Human Resources Committee on April 20th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Wilkes.

We'll now go to Mr. Andison.

Mr. Andison, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Scott Andison, Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Home Builders' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Scott Andison, and I'm the CEO of the Ontario Home Builders' Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak to Bill C-20.

Founded in 1962, the OHBA is the voice of the residential construction industry in Ontario. We represent over 4,000 member companies in the homebuilding, land development, professional renovation and professional services sector through 26 local chapters across the province. We advocate on behalf of our members to key stakeholders and to government decision-makers. We provide member benefits and training and promote innovation and professionalism across the industry.

In the province of Ontario, the residential construction industry contributes about 550,000 jobs, $40 billion in wages and $85 billion in investment to Ontario's economy, as well as thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in construction, manufacturing, trades and services. It's among the most important sectors in Ontario, both economically and socially, as the province continues to face a housing crisis. When new home construction slows, the impact extends beyond the housing industry alone. Communities lose jobs, government loses revenue and fewer homes are being built for families to create memories.

For far too long, Ontario's homebuilding industry has been on the brink. We have thousands of completed homes sitting in inventory without a buyer, and only 42,000 housing completions are expected in Ontario in 2026.

OHBA and our largest local home builder association, BILD GTA—my colleague beside me—commissioned research by Altus Group that showed that without action by government, by the end of this decade not only could housing construction dramatically fall but more than 100,000 jobs could be at risk. At the same time, the housing shortage would grow even worse, making home ownership even further out of reach for far too many families across Ontario.

Recently, the federal and provincial governments have made a flurry of housing announcements that we believe will have a demonstrable impact in addressing the housing shortage, including a real commitment to decreasing development charges and removing the HST from all newbuild homes in Ontario. We are proud of the information that we provided to government to ensure our industry received the support it needed. As the industry association representing home builders across Ontario, we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government.

In my two years with the OHBA, I've been fortunate enough to visit every single chapter across our province and speak with many of these members. I've seen their sights, heard their stories and know first-hand the talents and the abilities they bring.

Our members take a piece of land, create a plan on paper and bring to life the homes and communities where people live, grow and put down roots. They ultimately deliver the housing that provides stability, security and opportunities for Canadians. What our members deliver is something that lasts for generations to come. The homes they create form the foundation of communities, and they continue to serve families well beyond the day that the keys are handed over.

What we would emphasize today is that the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale. Our members are ready and willing to build the homes Canadians need. They have the expertise, the workforce, the supply chains and the experience to deliver. What they require is not substitution but support.

Governments play a critical role in setting the conditions for success, but the actual delivery of housing must remain in the hands of those with the demonstrated ability to execute and deliver. That means focusing on what government does best: establishing clear, consistent and predictable rules.

Builders can and will meet the government's requirements. They already build to the Ontario building code, navigate complex municipal approvals and comply with extensive regulatory frameworks across every stage of development. The issue is not the willingness or capability; the issue is clarity and consistency.

Too often requirements are layered, evolving or applied differently across jurisdictions, creating uncertainty and delays and adding to cost. When expectations are unclear or are changed midstream, projects slow down or stall altogether. In a market where timing and certainty are critical, uncertainty has real consequences for housing supply.

Engaging builders early and meaningfully in policy development leads to better results. It ensures that requirements are grounded in real-world conditions and can be implemented without unintended consequences. It also allows industry to respond quickly and efficiently once direction is set. In short, government sets the direction and industry delivers the outcome. If we get that balance right, and if we pair clear policy direction with the expertise and capacity of the private sector, we could meaningfully increase housing supply, restore confidence in the market and ensure that more Canadians have access to a place they can call home.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Andison.

Mr. Baird, you have five minutes.

[Sean Baird, President and Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Community Housing Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the members of the committee.

My name is Sean Baird. I'm appearing today on behalf of Toronto Community Housing, Canada's largest public housing corporation, which serves approximately 110,000 residents across 60,000 rental homes in Toronto. In addition to being the largest provider of affordable housing in the country, we are one of the most prolific builders of affordable housing in Canada. We have built over 10,000 new affordable homes, with another 10,000 on the way.

