Ontarians would benefit from—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was once actually in government at the provincial level, at a time when the federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program. What did New Democrats do provincially? We continued to deliver housing in spite of that. When I was elected and became a cabinet minister, what did we do? We actually grew the money from the Province of British Columbia alone, with the private sector, with the non-profit sector, with municipalities and with everybody else who would partner with us, except for the federal government, which walked away.

Guess what. We grew that money from 600 units to 1,200 units and then to 2,000 units, with the same amount of money. Yes, we believe in the market, but what we also believe in is making sure that we drive the market to deliver for the people, especially when it gets a benefit from taxpayers. That is unlike the current Liberal government. What did it do? It gave money hand over fist to the development sector, to the market, and thought that somehow, magically, affordable housing would appear on its own. Guess what. It did not.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia raises a question about what the outcomes are for $1.7 billion in funding that we are supposed to approve in the House, based on a two-paragraph bill.

Did the hon. member find in any place in the bill, or in what she has read about it, any sort of targets in terms of the housing, whether it is deeply affordable housing or otherwise, that would be built with the $1.7 billion?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. There would be no accountability measures. There would be nothing to which one can say that using $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money would generate a specific return for the people in Canada. There would be zero accountability measures and zero targets. There is none of that information whatsoever in the bill.

As I was saying earlier, I was trying to get from the government what exactly the allocation would be and what the formula is that the government used to decide how to divide the money between the provinces and territories. The Liberals could not even give me that. It was after much to-do, when they were desperate to try to get a unanimous consent motion through, that they then came forward with that information.

Guess what. A whole bunch of provinces would be getting only $10 million out of this. That would not address the housing crisis, would it? The government just says, “Trust us. We will fix it.” Oh, will it really?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There being no further members wishing to speak, pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to check the House, there would be unanimous consent to adjourn at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 9, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the Purpose of Improving Housing Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑26.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #169

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 16, the bill is deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)