Bill C-26

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

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

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

Housing

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am getting there. Do not worry.

Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say:

The overall target of Canada’s NHS is to remove 530,000 households from housing need by 2027‑28. After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies and economic trends, we estimate that 2.4 million households are currently in core housing need and we project that, by 2027, 2.6 million households will be in core housing need. We project that by 2027, there will be about 926,000 more households in core housing need compared to the start of [the national housing strategy] in 2017.

Let us go on to 2025. Then we are going to get to my speech. I have to do my research first.

In 2025, in “Build Canada Homes and the Outlook for Housing Programs under Budget 2025”, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights that:

Federal planned spending on housing programs is set to decline 56 per cent, from $9.8 billion in 2025‑26 to $4.3 billion in 2028‑29 due to the expiry of funding for existing programs and cuts set out in Budget 2025.

Within this spending plan, Budget 2025 prioritizes...the construction of new housing through a new federal agency called Build Canada Homes. Build Canada Homes plans to spend $7.3 billion over 2025‑26 to 2029‑30.

Here is the cliffhanger:

Build Canada Homes should be expected to make a modest contribution toward housing supply and affordability within the broader context of a large decline in support for housing affordability.

The report continues:

Build Canada Homes is presented as part of the Government’s efforts to double the pace of housing construction over the next decade. That said, the Government has not yet laid out an overall plan to achieve this goal.

Ouch.

We anticipate that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will likely be modest and estimate that the program will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to our baseline projection.

Build Canada Homes has sufficient funding to create approximately 13,000...units of housing affordable for low‑income households. However, this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports such as the Canada Housing Benefit and support for existing social housing.

Let us walk through this and break down all of this important information because that was a lot of data. It even got me sweating, it was so suspenseful.

I want to walk through not just what the government promised on housing but what the evidence shows. This is now a question not only of policy performance but of whether the government is delivering on its own law, the national housing strategy, and ambition in policy.

As I have reiterated numerous times throughout my remarks this morning, the government promised to remove 530,000 households from housing need, cut housing need in half, create 100,000 new housing units, repair or renew 300,000 existing units, protect 385,000 community housing units and reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, a suite of commitments that the government presented as comprehensive, time‑bound and transformational under the national housing strategy in 2017. It committed to cutting housing need in half. These were not small commitments. They, in the government's own words, were meant to be transformational.

However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made very clear early on that outcomes were already falling far short. As early as the first major PBO assessments of the national housing strategy, the evidence showed that the scale of program impacts was insufficient relative to the need, as the member from Winnipeg will note in my disposition of the 2019 report. Even before recent population pressures and interest rate shocks, by 2021, only a few years into its implementation, the PBO was already warning that the net reduction in core housing need was modest and that federal interventions were not on track to meeting stated targets.

In other words, the warning signs were visible well before the current crisis we find ourselves in today. The strategy was underscaled from the outset, heavily relying on slow-moving capital programs and incapable of delivering the rapid affordability improvements the government promised. Rather than correcting course when this evidence emerged, the government largely stayed on the path, allowing a predictable gap between ambition and outcomes to widen year after year.

The net reduction in core housing need is limited relative to the scale of the problem. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in the 2021 analysis report. This was the first clue that something fundamental was not working, because when a plan is described as transformative, but its outcomes are described as limited, there is already a gap between promise and performance.

My second point is on the National Housing Strategy Act and ambition in law. It is also important to situate this legal framework in the context of the scale of the federal investment that accompanied it.

When the national housing strategy was launched, it was presented as a $40-billion plan. Over time, that figure was repeatedly increased and reframed as over $70 billion in federal commitments across grants, loans, financing tools and program spending. I believe that as of last night, it is over $80 billion in commitments.

Parliament was told that this level of investment, combined with a rights-based legislative framework, as I outlined in my review of the act, would fundamentally change housing outcomes in Canada. The act was therefore never intended to operate in isolation from funding. It was meant to discipline and guide very large public expenditures toward measurable outcomes. Indeed, all of the speeches I read from concerning Bill C-97 in the 2019 debates reinforced that very point.

In other words, the bargain was clear: unprecedented federal investment in exchange for clear goals, timelines, accountability and a focus on those in greatest need. That is why the failure to meet outcomes is so consequential. After years and years of record spending, program expansion and administrative growth, the evidence shows worsening housing needs rather than the progressive improvement the government labelled in its original housing strategy, as I outlined.

This context matters when evaluating the current policy choices before us and this programming motion today. Bill C-26 and budget 2025 do not emerge in a vacuum. They follow a decade of escalating financial commitments that have not delivered the promised results.

When the government seeks additional funds through ad hoc legislation while simultaneously reducing support under the existing strategy, it is not because housing lacked funding in the past. It is because large-scale funding, absent structural reform and accountability, has not translated into affordability or adequate supply.

Seen this way, the issue before Parliament is not whether more money should be spent, but whether spending is being governed by a framework that actually works. The National Housing Strategy Act was supposed to be that framework. The fact that the government is now bypassing it after committing tens of billions of dollars without achieving its objectives underscores the depth of the policy failure we are confronting.

However, this is not just a policy story. As I outlined earlier today, in 2019, Parliament passed the National Housing Strategy Act, and that changed everything because it legally requires the government, in section 5, to set out national goals, timelines and desired outcomes, and “focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need”. At its core, the act establishes not only a statement of principle, but a framework for action and accountability that is directly relevant to the government's current legislative choices, including Bill C-26.

This is where the government's position becomes most revealing. The National Housing Strategy Act was designed to ensure that federal housing policy is guided by outcomes, not announcements: clear goals and timelines, a focus on those in greatest need and mechanisms to measure whether progress is actually being made. New spending under that framework is supposed to advance those objectives and be evaluated against them.

Bill C-26 departs from that logic. Rather than strengthening or reforming the national housing strategy to correct its glaring shortcomings and complete failure, the government is proposing a parallel track, authorizing significant new payments for housing supply without anchoring that spending to the strategy's target or the act's obligations. There is no requirement in Bill C-26 to demonstrate how funds would reduce core housing need, no binding affordability thresholds and no alignment with the act's statutory focus on households in greatest need.

In effect, the bill asks Parliament to approve new money while suspending the very accountability framework that the Liberal government put in place in 2019. That choice matters. If the strategy and the act were working, new resources would logically flow through them, reinforced by tighter targets and clearer accountability. Instead, Bill C-26 would bypass that framework altogether.

This is not an accident. It reflects a tacit recognition that the existing approach cannot deliver outcomes it promised. However, rather than acknowledging that failure and proposing a redesigned strategy, the government is seeking flexibility without accountability, with more money now and fewer questions later. This approach risks repeating the same mistakes at greater cost.

Untied spending may move dollars, but without discipline and without parliamentary accountability, it does not guarantee homes that are affordable, nor the intended objectives of the minister. Bill C-26 therefore represents not a course correction, but an institutional workaround, one that would allow the government to claim action on housing while avoiding a candid reckoning with why its flagship strategies have fallen apart.

The National Housing Strategy Act establishes the right to adequate housing as a “fundamental human right”. These are not suggestions. They are regulatory obligations, which means that we must evaluate this policy not just politically but legally. Is it improving outcomes? Is it prioritizing Canadians most in need who are going to their local food bank and working two jobs? Is it moving things forward, as the principle that the Liberals outlined of progressive realization requires? No.

Let us turn to the data we reviewed in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that I outlined earlier.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that housing need rose to 2.6 million households in 2024, yet only 78,000 households have been removed from need in that same 2024 report. This is not a small gap. This is a complete collapse in deliverology. The Liberals used to love talking about deliverology. That is a shortfall of more than 450,000 households. Barely one in seven who were promised relief will actually receive it.

Critically, the PBO concludes that housing need is expected to increase over the projected period despite program spending. It is very clear. Program spending is not working. What the government campaigned on in the last election is not working. This is perhaps the most damning finding in my entire analysis today, because it tells us that even after billions of dollars and years of programs, the system is not improving; it is deteriorating. Public, independent evidence makes clear that this deterioration is occurring despite the creation of a large federal housing bureaucracy and tens of billions of dollars in announced spending.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is repeatedly showing us that while administrative structures, programs and reporting requirements have expanded, the measurable outcomes that matter, such as reductions in housing need, improved affordability and faster supply delivery, have not followed. In effect, the federal government has built a complex policy and administrative architecture, but that architecture has not translated into results on the ground. Rising housing need, declining affordability and missed targets demonstrate that process has outpaced performance and that the scale of bureaucracy and spending alone has not been sufficient to meet the Liberal government's stated objectives.

Let us look at some of the mortgage delinquency rates that are on the rise.

Mortgage delinquencies have increased significantly after nearly a decade of Liberal housing policy. CMHC reported in May 2026 that the national 90‑plus day mortgage delinquency rate rose to 0.2% in quarter four of 2025, up from 0.21% a year earlier. According to a 2026 Equifax report, the rate of delinquencies in Ontario sat at about 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, a jump of 52% year over year. In B.C., the number jumped 36% to 0.25%.

Rebecca Oakes, vice‑president of advanced analytics at Equifax Canada, said, “When we look kind of at the mortgage trend, it is just a really good indication of the severity of financial stress that’s happening in a region.” Ontario is experiencing record stress. The housing crisis is no longer even about affordability alone. It is becoming a mortgage payment crisis.

Equifax reported that mortgage delinquencies were up 52% year over year in Ontario during quarter one of 2026. In Toronto, mortgage delinquency rates increased by approximately 58% year over year. Data from CMHC showed that around 0.21% of homeowners in Hamilton had not made a full mortgage payment in at least three months as of late 2025, representing a 425% increase in that city's mortgage delinquency rate from mid-2022.

Homeowners are carrying larger and larger debts. When borrowers fall behind today, they are falling behind on much larger mortgages. The average delinquent mortgage balance reached approximately $355,000 in quarter one of 2026, a 13.2% increase from a year earlier. Total consumer debt reached $2.66 trillion nationally. Mortgage delinquencies are often the final stage of household financial distress. The Bank of Canada found that households heading towards mortgage delinquency typically increase credit card utilization roughly two years beforehand, begin missing consumer credit payments one or two years beforehand and experience rapidly worsening financial conditions in the six months leading up to mortgage delinquency.

Canada needs more homes, but the 2025 National Building Code risks making homes more expensive to build. The Canadian Home Builders' Association argues that housing affordability and supply are already in crisis and that the code changes should be evidence-based, cost-effective and implementable at scale. The CHBA has criticized the 2025 codes for insufficient consideration of their cumulative cost impacts.

The costs are so significant that in a February 2026 open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Home Builders' Association calls for an immediate pause to that regulatory approach. The CHBA has cited federal impact analysis showing that high-energy performance tiers could increase construction costs by more than $40,000 per home. In total, the CHBA estimates that the 2025 National Building Code could add up to $100,000 in costs to a new unit.

Every policy should be tested against one question: Will it build more homes? Governments should be focused on removing barriers to construction and increasing supply. The association has warned that many regulatory responses to housing and climate objectives ultimately increase costs and reduce housing production.

Let me expand on my speech on budget 2025 regarding less support, not more. One might assume that worsening outcomes could be addressed simply by expanding funding, but the evidence shows that money alone is not the binding constraint. The problem is not a lack of announcements or headline dollars. It is that the underlying policy framework has failed to translate resources into results. Structural barriers, slow approvals and misaligned incentives such as those outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association outline that very fact.

Delayed project delivery, weak targeting and an overreliance on long-term capital programs have meant that additional funding has not produced proportional investments in affordability or a reduction in housing need. However, the PBO shows something more important: Outcomes have continued to worsen, not because funding was insufficient but because the government's approach failed to address structural constraints that determine whether homes actually get built and become affordable.

Spending's falling 56% is a signal that the government itself is implicitly acknowledging that simply layering additional funding onto the existing approach has not delivered results. Rather than openly reassessing the strategy and admitting that its core design has failed, the government appears to be quietly pulling back, reducing funding while maintaining the same policy framework. This halfway acknowledgement, though, stops short of the full consideration the evidence supports, which is that the approach itself, not just its funding level, has failed to meet its objectives.

I encourage everyone to look at the highlights on page 1 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's outlook for housing programs under budget 2025. Federal plan spending on housing programs, as I just noted, is set to decline 56%, a decline that reflects more than a fiscal choice. It follows years in which the government failed to meet the core objectives it set for itself under both the national housing strategy and the strategy act. Rather than acknowledging that its approach has delivered neither the promised reduction in housing need nor improvements in affordability, the government is scaling back federal supports while leaving the underlying strategy largely intact, effectively retreating from its own commitments without admitting its failure.

Let us be clear. Housing need continues to rise in Canada. Targets are being missed, and spending is being cut. This is not an adjustment. It is a quiet retreat from objectives the government has failed to meet under both the national housing strategy and the National Housing Strategy Act, an implicit acknowledgement that the approach has not worked, without the candour to admit failure or undertake a genuine course correction.

If I had another couple of hours today, I would probably delve into some of the comments made by the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing on his new approach and the new bureaucracies the government is covering. I just do not have enough time to get through all that in the time I have today.

I will talk about the supply strategy and Build Canada Homes for a bit. The government's response is to emphasize supply, to build more homes and to accelerate construction, but the PBO even offers a reality check where Conservatives and Liberals might agree on improving supply: “[Build Canada Homes] should be expected to make a modest contribution towards housing supply and affordability.”