We are a corporation of the City of Toronto, and an important intergovernmental partner to the federal government. TCHC's direct partnership with the Government of Canada is a cornerstone of the current national housing strategy.

Since 2017, TCHC has spent $3 billion to renew its portfolio, something made possible by co-investments from the federal government and the City of Toronto. In addition to our capital partnership, the Government of Canada has been a vital partner in our work to build net-new affordable housing. This March, Minister Solomon joined us at the groundbreaking for our latest development in Regent Park, announcing $86 million from the affordable housing fund.

With TCHC's extensive history of successfully absorbing and deploying federal capital, we've learned first-hand what successful collaboration between different levels of government looks like. It's for that reason that I'm pleased to say that our support for Build Canada Homes is unreserved.

We welcome Bill C-20 and the ambition to dramatically scale up housing supply, deploying capital at scale and moving at the speed this housing crisis demands. It could not have come at a better time, and this is not just because we face a housing crisis. Canada faces a rupture in a historically stable trading relationship, which has forced us to chart a new course to prosperity. Our nation needs to build itself up toward self-sufficiency through the workforce and domestic industries that are the lifeblood of our economy.

In the face of these challenges, I commend the government's intention to grow the supply of non-market public housing. This commendation does not come from self-interest but from empirical evidence that shows that public housing infrastructure drives the economic resilience, GDP and employment growth, improved health care system functioning, and community stability that this country needs.

Public housing is not a handout for the poor. It is vital and productive public infrastructure that contributes to the economic prosperity of all Canadians, not just those who live within it. With that in mind, please allow me to make three key points.

First, Build Canada Homes should be capitalized with additional funding. There is a meaningful difference between funding and financing, and that difference can mean housing people or not. We ask that Build Canada Homes explicitly preserve a stream of direct, unencumbered funding so that we can build the type of housing that no one else will. Public housing is empirically proven to be productive public infrastructure.

Emerging research by the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, commissioned by Scotiabank and public housing providers across Ontario, has quantified what we are calling the public housing dividend. Every dollar invested in new and renewed public housing infrastructure will be returned to the government many times over. This comes in the form of increased taxation revenue; an increased GDP; health care and justice system efficiencies and cost savings; and healthier people contributing to the labour force.

This also extends to our impact on tariff-affected Canadian industries. In 2025, with your help, we spent approximately $500 million on labour and materials for new construction and capital renewal. In the last five years, we've procured nearly $105 million of Canadian aluminum and Canadian wood products supplied by mills across Canada from Kitchener, Ontario, to Saint-Casimir, Quebec. In total, our investments have created over 20,000 direct and indirect construction jobs.

This is not incidental. Public housing providers are anchors for domestic supply chains. When you invest in public housing, you are investing in Canadian jobs and industry. Public housing is not a cost to be managed; it's an investment with a documented positive return to the public purse and society at large.

Second, Build Canada Homes should fund capital renewal of public housing. It will always cost less to maintain the homes we have rather than build new ones. Sustainable, long-term investment lets us protect public housing portfolios while working to expand them. The homes we build tomorrow will count for nothing if we are unable to preserve the homes we already have today.

We are not asking you to do this alone. Through city budgets, even under fiscal constraint, we have continued to make significant investments in housing.

Third and most importantly, Build Canada Homes should continue to prioritize non-market housing and projects that mix income levels and tenures. We and our peers across the country are ready with land, operational expertise and a clarity of purpose that is not centred on profit. We build homes because it is in the public interest, not because the market timing is right. When we build and maintain those homes, we do so with Canadian workers and Canadian materials. We operate those homes for the public good, not to house the highest bidder.

We ask this committee to empower Build Canada Homes to use the full scope of its mandate to make a generational investment in public housing infrastructure built by Canadians and for Canadians.

Thank you, and I welcome the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Baird.

We'll begin the first six-minute round of questioning with Mr. Aitchison.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of witnesses here. We appreciate your taking the time to come and talk to us.

I'll start with Mr. Andison.