As I asked earlier when I read that report, what does “modest” mean in practice? It would be about 26,000 units over five years, a scale of delivery that underscores the failure of the government's current approach. Put plainly, this represents roughly 5,000 units per year nationwide, at a time when Canada is adding hundreds of thousands of new residents annually and facing a huge housing gap measured in hundreds of thousands of units. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer characterized this contribution as “modest”, estimating it would increase housing completions by only about 2.1%, relative to baseline projections. That is not transformational. It is marginal change at best.

When a strategy promises to cut housing need in half but delivers a supply that addresses only a tiny fraction of that projected shortfall, this amounts to an admission that the policy levers being used are inadequate. The result is predictable: Housing needs continue to rise, affordability deteriorates, and the government declares success while the underlying problems worsen. In effect, the federal approach substitutes announcement and program branding for outcomes, producing numbers that are too small, too slow and too poorly targeted to reverse the crisis. According to the government's own independent budget officer's assessment, this level of supply cannot meet its stated objectives, confirming that the current strategy, as designed and funded, is failing to deliver the results Canada was promised.

Let us delve a bit more into a structural problem in policy design. The issue is not just scale. It is design. The strategy has shifted toward financing tools and long-term capital programs. That is not all bad, but the PBO warns that “this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports”. I mention that in the context, because so many more Canadians are on the verge of being homeless. Homeless numbers are actually rising, while the government said they would do the opposite.

The government has failed to prioritize the people who are in greatest need. The National Housing Strategy Act requires a focus on those in greatest need, but the funding structure and approach tell a different story. Funding is being shifted from programs that provide current affordability supports toward capital contributions with benefits over many decades. I hope there are some improvements there.

Let us talk about generational impact. The consequences for the government's policy failures on housing are not evenly distributed. Young Canadians are bearing the brunt. They face higher rents, delayed home ownership, delayed family formation, rising debt burdens and other postponed life decisions. Even when new units are built, the PBO cautions, the addition of these units would only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support, so even new supply is not solving the overall affordability crisis so many Canadians face today. It barely offsets worsening conditions.

To add to these pressures, there is rapid population growth. Demand has surged. Supply has not kept pace, and policy failed to adjust fast enough. Over the last number of years, there have been historically low vacancy rates, rising rents and increased competition for entry-level housing. This is not an isolated policy failure. It is a system-level imbalance. It is therefore deeply ironic that the government is now taking credit for signs of easing in rental markets in some cities where rents have stabilized or grown more slowly. This change is far more plausibly explained by a reduction in housing demand, not by a sudden success of federal housing policy.

Over the past year, the federal government has tightened and reduced inflows of temporary residents, including international students and temporary foreign workers, as it celebrated in the 2019 budget implementation act. That shift has had an immediate and measurable effect on rental demand, particularly in urban markets that absorbed a large number of the new arrivals. Fewer new entrants competing for the same limited stock of rental housing naturally does ease upward pressure on rents. That is basic economics.

However, this is not a victory on housing policy, supply or affordability. It does not reflect new homes coming online at scale, faster approvals, lower construction costs or a more functional housing system. It reflects demand-side slowdown caused by changes in immigration and temporary resident policy, not the success of the national housing strategy.

Indeed, if the government's housing strategy were working as intended, rent moderation would be driven by increased supply, improved affordability outcomes and lower usage of the food bank, especially for low and moderate-income households, not by reduced population inflows. Claiming credit for lower rent growth under these circumstances risks confusing cause and effect. Slower rent increases caused by the arrival of fewer people does not mean housing has become more affordable. It means pressure has been temporarily relieved by constraining demand. This distinction matters.

A housing system that relies on dampening demand rather than expanded supply is not resilient. It does nothing to address the underlying shortage. It does not improve access for Canadians already locked out of the housing market, and it offers no assurances that affordability will be sustained if demand rises again. Without structural reform, faster approval, lower non-construction costs and a regulatory environment that enables builders to deliver housing at scale, any short-term easing driven by reduced demand will prove fragile and reversible.

In short, the recent moderation in rents is not evidence that the government's housing strategy is succeeding. It is evidence that the imbalance between supply and demand remains unresolved and that the system responds more quickly to changes in population flows than to years of federal spending and bureaucracy. That reality only reinforces the conclusion that the core problem lies not with the funding levels but with the policy framework that has failed to deliver sufficient housing supply.

At the same time, the government has not moved fast enough to improve the economic conditions required for private sector building. Developers have faced rising financing costs, regulatory delays, increased development charges and approval bottlenecks.

In fact, I think it is worth reading the February 18, 2026, letter to the Prime Minister. It states:

Dear Prime Minister...

The Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA) continues to support building code development where it follows principles of clear and convincing policy analysis, where evidence-based decision-making happens in public meetings and where committees emphasize cost-effective (ideally cost-neutral) acceptable solutions that equally solve the climate and housing affordability crises in Canada. We estimate that the new 2025 code will add over $100,000 to the cost of a typical new home...this is completely untenable. To that end, we cannot support the 2025 model codes or their adoption and call for an immediate pause to redo them properly

CHBA has become seriously concerned over the last few years with how Canada’s new governance system for national codes and its updated code development process is neither transparent nor evidence-based anymore. These deficiencies are having a direct and negative impact on housing affordability, construction productivity, and the ability of industry stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to effective codes development and implementation while reaching your government’s priorities of additional housing supply and more climate change effective construction.

Further to that, by not addressing housing affordability in the national model codes, even though most provinces and territories call it a priority, there may in fact not be harmonization—the very reason model codes exist in the first place—because provinces may rightly reviewed and accepted by the time they are published, which negates harmonization by instead increasing the likelihood of provincial variations or non-adoption. Lack of harmonization at the provincial (and municipal) level is a key barrier to industry productivity.

A serious course correction is needed, and thus CHBA is urging the Government of Canada to immediately pause all changes to the National Model Construction Codes, as Australia has done with its code system. With that, and before seeking adoption of the 2025 National Construction Codes by the provinces, CHBA is calling on the government to improve the 2025 codes with the proper lenses of affordability, evidenced-based decision-making, and a view to regulations that will truly lead to the optimized outcomes that must be considered in today’s world. The 2025 codes should be paused, revisited, and re-issued once these issues are addressed, so that provinces can and should actually adopt them, and harmonization can be achieved.

Here are our key reasons for pausing all construction code changes and revisiting them with proper focus:

Reduced Productivity—The large amount of national priorities and the pace of developing the respective code changes leave insufficient time for proper review, simplification and resolution of outstanding constructability or affordability concerns by those who are most affected—the residential construction industry...and Canadians facing affordability challenges in trying to buy a home. The amount of new code requirements is overwhelming. Changes related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, radon, and wind/seismic loads add significant costs and delays and will reduce the productivity of the sector, while in many cases not even delivering the right outcomes. Much better approaches to achieve these goals must be found through a revamping of the 2025 code, with timelines and solutions that support affordability.

Affordability Ignored—There is no formal requirement or code objective to protect housing affordability...

Again, the government's approach is not aligned with its national housing strategy or the National Housing Strategy Act.

The letter continues:

...not even a principle for committees developing the national codes. Economic concerns brought forward by the construction industry are being dismissed, and cumulative costs for all changes in the 2025 codes have not been calculated by those developing the code. Ultimately, it is Canadians bearing the brunt of the added cost of these changes. All changes should be properly revisited to look at their individual cost impacts, plus the cumulative cost impacts of the full suite of changes the 2025 code will require on each home. CHBA’s initial analysis of a typical 2500 sq. ft. home estimates increased costs from the 2025 code changes to be $56,364 (see Appendix A ) without any energy efficiency compliance cost. If provinces continue to mandate the progressive energy targets from the 2020 codes from Tier 1 to Tier 5 this would double those costs, bringing full implementation of the 2020 energy targets and 2025 codes to an estimated cost of $113,930 for each home built within the next few years. CHBA’s Housing Market Index shows material costs alone for that same house have gone up $100,000 from 2025. Canada’s housing crisis cannot handle these kinds of increases. A much more reasonable approach is needed.

Reduced Transparency—Recent changes to the governance and committee structure have reduced transparency and sidelined industry voices.

It would be interesting to see how many members of the Canadian Home Builders' Association are on any of the councils the government created in its National Housing Strategy Act.

The letter continues:

Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors, with little rationale published or meaningful engagement with those most affected—Canada’s residential construction sector. The residential construction sector...can no longer be the target of poorly thought-out policies and regulations that take away from building more supply. If all levels of government hope to achieve building 500,000 new homes per year, they need to treat the sector as a partner, and excessive and ill‑conceived regulation is a key barrier to be addressed jointly.

The more I read this, the more the concerns outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association contradict the community-building partnership clauses of the National Housing Strategy Act. How dare they?

The letter continues:

Harmonization Failure—Without addressing affordability in national codes, which is a key priority for almost every province and territory, the national codes risk being not adopted, or being modified so much provincially that there isn’t in fact harmonization. To that end, the federal government should change the national code publication process such that provinces and territories have time to review a draft code for a year so they can collectively agree to a set of changes they can then adopt as fully harmonized national code at the time the code is published. Without this change, provinces will continue making their own amendments, which prevents harmonization and risks low adoption of costly changes in the 2025 codes. We are urging the federal government to take action now to avoid further fragmentation across Canada.

Fragmented Interpretation—Local interpretation of building codes varies significantly from municipality to municipality—even across the same city sometimes, causing delays and extra costs for the industry. This barrier to more housing faster has not been recognized by governments. As the government continues to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers, it also needs to resolve the fragmented interpretation of building codes that not only vary from province to province but also municipality to municipality. To that end, CHBA recommends a National Code Interpretation Centre be established at the National Research Council to publish code interpretations—provinces can in turn reference those interpretations, making them binding, and helping to end the endless variations on code interpretations that are a major barrier to industry productivity.

The roadblocks confronting the residential construction industry, such as rising costs, reduced transparency, and fragmented code interpretation will inevitably hinder the government’s pursuit of doubling housing starts, including affecting the government‑supported housing to be built under the Build Canada Homes initiative. Without urgent reform, these systemic issues will undermine all efforts to deliver housing Canadians can afford on the accelerated timelines needed.

Facing very similar challenges, the government of Australia recently paused changes to its National Construction Code until 2029, following a report from its own Productivity Commission. The report found that frequent code changes were slowing housing delivery and increasing costs. The pause is intended to provide stability, reduce red tape, and help the industry focus on building more homes. The parallels between Australia’s housing challenges and Canada’s are extensive, making a similar move for Canada justified and essential.

To that end, Canada should follow Australia’s lead and

immediately stop the adoption and implementation process of the 2025 National Construction Codes, and assess them, with a plan to only put forth for adopting cost-neutral changes for housing in Part 9 of the 2025 national codes...

pause all 2030 code development until critical reforms are made to the development approach, such as

restoring transparency, accountability, and meaningful stakeholder engagement within the codes system

adding an ex-officio seat for CHBA and other broad sector stakeholders at all CBHCC meetings (including in-camera meetings) to properly inform the development from an industry perspective

reinstating a coordination committee dedicated to NBC Part 9 (which deals directly with housing) rather than spreading it across 13 committees with nonresidential construction

reducing the priorities for the 2030 code cycles, focusing only on essential, cost-neutral requirements

making housing affordability a core principle in code development along with a robust structured process to assess and limit individual-change and cumulative costs for each future code edition

establish a National Building Code Interpretation Centre to achieve consistent local application of harmonized national construction codes, and work with the provinces to make published solutions binding.

Canada must act quickly to avoid the same problems identified in Australia and ensure our codes system supports safe, affordable, and climate-resilient housing.

CHBA remains committed to working with government towards a more effective and inclusive code development process. We would be happy to meet with you and your officials at your earliest convenience to continue this important conversation and inform immediate action.

That was written by Kevin Lee. That letter was cc'd to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of Internal Trade and minister responsible for One Canadian Economy, and the president of the National Research Council of Canada.

It also bears mentioning, reflecting on earlier words in the House of Commons today, that the minister responsible, when demanding $1.7 billion, unchecked, from the federal government, could not have referenced this very important letter outlined to him about what he needed to do to address housing affordability in Canada. It is from the very people the government depends on to build homes in the first place.

Getting back to my speech and the failure to enable private sector construction, it is not because builders refuse to build, but because conditions made projects unviable. This point has been repeatedly underscored by the Canadian home builders, and it aligns with the broader demand-side story now being mis-characterized as policy success. Builders have consistently warned that the primary barriers to increasing housing supply are not a lack of willingness or the capacity to build, but an accumulation of policy-driven costs, delays and uncertainty that makes projects financially impossible to proceed.

As Mr. Lee outlined in his remarks, just the regulatory additions from 2025 alone add over $100,000 to the cost of a 2,500-square-foot home in Canada. How is that a good thing? We have to also look at these building code requirements in the context of the rental market, which is now showing temporary easing during our reduced population inflows, but where we still need to see more rental construction.

In other words, recent moderation in rents does not signal that builders suddenly found projects viable. It signals that demand pressures ease when inflows of international students and temporary workers slow.

Builders have been clear that absent faster approvals, lower non‑construction costs and predictable timelines, supply will not respond at scale. Approval timelines stretching into years amplify financing risk. Development charges and levies imposed up front erode feasibility. Repeated redesigns across jurisdictions, as Mr. Lee outlined through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, add cost without adding homes. When these factors combine, projects stall or are cancelled, even as governments point to headline spending or short‑term rent data.

Canadian home builders have also cautioned that subsidies layered into this environment cannot compensate for structural barriers. Supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not to complex program criteria or untied transfers, as we see in Bill C‑26. Without reforms that fix approvals, fees and coordination across governments, additional spending risks flowing to a narrow set of projects or even, in some cases, sitting unused. The lesson from builders is consistent: Easing rents driven by lower demand is fragile and reversible; durable affordability requires making projects viable so homes actually get built.