You made some pretty good points about the importance of not necessarily having the government build homes but having it lay the groundwork and make sure that the circumstances exist for the private industry to get building. That's not to discount the importance of public and social housing, Mr. Baird. I know that's a very important piece of the mix, but obviously the largest portion of the housing continuum is market housing.

Build Canada Homes is supposed to focus on non-market housing, yet the biggest barriers to getting market housing built, which is an important part of this mix, are in fact government, taxes, fees and bureaucracy. They're slowing things down.

I'm wondering if you can help me understand how many federal housing bureaucracies we need to solve the problem.

[Scott Andison]

We do not need any additional bureaucracies to be able to do this. In fact, when you look at Ontario, which is the most regulated province in all of Canada when it comes to home construction, on average, 30% to 35% of the cost of a new home is made up of government fees and taxes. When we think about pricing things as a matter of right, that is not the case. It's being priced more like a luxury item or a sin tax in some cases.

When government creates the proper environment, our members can build homes quickly and affordably, but not when they have to incur significant increases in taxes, development charges and fees or face delays. On average, anywhere from $2,600 to $5,400 per month per home is the cost of delays from financing, losing labour mobility, etc.

Do we need more government bureaucracy to fix the problem? No. What we need is a clear, concise and consistent approach to allow builders to do what they do well.

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

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Wilkes next.

I'd like to ask you about something related to Build Canada Homes. In your comments, you mentioned being pleased that the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada have worked together to eliminate the GST on all new homes under $1 million. I think Mr. Andison mentioned it as well. Of course, the federal government has not actually cut the GST on all new homes under $1 million. It's cutting a cheque to Ontario so they can then rebate it, and it's only for one year.

I have a couple of points. They haven't cut the tax, which we encourage them to do, and it's only for one year. Two of the most important elements of market housing are stability and people having a sense of confidence that if they buy a house, they can afford to buy that house. Is a year long enough for this tax cut?

[David Wilkes]

A year has created urgency in the marketplace. We have certainly seen that since April 1, in 19 days, the increased activity in our members' sales centres has been overwhelming, with 10 to 15 times the amount of foot traffic. We're seeing increased sales and registration. One of the challenges now is the lack of clarity on how the program is going to be administered. We are actively working with both the province and the federal government to achieve that.

I welcome the urgency the program has created, given the historic lack of sales we've seen. The conversation that I believe needs to happen next is about how we maintain the relief we had and about indexing that relief. As you may recall, back when the GST was introduced in 1991, there was a commitment to indexing the amount every two years. It's been a long two years. We finally got it up to the current $130,000 level, which reflects housing inflation over the last couple of decades.

My direct answer to your question is that it's a welcome start to get people back into sales centres. It has achieved that purpose. The tax demonstrated, because of the activity and excitement, that it was a significant barrier to being able to afford homes. I look forward to the conversation about how we maintain that equity and about at a minimum indexing it going forward.

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

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that it shouldn't be for just a year and that we need to continue this?

[David Wilkes]

I don't want to remove the urgency that it's currently creating and the fact that people are getting back.... This industry, as my colleague Mr. Andison indicated, was knocked down. Jobs were being diminished. GDP was being lost. Government revenues, quite frankly, were being diminished. I welcome that urgency right now, and I welcome a conversation on how to continue it.

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

Thank you.

I have a quick one for Mr. Baird, if you don't mind.

Mr. Baird, Toronto Community Housing has thousands of units, and I know that—probably under your leadership—things have started to improve. An awful lot of units were in a pretty poor state of repair. It required a lot of capital investment to update those units.

I'm wondering if you can speak very briefly to how things got so bad with TCH. Was it because of a lack of investment? Was it a lack of attention?

I guess there's a simple question. Will this fourth housing bureaucracy, Build Canada Homes, do what the Canada Lands Company or the CMHC couldn't do to support the redevelopment of TCH?

[Sean Baird]

When it comes to public housing, there's a short answer and a long answer to that question.