Canadian home builders have pointed to approval timelines that stretch for years, during which carrying costs accumulate and financing risks rise. Zoning constraints, repeated designs and overlapping municipal, provincial and federal requirements add time and cost without adding homes. Development charges, parkland levies and infrastructure fees, often imposed up front, can represent a significant share of total project costs, particularly for multi-unit and purpose-built rental housing. Builders have been clear that when these charges rise faster than sale prices or rents, projects simply do not proceed.

If we look back on the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 housing construction policies outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we can also draw a correlation between rental construction financing and some of these constraints faced by home builders. While intended to reduce costs and provide affordability for homeowners or renters, those costs, in fact, are so great that government financing is outweighed by the regulatory requirements that have increased the cost of home production in the first place, so financing conditions have compounded these problems.

Builders have also emphasized that higher interest rates and tighter lending conditions disproportionately affect construction projects with long approval timelines. When approvals take years, interest rate risks alone can erase already thin margins, especially for rental projects where revenues are capped for affordability expectations. In that environment, even projects that align with public policy goals are delayed or cancelled because they no longer pencil out.

Critically, builders have also warned that federal programs layered on top of the system do little to address these fundamentals. Subsidies and incentives cannot compensate for regulatory systems that delay projects or for cost structures that exceed what the market can bear. As builders have repeatedly argued, supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not program criteria or slow-moving capital contributions. Without reforms that reduce approval timelines, lower non‑construction costs and align incentives across government, additional funding risks sitting unused or flowing to a limited number of projects rather than unlocking broad‑based supply.

In short, the evidence from those who actually build homes reinforces the conclusion reached by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The housing shortfall is not the result of building reluctance or market failure; it is the result of policy choices that have made building housing increasingly difficult. Until those structural barriers are addressed, no amount of new spending, whether under the national housing strategy or through ad hoc measures, such as Bill C‑26, will deliver the scale of housing supply Canadians urgently need. We now have a law requiring better outcomes, a strategy promising transformation and data showing deterioration.

The PBO's conclusion remains: The impact of federal housing programs is limited relative to the scale of need. That is our reality.

This is not just a policy failure. It is a failure to meet commitments, targets and statutory obligations. When the government promises to help 530,000 households in need and delivers only 78,000 units, when it plays around with its own budgets for housing and then, through Bill C‑26, asks Parliament to authorize new, untied spending for housing supply without reconnecting that spending to the outcomes, targets and timelines it established itself, it bears further scrutiny in Parliament.

Bill C‑26 and the programming motion I am debating right now reveal what Bill C‑26 does not do. It authorizes billions of dollars in additional payments to provinces and territories, but it does so outside the architecture of the national housing strategy. There are no statutory outcome requirements, no ties to reductions in housing need, no clear affordability thresholds and no measurable targets aligned with the act's obligations to focus on those in greatest need. In effect, the government is asking for more money now, while simultaneously retreating from the very framework that was supposed to ensure that money produced results.

This suggests a partial acknowledgement by the government that its existing approach is not working, but a willingness to go all the way in admitting failure is beyond any Liberal, in my opinion. Rather than reforming the strategy to fix its structural flaws or aligning new spending with the legal obligations Parliament enacted in 2019, the government appears to be sidestepping the problem. It is shifting away from the strategy through re-funding allocations while pursuing ad hoc spending through Bill C‑26 that is disconnected from its own commitments. This is not coherence; it is fragmentation.

If the national housing strategy were working, there would be no need to bypass it. If the act's frameworks were delivering results, new spending would logically flow through it, reinforced by clear targets, timelines and accountability. Instead, we see the opposite: declining support under the strategy, combined with new spending requests that avoid its constraints. That combination strongly suggests the government knows that its current approach has failed but does not want to formally acknowledge that failure or undertake the difficult work to redesign what is necessary to help build affordable homes in Canada.

The result that we have today, therefore, is the worst of both worlds. Canadians are told that housing remains a top priority, yet the strategy that was supposed to deliver results is being hollowed out. Parliament is asked to approve new funding, but without the guardrails that ensure effectiveness. The core problems, such as affordability, access to affordable homes for low-income households and the growing gap between need and supply, remain unaddressed. In short, Bill C‑26 does not represent a fix to a failing strategy. It represents a workaround. Workarounds are what governments turn to when they no longer believe their own plan can succeed. The conclusion is unavoidable: The strategy is not working, and Canadians are paying the price.

In conclusion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada now has approximately 2.4 million households in core housing need, and that figure is projected to rise to 2.6 million by 2027. That would mean nearly one million more households in core housing need than when the national housing strategy was launched in 2017. The very strategy that was supposed to make housing more affordable has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians struggling to find suitable, affordable homes.

The Liberals have announced program after program, funding envelope after funding envelope, yet the results continue to move in the wrong direction. The PBO found that in 2023 Canada added approximately 460,000 new households while completing only 242,000 housing units. In other words, household growth vastly outpaced housing construction. The result is exactly what Canadians have experienced: rising prices, rising rents and fewer attainable housing options.

The same report estimates that Canada will require an additional 1.3 million housing units by 2030 above current projections simply to close the national housing gap. That means Canada would need, on average, roughly 436,000 completed housing units annually between 2024 and 2030, far beyond current construction levels. For renters, the situation is equally troubling. CMHC reported that affordability remains a major challenge. With turnover rents increasing by 23.5% in 2024, young Canadians, newcomers and working families are finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing they can afford.

What is most concerning is not simply the scale of the crisis, but the Liberal government's record. Canadians have heard the promises before. They were promised that the national housing strategy would improve affordability. They were promised that billions of dollars in spending would deliver results, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded that housing needs continue to grow despite increased federal spending. Even the government's flagship housing accelerator fund deserves scrutiny. The PBO noted that very little funding was spent in its first year and that many of the housing increases observed in participating jurisdictions may have been driven by initiatives already under way before agreements were signed.

Trust is earned through results. After years of soaring home prices, rising rents, growing housing needs and repeated missed targets, Canadians have every reason to question whether the same government that helped this crisis can be trusted to solve it. Canadians do not need more announcements. Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford does not need more announcements. That is why, in the first hour of my remarks today, I related Bill C-26 to the flexibility the government was showing and the lack of action we have had in the Fraser Valley region.

It bears repeating, before I conclude today, that my riding is the confluence of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the National Pacific Railway and the Southern Railway. We have a border crossing. The Government of Canada has chosen the Abbotsford International Airport and an amazing Canadian company, Conair, to build the national firefighting fleet for our entire country. Conair already hosts one of the largest fleets of any aircraft provider in the country. We are using De Havilland aircraft built in Canada to supply that fleet. We have the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Sumas transfer station, which transfers 37% of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline to the United States. The Enbridge pipeline expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station that the government just approved are in my riding. We have the arterial road connecting British Columbia with the rest of Canada.

As I outlined for over an hour in this speech, we have received no federal supports, no flexibility and no accountability from the previous prime minister, who said that he would help us. Even today, High Commissioner Bill Blair said to me the other day, “Yes, we broke the promises we made to you.” It is my responsibility to continue fighting for that and to continue saying in this House that the status quo is not okay, if the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can come forward with Bill C-26, a two-paragraph bill, to say that he needs $1.7 billion in additional housing funding, after a fund of $80 billion over 10 years has already failed every metric pointed out in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports.

Why can the federal government not support Abbotsford? I invite the minister to come to my community in good faith. I have never politicized this issue, because it is about Canada first, about the Government of Canada meeting its export objectives. Those export objectives run through the Fraser Valley. Canada cannot build if the Fraser Valley is not protected.

We are also the breadbasket of British Columbia. We are the heartland of dairy farmers, blueberry farmers and immigrants who have built their livelihoods supplying Canada with fresh produce, fresh vegetables and the best agricultural products we can find anywhere in this province, and we need help. I plead with the government to help us.

This June, we are launching the review process for the transboundary commission. The Minister of Emergency Management, in good faith, sent the parliamentary secretary to support it after I requested it. I will say that in good faith, and I invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to come and hear what people have said and about the suffering we have gone through. Our only request is to help Canada build, help improve those exports and help Canada meet its objectives.

We are in British Columbia. I know many Laurentian elites in Ontario and Quebec see it as just this place where they go on vacation and ski, sail and golf in a single day, but it is more than that. It is the export opportunity to the Asia-Pacific region. It is the future of Canada's economic prosperity and it completely aligns with all of the trade objectives set by the Prime Minister, so again, I plead with the government—

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

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of how the government creates these big blocks of money without any accountability or transparency. What is the point of scrutiny when the Liberals are just going to turn a blind eye again and again to mismanagement? This is one of the most dangerous things Parliament can do: grant billions of dollars without any metrics of success, without any capacity to see how the money is being used. This is not the way our democracy or public accountability is supposed to work. When we hear promises of new spending, new funds, new programs and new announcements, I am required to ask, will it be any different this time?

In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, these failures are not theoretical. They touch very close to home. In 2021, we experienced massive flooding that became one of the most expensive natural disasters in Canada. Later that year, Lytton, British Columbia, in my riding, was burned to the ground. No riding in Canada has ever faced devastation like Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did in 2021.

The CN Rail line was washed out throughout the province. The CP Rail line was washed out all across the province. The Trans-Canada Highway was washed out and flooded. The Duffey, which connects Whistler and Pemberton to Lillooet, was washed out. The Lougheed Highway was washed out. The Southern Railway line was washed out. The port of metro Vancouver was completely shut off from the rest of Canada. We had to bring in military assistance from Quebec because there was no equipment cache in British Columbia to deal with the devastation we faced. The Sumas Prairie was flooded, compromising B.C.'s food supply. Homes were lost. People died. Our infrastructure failed.

I remember walking up to the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. It was at the time when the senator from Saskatchewan was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for a while, when Erin O'Toole was our leader, and some journalist asked me, “What do you think about this?” I had just come from a meeting with Bill Blair, now the high commissioner to the U.K. I said, “I can't believe you're asking me this. British Columbia is cut off from the rest of Canada, the port of metro Vancouver can't move any goods, and you're asking me about a senator?”

B.C. is often overlooked in this chamber. It is not an understood place. Since 2021, I have stood in this chamber and in committees and pleaded with ministers of housing and infrastructure to help British Columbia, to help our farmers and to help the government achieve its own objectives of doubling exports to Asia-Pacific markets. None of that can happen unless the government pays attention to my riding.

Most members in this chamber do not know that 37% of the oil from Trans Mountain goes through the Sumas transfer station in my community to the United States. Without that money, the Government of Canada would be bankrupt. Most members do not know that the Enbridge expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station are right in my riding. Canada cannot function without Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. My riding has one of the highest farm gates in all of Canada, and we are a key producer of berries, poultry, dairy and vegetables, on less than 1% of the land in B.C. We are an agricultural powerhouse, and we are also the confluence of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans‑Canada Highway, all three major rail lines in Canada, a border crossing and an international airport where the government just announced it is going to build Canada's new firefighting fleet through one of the best companies in Canada, Conair.

There is so much happening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and in the Fraser Valley that is essential to what the government needs to do to complete its objectives.

I ask the government when the dollars that Justin Trudeau promised at the photo ops in Abbotsford, in 2021, will come to fruition. I saw the high commissioner at the airport last week. I said, “Bill, I am still fighting.” He said to keep fighting, because they did not fulfill their promises to Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

My number one duty in the House is to get that member who spoke before me to come clean and support my community, to support Canada, to support our export objectives and to support renewed interest in supply chains.

The Prime Minister went to New York and talked about looking to the future, about Canada's place in the global economy. We can agree that our future is not just a new trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It is westbound, through British Columbia, because the next chapter of Canada's prosperity will be written in our relationships with the Asia‑Pacific markets, which are growing faster and demanding more food, more energy and a more reliable trading partner with expertise in engineering and services, with one of the most educated workforces in the entire world.

We cannot do any of that if we do not take the $3.83 billion in national economic activity through agriculture in my riding, the role of our international airport, the site of our firefighting fleet, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, our international border crossing, the major arterial roads that connect British Columbia with all of Canada, our rail lines to the south, our rail lines to the port, and the breadbasket of British Columbia in my riding.

Every container heading to Asia, every shipment of agricultural product and every export moving through our Pacific gateway depends on the strength and reliability of the supply chains in the Fraser Valley. If Canada wants to be a serious player in the Indo‑Pacific and if we want to seize the opportunities of growing global demand, we must ensure that our gateways work.

I am going to repeat this time and time again. The government cannot accomplish its goal to double our exports abroad if it does not protect and maintain this critical infrastructure, not just on sunny days but in the face of floods, extreme weather and these growing infrastructure pressures.

It is worth noting that our competitors are not standing still. Other countries are investing heavily in trade routes and in climate‑resilient infrastructure. We are seeing it in Washington state, where they are going to start exporting more potash and other goods that Canada has, because we are not moving fast enough. Canada has to do the same.

The question before us is simple: Are we prepared to invest in the infrastructure that will define Canada's future, or are we willing to leave one of our most critical trade corridors vulnerable at the very moment the world is looking to Canada and the Pacific to provide some stability in light of global conflicts?

The Fraser Valley is not just about the past. It is about the future that the Prime Minister spoke about in his remarks in New York. It is about a future where Canada can feed global markets, power economies with responsibly developed energy and strengthen its place as a reliable trading nation. Everything the Prime Minister wants to do happens in the Fraser Valley.

However, to my key point, none of this is possible without resilient infrastructure, without protected corridors, without a federal government willing to act with urgency and ambition in a way it has not done yet. Yes, let us build homes, but let us also build the foundation of a country that can compete, that can trade and that can lead. When we invest in the Fraser Valley, it is not just about investing in a region. We are investing in Canada's future on the world stage.

This is an odd bill. It was not in the budget, and it does not appear to be part of a coherent plan based on the information before the House today. It feels more like a last-minute talking point, so the Liberals can say that the Conservatives voted against housing, rather than a serious effort to address the legitimate things the minister is trying to solve. Canadians do want to see investment in housing and infrastructure, but they also want to see improved processes, because what I will outline in the coming hours will show that the Liberals have not done that to date.

Before I do that, I would be remiss if I did not cover, just to reiterate the point, some of the comments that my constituents made in a recent mailer about what happened to them in the flood. Sometimes in this House, we need to bring in that personal perspective. These people matter, and they pay a lot of taxes. Their voice needs to be heard. I am going to refer to them just by their initials to protect their confidentiality.

J. and T. wrote me and said the following: “Our family was seriously impacted when the dikes of Sumas River blew out in 2021. This flooded the Sumas Prairie where we live on a five-acre hay farm. We lost everything in our home. We had to rebuild the entire inside of the house, from floor to ceiling, including all appliances, windows, doors, furniture, flooring and personal items. We lost three vehicles, tools and equipment for the farm. Federal help is needed to deal with international disaster with the floodwaters.”

This is a funny one. P. in Abbotsford wrote, “Instead of wasting time trying to get the Liberals to do something for the west coast, why not build a berm along the border? They can keep their water.” That is fair.

D.S. wrote, “It appears to me the federal government is not taking the flooding issue seriously. Merritt, Princeton, Sumas Prairie, all their constituencies are not listened to by the Liberal government. Is it because they don't have their party's MPs in these ridings? Five hundred pages of reposting is not sufficient to approve funding for flood-stricken families? We pay equally into the tax system in Canada. Citizens should be first.”

C. in Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, our property flooded. We had a foot of water on the main floor of our house. We were displaced for six months from our home while we let it dry out. Gutted the main floor and renovated. We also have a barn, so animals, goats, horses and chickens, were relocated for a while. My husband has a landscaping business and his shop flooded, ruining equipment and storage areas. It has taken years to rebuild.”

C. from Abbotsford wrote, “I was unable to get to my workplace during the floods. My church took the opportunity to help Ripples Estate with their restoration, and the devastation to their land was exceptional. In a documentary recap I filmed, one of the owners makes the comment that, 'We receive alert messages all the time on our iPhones. How is it possible that there is a failure to use this kind of method to warn about the potential weather impact of flooding?'”

R. from Abbotsford wrote, “My wife with extreme Parkinson's and myself were evacuated for three weeks. We went to our son's in Calgary. I live in Sumas Prairie, where the dike broke. I helped move my neighbour as his barn flooded, as well as two homes past the bridge on Sumas River, which had to be replaced. My wife recently passed. This was an extremely difficult time. During the flood in 2025, I was stranded for three days, because all the roads around me were flooded. In this day and age, this problem must be resolved. Government, change. We need proper dyking in Sumas, Washington, and pump stations on Sumas River at Barrowtown.”

N. and L. wrote, “Our family has lived on this property since 1957, which my father and mother moved to because of the high location of the property. They lived in a lower area when they migrated here in the 1930s. They went through the 1948 flood threat and realized the situation back then, so until November 2021, our family felt confident that we did not have to worry, but to our amazement the dyke on the Sumas River breached, and that was that. We suffered water flooding in our basement, costing us over $8,000 and time away from home. At that time, I was suffering from cancer, which was very difficult.”

D. from Abbotsford wrote, “I used to live in Sumas Prairie in the flood zone, and the threat of flooding was a constant concern, so we moved to the Bradner area of Abbotsford, out of the flood zone. Our old house was badly damaged in 2021. The Canadian government must pressure the U.S. government to dredge out the Nooksack River to prevent flooding again. That is one of the only solutions, as I see it.”

R. from Abbotsford wrote, “Both the 2021 and 2025 floods cut off use of Highway 1 to the interior for a month. I lost access to my cabin at Hope, and what about the promised infrastructure? How come it is not happening? Let's get it done. Let's get it right this time. We can't go on like this.”

O. from Abbotsford wrote, “Yes, I saw many affected residents from the floods. We have to find a way to fix this from happening again by all means.”

E. from Abbotsford said, “We need the federal government to work constructively on the Sumas River watershed coalition and to work with our American partners to fix this issue. Where is the federal leadership?”

B. in Mission wrote, “I lived in Agassiz in 2021, near the fairgrounds. My crawlspace flooded. I had huge personal and material losses. I spent months sorting and paying for things that could not be saved.”

J. in Mission wrote, “Infrastructure needs to be built to stop this from happening again. We can't go on.”

T. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live on the Sumas flood plain, but do live on the hill above it. My lower level floods on occasion when our storm drainage system can't handle the extra water, because it has nowhere to go when the plains flood. When the freeway is flooded, my daughter can't go to work in Chilliwack.”

R. in Abbotsford wrote, “Thanks for pushing this, Brad. My friend's family's cattle were heavily impacted by the 2021 floods. There was incredible destruction and loss around Sumas Prairie.” He mentions the cattle, and in fact one of the few things people from outside the region remember is the cows swimming in the water during the floods.

G. and P. in Abbotsford wrote, “In addition to being cut off from the rest of Canada by the flooding in 2021, our region had to rely on shipments being rerouted through the U.S., Washington state, and then back into B.C. Given the trade tensions with the U.S. and our country's resolve to become less dependent on the U.S., do we really want to find ourselves in that position again when the flooding reoccurs? Please get the flood mitigation assistance that was promised in November 2021.”

S. H. from Abbotsford wrote, “We had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. We had to relocate our livestock. We missed work. Our property was damaged. The Trans-Canada Highway was flooded and closed. There was poor communication on road closures. We lost a lot of livestock due to the flood.”

S. in Abbotsford wrote, “While my property was not flooded, my friends had just recovered from the previous flood disaster. To have two floods so close together stinks of neglect and disinterest for the people of the Fraser Valley.”

R. in Abbotsford wrote, “The recent flood disrupted my work for most of a week. I head up construction for farmers, fresh mushrooms, these last 12 years. My work stopped because I had no access to gravel on Sumas Mountain. Three of my crew lost a week's worth of work, because all the roads were cut off.”

J. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live in the flood plain, but a percentage of our city does. It is terribly disruptive when the floods take place. I am only inconvenienced, but there are people in our city fighting for their homes, land and way of life. Do we have to have another fatality for Ottawa to notice? Thank you for your efforts.”

D. in Abbotsford wrote, “Again, Brad, you're looking out for your people. Thank you. Not impacted by the flood except by higher prices and groceries and other necessities because freight was held up. The poor farmers affected have been most heartbreaking. We knew the prime minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, would not keep his promise to help. He gave hope in one hand and snatched it up with the other hand. Typical of him. Also, go very hard on SOGI in our schools. God continue to give you strength.”

M. in Abbotsford wrote, “I haven't been affected personally, but my uncle was flooded in the 1975 flood. It has only gotten worse in the 1990s and in the 2020s. My dad had a friend who was a diking commissioner in the Nooksack in the nineties. He was hamstrung by bureaucracies there. It was an international problem that affects the local Americans as well. It missed federal government action on both sides of the border. The Nooksack needs dredging, and we need to improve our dikes. I agree. This problem can only be fixed if the federal government gets involved.”

P. from Abbotsford is a professor at the university, and she said they had to cancel exams and that the university was shut for a week because of the floods. She encourages the federal government to take leadership and dredge the Nooksack.

K. from Mission wrote, “I'm going to be 85 this spring. I have a caring heart. We've got to get this fixed. This is not acceptable.”

B. from Abbotsford wrote, “I received your letter, ‘Fix the Flooding Failure, Hold Ottawa Accountable’, in the mail this week.” This was a few months ago. “You asked how the 2021 and most recent flooding have affected our lives. Well, the Sumas Prairie flood was truly an experience for us. After spending the evening of November 15, 2021, and well into the morning moving files from our office into the shop and into the house, we tried to save our daughter's art studio, furniture and artwork, our other daughter's piano studio, located by the back of our garage, and anything we could from the basement by moving it to the main floor. We never expected the water to rise as much as it did.

“We moved items and mopped up water for 26 hours straight. By 4:30 a.m. on November 16, we were completely exhausted and cold. We rested until 6:30 a.m., when we heard police telling us to evacuate. In that short time, the water had rushed in and was already four feet deep in the basement. We couldn't reach the breaker panel or turn off the water or gas. We had only minutes to leave. The water continued rising faster.

“We waded through dirty, freezing water to reach our truck on the road. The road had disappeared, and the surrounding area looked like we were in the middle of a lake. Water was entering the cab of the truck. We were very fortunate to get out when we did. Trying to drive when no road is visible and avoiding deep farm ditches was extremely challenging.

“We headed south along the mountain, driving through the mudslides and downed branches, and made our way to Chilliwack. With the flooding and landslides, it felt like we were in a movie.

“Cold and wet, we were instructed to register with emergency evacuation services in Chilliwack. Our two daughters had stayed at their grandparents the night before because they couldn't make it home once flooding began at Whatcom Road. My husband and I ended up in Chilliwack.

“Chilliwack became chaotic as people panicked to get gas and food. Gas stations ran out of fuel, and fights were starting because of the long, frantic lineups. We were able to get clothes and food at Superstore since we had left many essentials at home, but later the store closed as shelves were emptied.

“Sumas Prairie and Highway No. 1 were closed, as were Highway No. 1 East past the Agassiz exit and Highway 7 due to mudslides. Exhausted and considering sleeping in the back of the truck, we searched for a place to stay, but nothing was available. It was November, and daytime temperatures were around five degrees. Thankfully, my mum made some calls, and we ended up staying with a distant relative.

“On Thursday, November 19, we were finally able to head back to Abbotsford via Highway No. 7. It took three hours, but we still couldn't reach our house. Flooding was everywhere, even though the water had receded three feet.

“By Sunday, we were able to pull up to our home and assess the damage. Wearing boots, we entered the house and quickly packed what we could from the main and upper floors. The smell permeated everything. Clothing and bedding that could be washed were washed, but it took a lot to remove the odour. We lost all of our office equipment and furniture, the furniture and appliances in our basement and anything we had placed on our shelves, thinking the water wouldn't reach the ceiling.

“We lost all our RV, our chickens and both coops, the art studio, the piano studio and four vehicles. Our business trailers were flooded, and we worked with ICBC to have them repaired.

“Seeing the damage was tough, but we had to move forward and do the hard work to get back to normal. We gutted, dried out and repaired our shop. We bought new tools and threw out damaged equipment. Our construction company's head office had to be relocated off the property.

“With the help of family and friends, the cleanup began. We ended up with six and a half feet of water, contaminated water containing septic waste, manure, chemicals, oils and gas. Anything touched by it had to be thrown out. Our house needed to be rebuilt, so we lived elsewhere for two and a half years.

“We are still dealing with the aftermath. Damage to the outbuildings is yet to be repaired because our focus and finances had to go towards the house and shop. Our older farmhouse had water up to the main floorboards, and after sitting in water for almost a week, the mould and structural damage made rebuilding necessary.

“Unfortunately, we had no insurance coverage for overland flooding. Intact Insurance had sent us a letter a year earlier stating that due to failing infrastructure, they would no longer cover floods. I tried to get insurance elsewhere for this, but no one would offer it.

“The recent flooding only affected our backyard field and ditches.” That's the one last year. “The house was spared this time. My daughter and I were evacuated at 12:30 a.m. but returned in the morning before Vye Road flooded. Our daughter had recently undergone surgery and was still using a hospital bed, so staying elsewhere was impossible. My husband remained at the house. The stress was still there, knowing how easily it could happen again.

“One of our neighbours completely emptied their house, appliances and all, fearing a repeat of 2021. We monitored the water constantly to see how quickly the yard was filling. We were still able to reach Chilliwack via back roads but were cut off from Abbotsford due to closures at Vye Road, Whatcom Road and Whatcom Road to Highway No. 1 from our work.

“In 2021, when our dike filled, we realized most of the water that flooded our home came from that failure. This time, we watched the direction of the water from the Nooksack, which has flooded before and follows the same path towards Highway No. 1.

“As landowners in the Sumas Prairie, it is deeply concerning that so little has been addressed since 2021. Thank you for taking the time to read our story and share our concerns.”

C. from Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, we were greatly impacted by the flood. We lost many of our belongings and animals. We never received any relief funding or even dump fees waived because we were not put on alert. Our house was completely surrounded by water, but because it sits up high enough, we were able to stay. Not once did any first responders or law enforcement ever come to check on us. We continue to flood every winter, but the city refuses to help us in any way.”

R. and D. in Mission wrote, “I can't access the Fraser River from the Barrowtown boat launch anymore due to the level of gravel flowing through the Vedder Canal. The Chilliwack Lake watershed was overlogged decades ago but perhaps has recovered by now. However, the canal needs to be dredged. It's got nothing to do with the so-called climate change, as some try to suggest.”

I could go on, but those testaments are clear. My constituents have not received the type of federal support they deserve. They have not received the type of flexibility that the government is showing in Bill C-26 and in this programming motion to accomplish its goals. It has not done anything for the Fraser Valley region, which is integral to maintaining Canada's supply chains in 2026.