The short answer is that the reserve funding available for capital renewal simply hasn't been available to the vast majority of publicly owned housing providers. The more complicated issue is that housing in the public housing sector historically has been built almost entirely at a very low income level.

What we've learned in recent decades, and it's the way we build now when we build social housing, is to build mixed income communities, communities that are actually self-funding from an economic perspective. I can fund the upfront 20% of a development, I can finance the rest and I can collect enough rent off those just-below-market rentals to pay off the entire cost of the development. That's not the approach we took in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, unfortunately, and we're left with some of that legacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

Ms. Desrochers, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank the witnesses for being with us in person this afternoon for this discussion.

I'll preface what I say with something I said in the earlier panel. We have been trying to tackle the housing crisis since 2017 with the national housing strategy. We've put a lot of programs in place to build market and non-market housing. We have not been able to move the dial on the non-market side. We still have the lowest stock of non-market housing. I understand from my colleague that market housing is important, but non-market housing is equally important, and it will have an impact on market housing.

I want to understand this, and maybe I'll start with Mr. Baird very briefly, because I have many questions. Do you agree that what we've done before has not yielded the results we were hoping for? It's yielded a lot of results. We've built hundreds of thousands of homes with the CMHC programs, but we need to do more.

We need to do something else if we're going to make homes affordable for people who want to rent them, buy them and live in them, and BCH, an organization that focuses on that with all of the funding tools it has and with its spurring of the modernization of the industry, is something we should try.

[Sean Baird]

I would say there's a serious opportunity for greater investment in non-market housing. As you stated, we're much lower than most of the OECD countries in terms of our proportion of publicly owned housing, but that doesn't stand in the way of both public housing and private market development happening. The reality is that when we build new public housing, we work with private market developers every day. That is how the work is actually done.

What we welcome under this new approach is an organization that is dedicated to the work of building non-market housing. Today, we have to navigate programs that are designed for both sides of the market, and that's complicated. Some of our programs work very well under that umbrella, but others do not. There are really unique opportunities in front of us to partner with not-for-profit organizations, long-term care organizations and health care providers, which we can't do under the current programs.

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

Do you feel that BCH will provide that?

[Sean Baird]

I think the focus on non-market housing will help us with that.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Wilkes, you talked about the portfolio approach and how it's going to help provide predictability and perhaps modernize the construction industry—we're hoping. Certainly, it's one of the things we're betting on.

I would think that there are two main, key objectives here with Build Canada Homes: increasing the stock of affordable housing and how we lower the cost of construction, because that's the other thing that is getting in the way. Mr. Andison referred to that as well.

Do you think Build Canada Homes can help with providing the predictability the construction industry needs?

[David Wilkes]

When I refer to the portfolio approach, it's in the context, as Mr. Baird indicated, of working with the private sector. When you're looking at particular projects and particular developments in the context of providing both affordable housing and market housing within them, it is a way to make sure that the costs are spread out. It is a way to make sure that partnerships with the private sector, as we've indicated, are facilitated.

I would argue very strongly that you have to look at the complete mix. We have a dearth of housing—certainly on the market side, as our numbers have indicated—that needs to be addressed, but without doing so in the manner that has been outlined by Build Canada Homes, with that mix of portfolios, both types of housing will not achieve our goals.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Andison, you have many developers in your membership. Is that correct?

[Scott Andison]

That is correct.

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

Are you aware of whether any of them have put projects into the Build Canada Homes portal? We've talked with a lot of developers that are very excited about the opportunities to build market and non-market housing, as Mr. Wilkes was saying. Are you aware of any of your membership doing that?

[Scott Andison]

I'm aware that members are very keen to look at building in any type of portfolio situation. If any government entity is looking to build certain types of housing stock, they are very pleased to respond to that and show how they can do it and at what price.

Builders that are looking to build their own homes to meet their own local demand are looking at ways they can do that, partnering with municipalities or other levels of government, for example. The government can provide the land and the builder can provide the buildings for the development, and then they can look at how to lower costs for the targeted groups that require income support.

There are a variety of ways that builders want to be involved.

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

Some of your members have put [Inaudible—Editor].