In my next hour, I am going to look a little more closely at what the government has done on housing since it was elected. It starts with the national housing strategy, which came out in 2016 or 2017.

The member for Québec Centre wrote a message as the minister of families, children and social development. He stated:

It is my great honour and pleasure to present Canada's first ever National Housing Strategy (NHS), an ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.

Bringing this Strategy to life has been a priority for the Government of Canada for the past 18 months. We are making historic investments in housing—and planning for transformational change—because we understand the value of home. Safe, affordable housing is a launch-pad for better socio-economic outcomes for our citizens, a more inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to be well and to succeed, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment.

But for too many Canadian families, a decent home is simply not affordable. Across Canada, 1.7 million people are in housing need, living in homes that are inadequate or unaffordable. Another 25,000 Canadians are chronically homeless. This needs to change.

Building on investments announced in Budgets 2016 and 2017, [this strategy] signals a meaningful re-engagement by the federal government in housing. It is a key element of our Government's plan to help strengthen the middle class, promote growth for everyone, and lift more Canadians out of poverty.

Important learnings emerged from last year’s Let's Talk Housing consultations, and our Strategy is stronger for it. Now the work of implementing these ideas begins.

He continued:

We have set clear goals for the [national housing strategy], including removing 530,000 Canadian families from housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by half over the next decade. We will track and report on our success, and adapt our approach as needed as the Strategy unfolds. Our primary focus will be on meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults.

The release of the [national housing strategy] marks the beginning of a new era for housing in Canada. We have a Strategy that all Canadians can be proud of and support. I encourage you to become part of this nation-wide effort to ensure that all Canadians have the safe and affordable housing they need and deserve.

I consider the member to be an honourable one, but I will note that every metric and group outlined in his introductory letter to the national housing strategy has failed, every single one. Not one thing has been done as they said it would be done when the plan was announced.

The first-ever national housing strategy went on:

The Government of Canada believes every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of inclusive communities.... Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy is a 10-year, $40-billion plan that will give more Canadians a place to call home.

Canada’s National Housing Strategy sets ambitious targets to ensure that unprecedented investments and new programming deliver results. This will include a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness, and as many as 530,000 households being taken out of housing need. The National Housing Strategy will result in up to 100,000 new housing units and 300,000 repaired or renewed housing units

Through new initiatives like the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and the Canada Community Housing Initiative, the National Housing Strategy will create a new generation of housing in Canada.

None of that has taken place.

Our plan will promote diverse communities. It will build housing that is sustainable, accessible, mixed-income, and mixed-use. We will build housing that is fully integrated into the community—close to transit, close to work, and close to public services.

Expanded and reformed federal homelessness programming, a new Canada Housing Benefit, and a rights-based approach to housing will ensure that the National Housing Strategy prioritizes the most vulnerable Canadians including women and children fleeing [from] violence....

I will note that since this strategy was implemented, violence against women in Canada has more than doubled. Cases of sexual assault and intimate partner violence have skyrocketed under the government. The Liberals said housing would fix it. They were wrong. They misled Canada. They misled our entire nation.

The statement continues:

The National Housing Strategy is truly a national project, built by and for Canadians. The success of our plan requires collaboration from many partners. The National Housing Strategy invests in the provinces and territories, so all regions can achieve better and more affordable housing. It invests in municipalities, to empower communities to lead the fight against homelessness. It also creates new opportunities for the federal government to innovate through [community] partnerships....

I could go on.

Page 5 of the report is about “A vision for housing in Canada”. It reads:

Canadians have housing that meets their needs and they can afford.

That vision has failed.

Affordable housing is a cornerstone of sustainable, inclusive communities and a Canadian economy where we can prosper and thrive.

I agree with that. The government has done the opposite.

The government notes in its strategy on page 5 that:

Housing is more than just a roof over our heads

It says:

Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home

I agree. They have not done it.

Housing investments must prioritize those most in need, including: women and children fleeing family violence; seniors; Indigenous peoples...

I might read, later on, the Auditor General's report on the state of housing on first nations reserves. It is complete failure, again.

Housing policy should be grounded in the principles of inclusion, participation, accountability, and non-discrimination

I agree, but the government has completely failed on that, too.

Housing programs should align with public investments in job creation, skills training, transit, early learning, healthcare, and cultural and recreational infrastructure

I wish that were the case. It has not happened.

Housing investments should support Canada’s climate change agenda and commitment to accessible communities

I agree, but with regard to the impacts of natural disasters and what the government scientists have said about climate change in Canada and in my riding, there was never that alignment or prioritization, as I have outlined in the last hour. That is another big fail.

Communities should be empowered to develop and implement local solutions to housing challenges

I agree. I do not think it is happening, though.

Page 6 of the strategy outlines some targets, including “530,000 households removed from housing need”, “385,000 community housing units protected and another 50,000 units created through an expansion of community housing”, a “50% reduction in estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users”, “300,000 existing housing units repaired and renewed”, “100,000 new housing units created” and “300,000 households provided with affordability support through the Canada Housing Benefit”.

I do not think they have succeeded in any of those metrics.

On page 7, it says the $40-billion initial investment, which has since doubled, will be a “Once-in-a-Generation Joint Investment”. I find it sad that the government has spent so much money and has so little to show for what it said it wanted to do.

In chapter 1, the strategy outlines that:

Housing Rights Are Human Rights

Canadians deserve safe and affordable housing. That is why the federal government is taking these additional steps to progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing. Our plan is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination....

None of that has taken place. The plan talks about new legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, which I will get to in just a minute, and a new federal housing advocate. I will note, on a positive note, that at least the federal housing advocate has been willing to call out the government accordingly and hold it to account for some of its failures, like the 1,000-year statistic I gave earlier, which outlines that the plan is a complete failure.

The plan created a new national housing council, new initiatives, new public campaigns, new legislation and all sorts of new agencies and councils. None of it has made a difference. None of the metrics were met.

Chapter 2 talks about “Federal Re-Engagement Through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund”. I do not know what to say. It talked about 60,000 new units and new shelter spaces. Poverty in Canada has grown at such an exponential rate under the government over the last 10 years that even where the government might have made an incremental improvement, the foundation of our economy, our socio-economic status and the erosion of civil society that we have witnessed over the last 10 years have eroded any good that any of these policies could have completed. While more money was pumped, fewer results were achieved.

The plan talks about “Making Federal Lands Available for Affordable Housing”. The government is still talking about that. It still has not done anything. I do not think it has made any measurable difference. The only success we have seen on that is when we removed all federal barriers and granted federal lands to indigenous people, to the outcry of many residents in Vancouver. We have seen massive new housing developments take place. It is only when the federal government is not involved that we see results.

Chapter 3 talks about “Maintaining a Resilient Community Housing Sector”. I do not know what that means. I do not think it has made a difference.

Chapter 4 talks about “A New Canada Housing Benefit” for low-income people. The government is removing that benefit now.

Chapter 5 talks about “Progress Through Partnership: Enhanced Support to Provinces and Territories”. Again, what progress have we seen? The report mentions the same statistics I read at the beginning, over and over again.

Chapter 6 talks about “Letting Communities Lead”. I do not know what that means.

Chapter 7 is titled “‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’”. Housing starts for first nations have only eroded under the government.

Chapter 8 talks about “Evidence-Based Housing: Research, Data and Demonstrations”. They developed a research agenda around their own work. The research, as I will show, shows that the plan was an abysmal failure.

Chapter 9 is about “Improving Homeownership Options for Canadians”. In some of the debates, I will talk about how, in conjunction with this plan, the government's solution for that was allowing the Government of Canada to co-invest in mortgages or have a portion of Canadians' mortgages. That plan failed drastically.

Chapter 10 is about “Gender-Based Analysis Plus”. I do not know what that means or what it has done to improve housing affordability in Canada. I hope it has made some improvements but I do not think it has.

Chapter 11 talks about the government's journey to reinvest in housing. Great.

I could go on. There are more statistics, more failed investments, zero progress to date and a move in the complete opposite direction from the direction the strategy said it would go in.

The next document I will quickly take a look at is the National Housing Strategy Act. It was very big legislation for the government at the time.

I will outline what it says in the preamble:

Whereas housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities as well as a strong national economy in which the people of Canada can prosper and thrive;

Whereas access to affordable housing contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes;

Whereas improved housing outcomes are best achieved through cooperation between governments and civil society as well as the meaningful involvement of local communities;

Whereas national goals, timelines and initiatives relating to housing and homelessness are essential to improving the quality of life of the people of Canada, particularly persons in greatest need;

Whereas a national housing strategy would support a common vision, key principles and a coordinated approach to achieving...housing outcomes;

Whereas a national housing strategy would contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations;

And whereas a national housing strategy would support the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a party;

Importantly, the legislation includes a housing policy declaration. In section 4, it reads:

It is declared to be the housing policy of the Government of Canada to

(a) recognize that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law;

(b) recognize that housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities;

(c) support improved housing outcomes for the people of Canada; and

(d) further the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In section 5, under “National Housing Strategy”, on page 3 of the bill, it states:

5 (1) The Minister must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to further the housing policy, taking into account key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing.

Content

(2) The National Housing Strategy is to, among other things,

(a) set out a long-term vision for housing in Canada that recognizes the importance of housing in achieving social, economic, health and environmental goals;

(b) establish national goals relating to housing and homelessness and identify related priorities, initiatives, timelines and desired outcomes;

(c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need; and

(d) provide for participatory processes to ensure the ongoing inclusion and engagement of civil society, stakeholders, vulnerable groups and persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness.

The act sets out a national housing council. It states:

6 (1) A council, to be known as the National Housing Council, is established for the purpose of furthering the housing policy...by

(a) providing advice to the Minister, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, including, among other things, on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy

This sounds familiar. Is it another bureaucratic body to do the job of the minister.

It talks about the membership of the council, which I will not go into, as well as ex officio members and the appointment terms. This was a very common thing under Trudeau. Every legislation had a corresponding council.

The legislation created a federal housing advocate on page 6, with specific duties to do the following:

(a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness;

(b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines...

(c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers...

(d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions...

(e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations...

(f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues;

(g) provide advice to the Minister;

(h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings...and;

(i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member.

The act established a review panel, and it goes on and on about the review panel.

It talks about accountability on page 10, which states:

The Minister must respond to the annual report of the Federal Housing Advocate.

I would be remiss as a member of Parliament to not note that we ask general questions on the state of housing in Canada every day, and we never get clear responses. We hear only that everything is okay and Canada has never had it so good. That is essentially the strategy.

During the debates, because this was part of the budget bill in April 2019, many Liberals spoke highly about what they were doing. Jennifer O'Connell, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at the time, talked about how the Liberal approach was going to help young Canadians who “want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.” That was never realized.

She talked about their approach to housing, and stated:

Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.

To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C‑97, budget 2019 proposes a new first‑time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.

I would note that the government scrapped that program pretty quickly. It was an abysmal failure.

She continued:

Through budget 2019 and Bill C‑97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade.

I will admit that was a good policy, but none of the Liberals' measures improved affordability.

Budget 2019 talked about job experience and employer-relevant skills. None of that panned out.

This is interesting: The parliamentary secretary at the time talked about attracting more foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-caliber places to study. One of the biggest and most negative impacts on housing affordability in Canada has been the immigration policies of the current government, where demand completely outstrips supply due to unfettered immigration targets. Just a few years ago, the members opposite praised the government for increasing those numbers. What a short-sighted policy idea that was.

Maryam Monsef, in May 2019, talked about more funding in budget 2019:

...we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home.

Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a...$55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country.

Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing.

She talked about the National Housing Strategy Act, which I just read from and which:

...would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With [these] amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible.

She talked about being very proud of the housing investments and about upholding the rights of Canadians.

The member for Surrey Centre also spoke about the 2019 budget with respect to housing. He stated:

By listening to the needs of Canadians and encouraging dialogue, I am proud to say this government has continued its commitment to improving housing affordability in this country, and this is exemplified in budget 2019....

The government is...committed to working in partnership with the province and the municipality to ensure a tri-levelled affordable housing strategy for Surrey residents. In conjunction with British Columbia's affordable...plan and Surrey's affordable housing strategy, the government's new homeowner incentive is a proactive measure to ensure that a future in Surrey is possible for young people and families.

He stated in his speech:

Our goal is to cut chronic homelessness in half, remove 530,000 families from housing need and invest in the construction of up to 100,000 new homes. However, our government knows that these changes cannot, unfortunately, take place overnight. This is why our government has introduced new measures in budget 2019 to help relieve the pressures on Canadians....

We will continue working hard to ensure that...middle-class Canadians [can afford a home, that] home ownership is not a pipe dream, but rather, an achievable goal.

The then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development talked about this, saying:

Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before.

In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Later in her speech, she says:

It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton.

We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them.

Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks.

I could go on. The member for Humber River—Black Creek, on June 4, 2019, said:

We are not just talking about the homeless. We are talking about seniors who cannot sell their houses because they have nowhere to go, and they are struggling as it is. There are a lot of people who are struggling and looking for housing. I hope that the way we are doing it, under our new national housing strategy, is going to help decrease the number of homeless people. More important, it is to help people find alternative forms of housing compared to what they currently have.

The member for Humber River—Black Creek went on to prop up the first-time homebuyers incentive. She said that it:

will certainly help a lot of young people in their mid-thirties who are having significant difficulty just getting into the housing market. Once they can get into the housing market and stay employed, they will have lots of opportunity to build equity in that house and then can later on move into a larger house as their family grows.

The then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, a member from Quebec, talked about many measures in budget 2019 as well. About Bill C-97, he said:

In concrete terms, it will require the federal government to give priority to the housing needs of the most vulnerable Canadians.

The government will also be required to report back to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the strategy and in achieving the desired results with respect to housing. These targets, such as cutting homelessness in half in this country and building 100,000 new units, as well as repairing and renovating another 300,000, will make a real difference in the lives of many Canadians....

I think it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for housing and make a bold, ambitious comeback. That is what the national housing strategy does.

The Liberals' housing agenda, first articulated in 2017 through the national housing strategy, was framed as a historic and transformational shift in federal policy. The quotes I just outlined from the budget debate in 2019 reinforce that.

The former minister from the Quebec region presented the strategy as a long-overdue correction to decades of federal withdrawal, promising not only significant new investment, but a reorientation of housing policy toward affordable, equitable and measurable outcomes. Housing was to be treated as a human right. Vulnerable Canadians would be prioritized, and hundreds of thousands of households would be lifted out of housing need.

The rhetoric was expansive and ambitious, setting expectations for systemic change rather than incremental improvement. However, when these promises are compared to the current trajectory of housing policy, particularly as outlined in the 2025 report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a significant gap emerges between what was promised and what is now being delivered.

One of the most striking divergences lies in the trajectory of federal spending. The national housing strategy was built on the premise of sustained, long-term federal investment. In 2017, the government emphasized that consistent funding over a decade would provide stability, enable planning and ultimately improve affordability outcomes, yet according to the PBO's 2025 analysis, federal housing spending is not being sustained. It is actually declining sharply. Planned spending falls from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to just $4.3 billion by 2028-29. It is almost as if the government is afraid to admit the fact that its strategy was not working.

The implication is clear: Despite earlier commitments to long-term leadership, the federal role in housing is set to diminish precisely when demand for intervention still remains incredibly high. This decline in spending is closely tied to the exploration of key programs under the national housing strategy. This creates some structural problems. The policy architecture that supported the government's original affordability goals is being dismantled faster than a new policy can be approached. As a result, the overall footprint of federal housing policy is changing without direction.

The flagship initiative under budget 2025, Build Canada Homes, exemplifies this shift. Rather than providing immediate relief to households struggling without housing costs, it focuses on financing construction, developing assets and encouraging new housing supply over time. In principle, increasing housing supply is an essential component of any housing strategy. However, the effectiveness of the shift depends on both the scale and the timing of the resulting construction.

On both counts, the PBO's assessment raises concerns. The report estimates that Building Canada Homes will generate approximately 26,000 new housing units over a five‑year period. While this is not insignificant in absolute terms, it is modest relative to the scale of housing shortages. The PBO notes that this output would increase housing completions by only 2.1% and addresses just 3.7% of the projected housing gap. These figures underscore a key limitation: The program's contribution to overall supply is incremental rather than transformative.

The government has also stated an ambitious goal of doubling the pace of housing construction, yet the PBO explicitly states that no detailed plan has been provided to achieve these objectives. This disconnect between stated targets and concrete policy mechanisms weakens the credibility of the government's approach and raises questions about its capacity to deliver meaningful results. The limited scale of new supply is further compounded by issues related to affordability targeting. Of the 26,000 units expected to be created under Building Canada Homes, only about 13% are projected to be affordable for low-income households. This represents a relatively small contribution in the context where millions of Canadians face affordability challenges.

More concerning is the definition of affordability itself. The PBO highlights that some units classified as affordable under the program may have rents significantly higher than historical market benchmarks. For example, illustrative calculations suggest that rents deemed affordable for median-income households could be substantially higher than the national median market rent observed in previous years. This raises a critical concern: The policy risks conflating affordability with relative pricing metrics that does not reflect the lived reality of low- and moderate-income households. In effect, units may be labelled as affordable without being meaningfully accessible to those most in need.

Another important aspect of the current policy direction is the trade-off between short-term support and long-term investment. By shifting resources toward capital development, the government is prioritizing supply over immediate affordability, which warrants more discussion. However, this does create a timing mismatch. Housing construction takes years to complete, and its impact on prices and rents is gradual. In contrast, affordability challenges are immediate and acute for many households. Renters facing high costs today cannot wait for long-term supply responses necessarily to materialize.

It is something to consider. The reduction or expiration of direct supports, many have argued, leaves a gap in the policy framework. The PBO explicitly notes that the addition of new units will only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support.

Compounding these issues are plan reductions in funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal agency responsible for administering many housing programs. The report identifies $2.4 billion in cuts to CMHC funding over several years. This raises concerns about the system's capacity to deliver effective housing support. Reductions in funding for programs, administration, financing tools and sector development can weaken the overall effectiveness of housing policy.

Taken together, these trends point to a broader pattern, a contraction in federal housing policy combined with a reorientation toward long-term supply measures. That is not all bad, but the national housing strategy is still the official policy of the government on the books and should be taken in the context of these changed policy metrics.

When viewed in the context of the government's original promises, the divergence becomes even more pronounced. In 2017, the Liberals committed to prioritizing vulnerable Canadians. These commitments implied not only increased spending but also a sustained focus on outcomes for those most affected by the housing crisis. By 2026, however, the policy framework appears to be moving away from these priorities.

This does not mean that all elements of the current approach are without merit. Investments in housing supply are necessary, and efforts to modernize construction methods or leverage public land can contribute to long-term improvements. However, the scale and design of these initiatives are critical. As the PBO analysis shows, the current measures are insufficient to address the magnitude of Canada's housing challenges. Ultimately, the gap between promise and reality reflects a deeper issue in policy design.

I think that warrants us to look at some of the PBO reports that have been issued by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on federal program spending on housing affordability. The first one was on June 18, 2019.

The executive summary, on page 1, states:

Canada’s 2017 National Housing Strategy...provided new funding for housing affordability programs over its ten-year term from 2018-19 to 2027-28. Taking into account existing and subsequent commitments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) plans to spend an average of $2.8 billion/year on assisted housing programs over the [ten years] of the NHS. This represents a $0.4 billion/year (15%) increase in nominal spending over the 10-year historical average. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plans to spend $225 million/year on homelessness programs, which represents a $86 million/year (62%) increase in nominal spending over the five-year historical average.

In the overall allocation of funding between CMHC’s core responsibilities, there is a $325 million/year (14%) reduction in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs intended to help low-income households compared with the 10-year historical average. Within the Assistance for Housing Need portfolio, there is a $167 million/year (12%) reduction in funding for transfers to the provinces and territories and a $175 million/year (30%) reduction in funding for federal community housing. These reductions are partially offset by $200 million/year in new spending on rent subsidies. The decline in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs is offset, in terms of aggregate spending, by a $664 million/year increase in funding for Financing for Housing programs which are not necessarily targeted to low-income households.

It is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels. Overall, Canada’s National Housing Strategy largely maintains current funding levels for current activities and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of NHS outputs on housing need do not reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.

From chapter 1, the introduction, under “Purpose of Report”:

This report is intended to help parliamentarians understand federal spending on affordable housing and the results that spending is likely to achieve.

[The] report is undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officers’ mandate to prepare reports concerning the government’s budget and estimates. It was also undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate to estimate the financial cost of a proposal over which Parliament has jurisdiction upon requests from a parliamentarian. In this case, a Member of Parliament requested an estimate of the incremental [financing] costs arising from Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the cost to achieve the targets of that strategy.

Then, under “Scope of Report”, it states:

The National Housing Strategy was announced in Budget 2017 and elaborated upon in a subsequent policy document.

This is something I have already read.

It was presented as an “ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford” by making “unprecedented investments” in housing. The National Housing Strategy Act, found in clause 313 of the 2019 Budget Implementation Act...would require the government to maintain similar strategies and national goals.

The National Housing Strategy focuses on program expenditures by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). CMHC administers most program expenditures relating to housing affordability, while ESDC provides transfers to communities and service providers to help address homelessness. The focus of this report is direct federal expenditures by these two organizations outlined in the Strategy.

This report does not include federal tax expenditures. Details regarding federal tax expenditures related to housing can be found in the Department of Finance’s Report on Federal Tax Expenditures.

Expenditures by Indigenous Services Canada and Crown Indigenous-Relations and Northern Affairs Canada are not covered in this report. Expenditures of Infrastructure Canada were not examined since it does not provide significant funding for housing

Chapter 2 is called “How Much Does Canada Spend on Housing Affordability?” It states:

From 2008-09 to 2017-18, CMHC spent [on] average...$2.4 billion/year on the activities now included in its “Assisted Housing” business segment. From 2018 to 2027-28, CMHC plans to spend $2.8 billion/year on these same activities.

Under “National Housing Strategy Breakdown”, the chapter continues:

As noted previously, the National Housing Strategy was marketed as a “$40- billion plan” or as a “$40-billion federal investment”. In reality, the Strategy committed...$16.1 billion in new federal planned spending....

As shown in Figure 2-4—

This is on page 6 of the 2019 “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability” report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

—the “$40 billion” headline commitment in the National Housing Strategy policy document includes...loans..., new loans..., existing planned spending...and required Provincial‑Territorial cost matching.... Together with the $16.1 billion in new planned spending, this exceeds the “$40 billion” headline commitment. A full breakdown is attached as Appendix A....

CMHC’s total planned spending from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28 is $27.9 billion.

As we will note in future reports, it has gone up significantly since then, but in the interest of time, and having so many of these reports to get to, I am going to jump ahead to some of the findings they found in 2019.

Under “What will the [national housing strategy] achieve?”, the report states:

The primary outcome target of the National Housing Strategy is “530,000 households removed from housing need” or “up to 50% reduction in the housing need of renters.” However, it is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels.

As shown above, the [national housing strategy] largely maintains current funding levels for current activities in nominal term and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. Furthermore, CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of [the national housing strategy] outputs on housing need [to] reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.

This is something the report aptly does.

On to the report “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability in 2021”, this is a continuation of the review of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment of the national housing strategy. It reads:

The Government of Canada’s current plan to address housing affordability is the 2017 National Housing Strategy (NHS), which runs from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28. This plan is primarily administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). These department’s planned spending under the National Housing Strategy is $3.7 billion each year.

As we have noted, it has gone up from $2.8 billion in the 2019 examination already.

Average planned spending is driven up by time-limited programs implemented in response to COVID‑19, like the Rapid Housing Initiative.

Of the $3.7 billion per year in average planned spending, $221 million per year...is dedicated to indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern areas.

Since [the] 2019 report...Canada’s federal government has allocated $672 million per year in additional funding to address housing...and homelessness.

The report continues:

First, despite the increase in overall spending, funding for CMHC’s assistance for housing need programs intended to help low‑income households increased only by $192 million per year...in nominal terms, which represents a 15% decline in the real purchasing power of federal spending.

Second, a significant portion of the community housing supported under CMHC’s bilateral agreements with provinces reached the end of their operating agreements. This caused a [42%] reduction in the number of low-income community housing units supported under bilateral agreements between 2015 and the baseline established by CMHC’s new bilateral agreements.

These were outlined in the National Housing Strategy Act.

Third, CMHC’s capital contribution programs have faced implementation delays. Over the first three years of Canada’s National Housing Strategy, CMHC spent less than half the funding allocated for two key initiatives, the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and Rental Construction Financing Initiative. As of 30 October 2020, CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 4,270 units of affordable housing committing [on] average [a] maximum of 52% of median market rent under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 7,960 units of affordable housing committing to charge an average maximum of 72% of 30% of median household income under the Rental Construction Financing Initiative....

Finally, we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3 billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025‑26. Over the period of 2021 to 2025, incremental CMHC spending averages 16% of the projected affordability gap and about $63/month per household in housing need.

I am going to go on to the 2024 report because I have not even gotten to my analysis yet, after I read all of these reports last night, and that is the most important part.

In 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights:

Spending on programs to address housing affordability averages $6.1 billion...over the term of Canada’s 10‑year National Housing Strategy (NHS).

This is a massive increase, we will note, from the 2021 numbers.

This represents a 50% increase in the purchasing power of federal spending compared with the prior 10 years.

Additional [housing] program spending has been primarily allocated to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations’ Financing for Housing programs, which received a $1.3 billion per annum increase in funding.

Total spending on housing affordability is estimated to be $17.5 billion annually, with 65% attributable to tax expenditures.

After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies, [the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects] that 2.6 million households will be in housing need by 2027. This represents an increase of about 926,000 households in core housing need compared to the start of Canada’s [national housing strategy] in 2017.

Already, in 2024, we saw that the strategy was not working.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see the relevance of my colleague's comments to Bill C-26. We have allowed him to continue for some time now, and it is getting completely out of hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to outline that the City of Abbotsford is launching its consultations this June on the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan. Earlier this month, the cities of Princeton, Merritt, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford launched the west coast corridor resiliency partnership.

Excuse my skepticism today, but with the bill before us, Bill C‑26, and the corresponding programming motion, we would essentially be granting, without any parliamentary oversight, $1.7 billion to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to fund certain projects at their discretion without any parliamentary oversight. That is what we are debating today. I would encourage the minister to consider Abbotsford and the 2021 floods we had. When a minister takes action like this, I know that we can do the same for a region of British Columbia that is essential for the government to meet its own export and infrastructure goals.

Bill C‑26 is two paragraphs long. It basically would grant the minister unfettered spending abilities with $1.7 billion. Forgive my skepticism, but I do not want to authorize and will not support another dollar of taxpayer money's going to a government that has so resoundingly failed on the housing platform, starting in 2016, so with my time today, I am going to share a few remarks about fiscal accountability. I am going to outline some of the most egregious examples of how the government has mismanaged money. I am going to talk about flood infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. If the government can take quick action like this, why can it not take quick action on a project of national interest with clear accountability metrics?

Then I am going to go over the national housing strategy the Liberals launched in 2016, the National Housing Strategy Act, what they said at the time about these bills and what they hoped to accomplish. I look forward to reviewing federal program spending on housing affordability dating back to 2019 with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I will have some other comments tying all those points together. Finally, I might even bring a motion forward to amend the programming motion before us today.

Let us start with fiscal accountability. I want to start by speaking about a cornerstone of our democratic system, parliamentary accountability, specifically how it operates in the context of federal spending legislation in Canada. At its heart, parliamentary accountability ensures that the government, which exercises the power to tax and spend, remains answerable to the elected representatives of the people of the House. That duty goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system and why we are here.

The power of the purse is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of Westminster democracy. It was hard fought over for centuries, from the struggles between Parliament and the Crown in the United Kingdom to the evolution of responsible government here in Canada. The principle is simple: Governments may propose spending, but only Parliament can authorize it, and that authorization must be informed, transparent and accountable. This is not a ceremonial role. It is not a rubber stamp. It is a safeguard on behalf of taxpayers.

At first glance, the bill appears straightforward. It would authorize $1.7 billion in payments to provinces and territories to address housing supply, but as parliamentarians, our responsibility does not end with the stated intent of a bill or the comments from one of the ministers responsible, during his remarks in the House. Our duty is to examine how public money is authorized, how it is spent and whether it is subject to meaningful oversight.

In Canada, this principle is embedded in our Constitution and operationalized through the financial procedures of Parliament. The House of Commons plays a central role in reviewing and approving federal expenditures. Standing committees examine departmental estimates and call ministers and officials to testify and justify their spending plans in detail, at least in an ideal world.

However, accountability does not end once funds are approved. In fact, it continues through the fiscal cycle. Mechanisms such as the Public Accounts of Canada and reports from the Auditor General provide retrospective oversight, enabling Parliament to assess whether funds were spent as intended and whether value for money was achieved. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts then reviews these findings, further reinforcing accountability.

Despite this robust framework, obvious challenges remain. One persistent concern is the complexity and timing of financial documents. Parliamentarians are often tasked with reviewing information within a limited time frame and with limited information. This task constrains effective scrutiny and at times shifts the balance of power to the executive branch from the legislative branch. We have seen the consequences of that in recent years, and it is only heightened now through the fabricated majority of the Prime Minister.

The current government has overseen a significant expansion in federal spending, accompanied by rising deficits and growing public debt. While some of that spending occurred during extraordinary circumstances, the pattern has continued well beyond those moments. Nowhere is that more evident than in housing. The government has announced and re‑announced billions of dollars in housing initiatives over the past decade.

Despite these commitments, housing affordability has deteriorated. The cost of buying a home has risen dramatically, rents have increased and supply has not kept pace with demand. If Parliament had been provided with clear metrics, stronger oversight tools and more transparent reporting, we might better understand where these programs fell short. Instead we are left with repeated announcements, escalating costs and performative motions such as the one before us today on more money.

A culture of accountability must be maintained and strengthened in the House. This is not solely about rules and procedures; it is also about a shared commitment to transparency, responsibility and respect for Parliament's role. Parliamentary accountability in federal spending is not an abstract concept. It is a living practice that underpins public trust in our institutions, which is diminishing. Each vote on estimates, each committee hearing and each audit contributes to ensuring that all Canadians have trust in the process, which right now they do not.

In 2017, the government unveiled Canada's national housing strategy. The initial investment was $40 billion over 10 years to tackle homelessness and housing supply through redesigned and expanded federal programs. At the time, former minister of fisheries, and member, Bernadette Jordan said that through these investments, “we will reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.” In 2017, the estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users was 28,900, according to Statistics Canada. In 2024, that number rose to an estimated 36,058 people experiencing chronic homelessness. The government made a promise to learn from the past, act with foresight and deliver real solutions, but nearly a decade later, the results tell a different story.

In October, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that an average home costs 34% more than what an average-income household can afford. CMHC's latest outlook projects that homebuilding could drop by as much as 18.1% over the next three years and forecasts that housing starts will be 55% below CMHC's own target to restore affordability. The federal housing advocate, and this is wild, reported that it would take more than 1,000 years to restore housing affordability under the current plan.

This is a systemic failure. One of the clearest constraints that do not get enough attention in the House is infrastructure. While the minister did outline a few projects about improving infrastructure for housing supply, the scale of the problem is much greater than the one-off announcements he has made. More than 11% of Canada's water infrastructure and waste-water infrastructure is in poor condition, with an estimated more than $100 billion in upgrades needed, according to Statistics Canada. Mike Moffatt, founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “communities simply don't open land for development at all because they know infrastructure cannot support it.”

While Canadians are told more housing is coming, the foundation required to build it is missing. Either it is outdated, or current systems and approaches cannot accommodate it. The government cannot deliver housing, partly because it cannot deliver infrastructure. Its track record proves it cannot manage large-scale investments at all.

Let us look at some examples. In the last Parliament, Conservatives were upheld in a Speaker's ruling on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie held a beneficial interest in Cycle Capital, a Quebec-based venture capital firm that received tens of millions of dollars in SDTC grants without any checks and balances. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the Trudeau government, which had inappropriately given 123 million dollars' worth of contracts to companies such as Cycle Capital. It was so bad, so egregious, that the former speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer, essentially shut parliamentary procedures down for almost a year.

The Auditor General found the SDTC fund did not follow conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. It spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to Liberal friends and appointees to run SDTC. It spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money. It spent $12 million on projects that were both in a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. In one instance, Trudeau's hand-picked SDTC chair, Annette Verschuren, syphoned off $217,000 to her own company.

The Liberal government has a history of very poor decision-making. Other members of the House and members of the public have described it as corruption. The former speaker shut down Parliament for almost a year because the government at the time refused to comply with basic financial transparency and then tried to make the superfluous argument that it was a charter violation for the Conservatives to refer this information to the RCMP. What did the Liberals do? They prorogued Parliament, and Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister.

The second example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. With great fanfare, in 2017, the CIB was given $35 billion in federal financing intended to attract private sector investment into infrastructure. The government plan indicated that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be responsible for delivering the capital over an 11-year period. Global News reported in 2021 that the CIB had committed over $4 billion for projects, but none involved funding from private investors, which was the original intent of the fund: public-private partnerships using federal dollars to scale private sector investment. It just was not happening. In July 2025, the PBO reported that the Infrastructure Bank was not on track to spend its sector-specific funding amounts by 2027-28. In other words, it was projecting complete failure.

A third example is electric batteries. This one really grinds my gears. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the total cost of government support for EV investments in Canada was earmarked at $52.5 billion between October 2020 and April 2024, including the strategic innovation fund and special production subsidies for Stellantis, Volkswagen, Honda and Northvolt. Despite funding commitments, many federally backed auto sector projects have been delayed or have fallen apart altogether. Stellantis shifted Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario, to Illinois; Honda's $15-billion EV supply chain project in Alliston is delayed; Volkswagen has deferred its production schedule in St. Thomas; Northvolt is slower than expected in its rollout in Quebec; and General Motors' termination of BrightDrop EV van production has taken place in Ingersoll.

To make matters even worse, despite significant promises, hours of debate and promises from the government that it was going to create an EV ecosystem like nothing we have ever seen before in Canada, taking advantage of our critical minerals, the advanced manufacturing in Ontario, new opportunities for mining in the Ring of Fire and new export opportunities, all through these investments that were so necessary, the Prime Minister just recently handed 30% of our electric vehicle market to China without guardrails. This is the very country that he said, just a year ago in the election, was the greatest threat to Canadian democracy. What in the world is this?

Example number four is ArriveCAN, which was originally budgeted at only $80,000 but ballooned to cost Canadians approximately $60 million. A year ago tomorrow, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a dodgy IT firm that does not do IT work and is now under RCMP investigation for ArriveCAN, was awarded 106 contracts worth nearly $100 million under the Liberals. Despite the firm already receiving $64.5 million from the government, the Auditor General found that in 46% of cases, there was little or no evidence that work was actually performed. The Auditor General called the government bookkeeping for the project the worst she had ever seen. In an extraordinary, rare step, the contractor was formally censured in Parliament for its conduct, which is something almost never seen in federal procurement, underscoring just how serious and egregious these failures were.

Example five, another one that hits close to home, because I represent a sizable indigenous population, is the indigenous procurement policy. In August 2024, Global News reported that through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, the government awarded billions of dollars in contracts earmarked for indigenous enterprises without always requiring bidders to prove they were first nations, Métis or Inuit. Contracts awarded to indigenous businesses skyrocketed from $100 million in 2018 to $1.6 billion, which is 6.3% of all eligible federal spending at the time. Thawennontie Thomas, co-founder of LaFlesche, a plastics manufacturing company near Montreal, “said it's 'commonly known' among Indigenous executives that non-Indigenous businesses [were] taking advantage” of the procurement policies.

Example number six is a recent one, PrescribeIT. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million over a decade on prescribing software. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway was paid nearly $900,000 a year while the program failed across most of Canada. The agency has still not complied with a parliamentary request to provide unredacted documents on its PrescribeIT failure. Nearly $100 million went to Telus Health as the primary technology vendor, with unanswered questions about who owns the taxpayer-funded intellectual property. What a disgrace. We have just learned that the Minister of Health has now cancelled the program in disgrace despite repeated attempts for more transparency by Conservatives at the health committee, which were blocked by the Liberal members.

Example number seven is COVID-19 loans and the Canada emergency business account program. This is a big one. A 2024 Auditor General report estimated that $3.5 billion went to ineligible businesses. The Department of Finance Canada and Global Affairs Canada, according to the Auditor General, did not provide effective oversight to ensure that the CEBA program was managed with due regard for value for money. Export Development Canada notes that the Auditor General failed to exercise basic controls in contract management, such as monitoring that the amounts paid aligned with the work performed. This meant that the value for money was compromised.

Example number eight was a big one in the 2021 election, the WE Charity. It seems like ages ago. In June 2020, the WE Charity was chosen to administer the Canada student service grant, a $912-million program introduced by Justin Trudeau to provide financial relief for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a report to Parliament's ethics committee, Trudeau family members were paid more than $217,000 for speaking engagements and reimbursed $210,000, which included flights and hotels—

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the member opposite that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report related to Build Canada Homes was very much focused on Build Canada Homes, not on all of the tools that government has to get housing built, most of which reside within the national housing strategy and related programs. Build Canada Homes is at far beyond the number stated, with probably triple that right now in the pipeline for the construction of affordable housing.

There are many other programs. This initiative with Bill C-26 would get additional funding to provinces and territories and would expedite it to make sure they will have more tools and more opportunities, as Ontario has done, as an example, to bring down its HST and make it more affordable for homebuyers to buy homes of up to $1 million. It is helping Canadians get into their first homes. For first-time homebuyers, it is another opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see the member and members on the other side of the House oppose the Build Canada Homes act at third reading yesterday. This is an agency that will be 100% focused on delivering affordable housing in Canada. We have never had that before.

With respect to the rationale, as the housing minister, I will be responsible for the Crown corporation, as I am for the special operating agency currently. The special operating agency has very limited tools to do financing and land acquisition and to expedite bringing on human resources to get more housing built. The Crown corporation structure will get more housing built in the long run, and that is the goal overall. It is accountable to Parliament through the minister, so I see it as a very significant advancement for getting affordable housing built.

In this case, with Bill C-26, funding would also go to provinces and territories to enable and expedite the—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-20. I voted against it last evening. I am looking at Bill C-26. I am hoping the hon. Minister of Housing can explain to me why the good work done since September by Build Canada Homes, as a special operating agency, seems disconnected from the new Crown corporation. For Bill C-20, we do not even know who the responsible minister would be, because that hat could change based on what cabinet decides at any given time.

Can the hon. minister explain to me why we have put so much effort into transferring a special operating agency into a Crown corporation, with nothing new in Bill C-20 and work already under way?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that they are having to impose a super closure motion on Bill C‑26 when it could have been passed much more quickly if the government had been more transparent.

The government refused to hold a briefing at the outset. We were not sure if the federal government was going to do what it usually does and impose a whole bunch of conditions that would delay and complicate the transfer of the funds. When the bill was introduced, we found out that the money would be transferred directly to Quebec so that it could use it as it sees fit for housing. That solved a lot of problems.

Why was the government not transparent from the start? The process would have gone much quicker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground, but ultimately Bill C‑26 is a sham of a process. Why? It is because the minister and the government already have the ability to come to provincial agreements. He could go to the NDP government in our home province of British Columbia and do a deal, and then go to the Minister of Finance and have it funded through the estimates process.

To be wasting time in this chamber is, in my belief, more to address the minister's shortfalls when it comes to being seen as politically competent and when it comes to supplying housing, a priority that was made out in the last election.

Will the minister not just admit today that Bill C‑26 is a fig leaf for his government's lack of action and a waste of the time of this House?

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, 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 disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;

(b) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party, a member of the New Democratic Party, and the member of the Green Party, may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;

(c) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment;

(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be 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; and

(e) during consideration of the bill,

(i) after 8:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair,

(ii) the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,

(iii) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to open the debate on Government Business No. 11 and to highlight the importance 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.

The motion would allow for the quick passage of Bill C-26, putting our government in a position to make payments to the provinces and territories, up to a total of $1.7 billion, to support efforts that improve the housing supply across Canada. It is a targeted measure designed to get funding quickly to the provinces and territories for measures that get homes built, including reducing development fees or levies on new home construction and making incremental investments in provincial and territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments.

Far too many Canadians are struggling to find an affordable place to live. I believe every member of the House agrees that Canada is in a housing crisis. Solving that crisis requires a multitude of different tools and it requires immediate action. We need to bring down the costs, cut red tape, improve productivity and build more quickly. To meet the current and future housing needs of Canadians, we need to ensure that housing supply can keep pace with demand and that homes can be delivered at prices that are affordable for Canadians.

I want to speak to the urgency of the motion and the need to move quickly on the motion and the legislation. We need to move quickly to solve Canada's housing challenges by bringing down the costs, as I said, cutting red tape and building homes at a faster pace.

Bill C-26 has been designed to unlock housing supply across the country. The legislation would deliver a $1.7-billion federal investment to the provinces and territories to support measures that increase housing supply. These funds could, for example, help lower development fees or levies on new home construction, which are particularly significant in my home province of B.C. and in Ontario. They can also strengthen existing provincial and territorial programs that are already focused on building more homes through targeted, incremental investments.

In addition, the federal investment can provide support for provincial and territorial efforts to streamline regulations and boost productivity across the home construction sector. Ontario's recent announcement of an HST rebate 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 in Ontario on new homes valued up to a million dollars, which would save buyers up to $130,000 on a new home at that $1-million price.

It is clear that strong partnerships with the provinces, territories and local governments are essential to building more homes and improving housing affordability for Canadians. Proceeding swiftly with Bill C-26 through this motion would get get these funds to the provinces, and all of the work could continue across the country at pace.

Last week, I spoke at the annual conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where I shared my own experience as a mayor. I remember asking the federal government for the investments and support my community needed. I remember the years spent trying to get Stephen Harper's Conservative government to recognize this growing problem. I remember their many refusals to even sit at the table, let alone collaborate on finding and implementing solutions.

Today, things are different. Canada has a new government that is resolutely committed to taking action. Thanks to our government's investments, we are supporting the community infrastructure that people depend on every day, from community centres and recreational facilities to parks and cultural spaces. This includes new builds, expansions, renovations, retrofits, climate adaptations and project replacements.

Simply put, it is impossible to build housing without the road and water infrastructure needed to support it. Rather than let our municipal partners shoulder these responsibilities alone or pass on the cost of this infrastructure to homebuyers, we are making essential investments through the Canada housing infrastructure fund and now through our historic new build communities strong fund.

The result of these investments is real projects that will improve people's lives. Last April, we announced $25.9 million for water infrastructure in Regina, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, enabling the construction of more than 29,000 homes. Last December, we announced $8.6 million for Charlottetown, P.E.I., to build the infrastructure needed to build up to 525 housing units. Just over a week ago, we announced our comprehensive partnership with the Government of Quebec on community, health and transportation infrastructure. Historic action is being taken to build stronger communities, with good neighbourhoods and homes people can afford.

These investments are complemented further by the important work of Build Canada Homes. Since launching in September, Build Canada Homes has already advanced six direct-build projects in Dartmouth, Longueuil, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton, and secured six major partnerships with the City of Ottawa and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and B.C., and a tripartite agreement with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

As a dedicated agency with a mandate to build affordable housing, Build Canada Homes is already doing important work to move thousands of new homes forward. We announced 1,100 new homes, including 700 supportive and transitional homes, to be built within the next 12 months, in B.C. just this last February. Build Canada Homes will build up to 750 homes across Nunavut in partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Through the partnership with New Brunswick, we will accelerate the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel‑ready affordable homes, with the potential to scale up to 1,500 new homes in New Brunswick. A few weeks ago, we brought together both the build communities strong fund and Build Canada Homes by delivering approximately $350 million in housing and infrastructure investments in the Yukon.

These are just a few examples of the partnerships and progress Build Canada Homes has accomplished in less than a year.

Yesterday, this House passed Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, at third reading, taking us one step closer to turning Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, with even more tools to get more homes built. Whether it is through the build communities strong fund, Build Canada Homes or any of our other programs, now is the time to work together. Now is the time for all levels of government to get to the table and identify our priorities so that we can get building.

We are in uncertain times, but when we work together, we can give ourselves more than anyone can take away. That is why our government is taking action on these different fronts across the housing spectrum, reducing barriers, investing in housing-enabled infrastructure and catalyzing a more productive homebuilding sector. Bill C‑26 is an important tool within this broader effort.

The reality is that housing needs differ from region to region, and our response must be just as nuanced and targeted. The barriers faced in a fast-growing urban centre, like my home city of Vancouver, are very different from those in smaller or more remote communities. What Vancouver needs versus what Iqaluit, Chicoutimi or rural Canada needs generally differs significantly. Bill C‑26 reflects this reality by giving the provinces and territories the flexibility to find solutions that are best suited to the regional challenges that may impede housing supply and would best meet the housing needs of those jurisdictions. By empowering the provinces and territories to direct funding where it can be most impactful in addressing the housing supply barriers, we can help ensure that these federal investments align with the on-the-ground realities. This federal funding would be transferred to provinces and territories with the understanding that it will be used exclusively for measures that increase housing supply.

For instance, this could include but is not limited to reducing development fees or levies on new home construction. The funding could be used on new home construction. The funding could also be used to make incremental investments in provincial or territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments. Ontario's HST announcement on March 25 of this year is an example of how these transfers could help home supply in Ontario.

The key element here is partnership, which is also central to our broader housing approach. Strong collaboration among all levels of government, with indigenous partners and with non-profit organizations and private industry is needed to address the housing challenges that we face across Canada. Provinces and territories are well placed to determine how federal support can augment their provincial and territorial efforts to unlock additional supply across different regions, and Bill C‑26 would help enable that effort.

We are already seeing the effectiveness of partnerships. On March 23, the Prime Minister announced a partnership with Ontario to reduce development charges and support new housing supply, demonstrating how that collaboration can directly lower costs and accelerate building. As I outlined earlier, the federal government is also working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to deliver more homes, affordable homes, through Build Canada Homes and the build communities strong fund.

These examples show what is possible when the Government of Canada works together with provinces, territories, local governments, indigenous groups and other key partners. Bill C‑26's approach complements the broader work that is already under way to increase housing supply across Canada. We are bringing partners together, aligning these efforts and ensuring that every dollar contributes to faster, more effective housing delivery.

This bill is tailor-made to meet those needs, but I also want to take a moment to talk about other important programs.

As I noted, our government is taking action to support building across the housing spectrum. The work of Build Canada Homes to scale up the supply of affordable housing nationwide is in full swing now. Other measures like targeted tax relief, such as removing the 5% GST on new purpose‑built rental construction, are lowering upfront costs and helping move projects forward.

Programs like the apartment construction loan program and the CMHC mortgage loan insurance products, MLI select being a great example, help builders secure financing. These programs are very significant across Canada. They are more on the market side of housing, but they are certainly enabling historic levels of rental housing to be built right across the country.

The apartment construction loan program is making needed capital available to make more apartment projects financially viable and get shovels in the ground. That is the key piece, particularly in these uncertain times. Recently, in the spring economic update, we announced that we would be kicking this program into even higher gear, accelerating over $7 billion in low‑cost financing to speed up rental home construction even further.

The housing accelerator fund is also a program that helps unlock supply, reducing barriers, reducing red tape and speeding up approvals at the local level. We have 241 housing accelerator fund agreements that were signed with local governments, and they are delivering tens of thousands of homes on pace that would not have been seen otherwise.

To conclude, right now there is momentum like never before to deliver on the housing issue, but we cannot do it alone. Our success relies on working together to tackle the housing crisis from every angle and deliver results for Canadians. By enabling targeted, flexible funding and reinforcing collaboration across provinces and territories, Bill C‑26 would help to ensure that we are not just investing more but investing smarter, together. This is how we will deliver the homes that Canadians need. This is how we will create more prosperous, resilient communities. This is how we will build Canada strong.

Business of the House

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on building a stronger Canadian economy while ensuring that Canadian businesses remain competitive. We recognize the challenges that are faced across the country by manufacturers, and we have been taking action to support our businesses and manufacturing companies across the country. Unlike the opposition, we believe that growing an economy and reducing emissions can and must go hand in hand. We will continue to work with industries, provinces and workers to ensure that Canada remains competitive, while advancing our economy and our environmental objectives as well.

On that note, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. Tomorrow and then Tuesday of next week, we will call Bill C‑20, the build Canada homes act, at report stage and third reading.

I also wish to inform the House that Monday will be the final allotted day in this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will begin studying the Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C‑26, which seeks to improve housing supply.

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27

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

Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for being here. I send my regards to the minister and thank him for being here. We always appreciate him.

Minister, officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities gave us a briefing on Bill C‑26, which you yourself tabled. We were reassured. We understood that the bill would not impose any conditions on the transfer of $1.7 billion to improve housing supply in Quebec. However, in the legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to establish and allocate the amounts as he sees fit.

Can the minister confirm that he will not impose any conditions that would infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and that the money will be distributed in such a way as to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share?

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

Our government knows how difficult it is for some Canadians to cover their day-to-day costs. Making life more affordable has always been a core priority of this government. More pressingly, we know that a significant pressure on household budgets is the cost of fuel. Recent events in the Middle East, including the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, have led to a global spike in oil prices, and Canadian families are feeling the impacts. That is why I am pleased to be able to say that today the Prime Minister announced further action to help Canadians manage these challenges.

As the Prime Minister made clear, Canada's new government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next week until Labour Day, September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief to Canadians at a time when they need it the most. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel.

This is a serious moment in our nation's history, and it deserves serious leadership and consideration. The announcement made earlier today by the Prime Minister reflects that. The Conservative motion today, on the other hand, is, unfortunately, anything but serious. Canadians expect and deserve more than “back of the napkin” math. Let us look at some of the issues with the Conservative motion.

Oil prices, as we know, are highly volatile and highly unpredictable. We know that recent events have led to a global spike in prices, but we also know that it is difficult to forecast what will happen six, eight or 12 months down the road. Conservatives are arguing that the current price per barrel will generate an additional $9 billion to $10 billion in government revenues. This assumption is based on the price per barrel staying the same between now and the new year. The Conservative plan is based on forecasts that are optimistic at best.

Moreover, the Conservatives are allowing their ambivalence toward environmental action to overshadow a reasonable approach to the environment and the economy. They know that the clean fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump. They know that an industrial carbon price makes us more competitive in a lower-emissions global economy. They are intentionally conflating these issues instead of focusing on what matters to Canadians.

This measure builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which also lowered costs at the pump. One of the first things we did was to eliminate the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025. Our government removed the consumer carbon price on gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuels while ensuring that Canadians received the final rebate during the transition. At the same time, we preserved carbon pricing for large industrial emitters, focusing emissions reductions where they are the most effective, while easing cost pressures on households and maintaining a strong, competitive economy.

I can assure members that we have been working tirelessly to address cost of living challenges experienced by too many households across this country, and we are absolutely delivering for Canadians. We have presented ambitious plans to reposition Canada for a far better future, but of course, this will take some time.

We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering. Let me take a moment to highlight some of our recent actions to address housing affordability in Canada.

Put simply, we need to build more homes. We recently introduced Bill C-26, which will help unlock new housing across Canada. Bill C-26 will deliver a federal investment of $1.7 billion to provinces and territories so they can implement measures to boost the housing supply. These funds can help reduce development fees or levies on new home construction. They can also make incremental investments in existing provincial and territorial programs that are dedicated to building more homes.

We are also enabling more homebuilding across the country with investments in infrastructure that Canadians rely on every day. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister officially launched the build communities strong fund, a $51-billion investment to help build essential infrastructure projects, including hospitals, universities, roads and bridges, and water and transit systems.

Investment in housing-enabling infrastructure under this program will help accelerate the right housing-related infrastructure needed to support housing growth. To access funds for infrastructure related to housing and post-secondary education, provinces will also need to show a commitment to reducing development charges where those charges pose a significant barrier to new construction. Provinces and territories will also need to commit to not levying other taxes that hinder housing supply to encourage housing development.

We have also eliminated the goods and services tax for first-time buyers on homes valued up to $1 million, and we reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation.

In addition to housing, we are working to provide Canadians with relief from the financial squeeze of everyday expenses. We all know that one of the areas that stresses Canadians the most is the cost of groceries. Food costs have gone up far too quickly in this country. Our government's new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford day-to-day necessities.

We have also cut taxes for the middle class. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering of the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This change will ensure that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year.

A more affordable Canada also means a more competitive Canada. As members can see, we are delivering. At a time when many Canadians are feeling the pressure of rising costs, our government remains focused on what matters the most: supporting people and easing financial strains wherever we can. We can take practical, responsible and pragmatic actions to help families afford the essentials, strengthen household financial security and ensure that economic growth works for everyone. Every decision we take should be guided by a simple principle: to stand with Canadians, protect their well-being and help build a more stable and resilient future for communities across the country.

With the results of the by-elections last night, we have a choice. We can all work together across party lines to continue to make things better for Canadians, or we can hear diatribes directed against former colleagues, personal attacks against other members of Parliament, and not work together.

As Canadians and as elected officials from all political parties, we have the opportunity to continue working together in committee and in the House. I truly hope that, as parliamentarians who represent our communities and who are concerned about affordability, we will be able to take a practical look at what we can do together.

I thank the House very much for giving me the time, and I look forward to the questions from my colleagues.