Human Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 13, 2026, the committee is meeting on Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses are appearing in the room and virtually.

Before we begin, I would remind all members that you have the option of participating in today's meeting in the official language of your choice. If you're in the room, please select the correct channel in front of you so that you can fully participate. For those online, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen, and you will see the official languages to choose from.

If there's an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is corrected.

The clerk has advised me that all those appearing virtually have had their sound tested and have been given the approval.

I'll remind members to silence their devices and refrain from tapping on the mic boom in front of you for the protection of our interpreters.

For this meeting on Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, I would like to welcome the witnesses.

From CentreCourt, we have Mitch Gascoyne, partner and senior vice-president of development.

From UTILE, we have Laurent Levesque, chief executive officer, and Maxime Pelletier, director of public affairs. They are both joining us by video conference.

From Welcome Hall Mission, we have Samuel Watts, chief executive officer and executive director.

Each witness will have five minutes to give their opening statement.

Before I introduce the first speaker, I note that a member has her hand up.

I'll recognize Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I understand that there have been conversations and that there's an agreement to invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Jobs and Families to testify, in relation to main estimates, for no less than one hour individually and no later than the end of May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I can confirm that, for Minister Hajdu, we've locked May 28 as the date for her.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Then we are in agreement. I'll read it again. I move:

That the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Jobs and Families be invited to appear before the committee on the subject of Main Estimates 2026-27 for no less than one hour, individually, no later than the end of May 2026.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I see thumbs-ups, so there's agreement.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

We will now go to the opening comment from Mr. Gascoyne.

Mr. Gascoyne, you have five minutes.

[Mitch Gascoyne, Partner and Senior Vice-President, Development, CentreCourt]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Mitch Gascoyne, and I'm a partner at CentreCourt, one of the largest high-rise developers in the city of Toronto, and by that measure, one of the largest in the country.

Since our founding in 2010, CentreCourt has delivered over 12,000 homes, representing more than $6 billion in development value. My perspective today is grounded in the practical reality of what it takes to get a project built, what makes it work financially and what causes it to stall.

Before speaking to Build Canada Homes specifically, I want to put the current market into context, because the numbers are stark. My colleagues at BILD have noted that GTA new home sales in 2025 reached just over 5,000 units, which is the lowest since tracking began in 1991 and an 80% decline from the 10-year average. I can tell you from the front lines that the numbers reflect a stark reality.

CMHC's own data confirms what we are experiencing in Toronto specifically. In 2025, Toronto housing starts fell to their lowest level since 2009, falling below Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver for the first time. On a per capita basis, home building activity dropped to its lowest point since 1996, driven by a collapse in condominium starts. There hasn't even been a new condo launched so far in 2026 in the city of Toronto.

The root cause of this contraction is not a lack of demand for housing, and it is not a lack of willingness of developers to build; in many cases, projects are ready and sites are approved. The issue is that the all-in cost of delivering housing remains too high relative to what the market can absorb. Critically, it's not because construction and land costs are elevated, as both have come down materially from their peaks. Land values have fallen significantly, and construction costs have eased. What has not moved until very recently is the tax and fee burden.

There's a second dimension that is equally important. New housing, particularly purpose-built rental, is competing for capital against every other investment opportunity in the world. Investors and lenders looking at a rental project today are comparing it to alternatives globally. The returns need to reflect that reality. Right now, even with CMHC support, it is difficult to find rental projects that offer competitive, risk-adjusted return. We need to change that.

I want to acknowledge the massive steps the government has begun to take on this front. The elimination of HST and the reduction of development charges by the federal government and the Province of Ontario are meaningful and necessary steps. In our own projects, we have passed along those savings directly to our purchasers, and we have seen a real, if early, uptick in activity as a result.

The direction is right, and I want to be clear that the industry is genuinely appreciative of the pace of change. The task is now to make those measures permanent rather than temporary and extend them further as conditions allow.

Build Canada Homes fits directly into this broader approach, and I support the direction of Bill C-20. From where I sit, BCH's most important role is as a provider of catalytic capital for affordable projects. Even with meaningful improvements on the cost side, there remains a significant gap between what it costs to build and what affordable projects can support financially. The economics of affordable housing are simply not achievable without some form of government support. That is exactly where a flexible, low-cost and more patient capital provider can make the difference in getting projects into construction.

BCH's direction, as I understand it, is to work in genuine partnership with the private sector, and that is exactly what is needed, as 95% of housing in Canada is delivered by private developers and builders. There's a real value in BCH's filling the gaps the market cannot fill on its own, particularly on affordable housing projects.

It is also worth being clear that BCH and tax and fee reform are not alternatives; they are complements. Reducing the cost burden on new housing, market housing and affordable housing for rental and ownership is important. BCH's capital goes to work on the affordable end, where market economics alone will not be sufficient. Together, these two levers cover the full spectrum of what Canada needs to get built.

I would emphasize that Build Canada Homes should be viewed as additive to CMHC and not a replacement for it. CMHC's role in the current market cannot be overstated. Almost every purpose-built rental project being built in Canada relies on CMHC products, whether it's construction financing or takeout financing. Without CMHC, the number of rental starts in this market would be substantially lower. BCH expands the federal tool kit through more flexible, project-level intervention. Both are needed, and both must be adequately resourced.

From my interactions with BCH, I am confident that the goal is clear: Build as much housing as possible, as fast as possible.

The case for action is straightforward: Canada is not building enough housing. Across our major cities, starts are falling and the pipeline is thinning, and projects that will deliver homes in 2030 and beyond need to begin today. The path forward requires two things working together.

First, we need to continue to cut tax on new housing so that the supply becomes viable market housing and affordable housing, including for both ownership and rental.

Second, we need BCH to strategically deploy capital into affordable projects that the market alone cannot deliver. These two levers used together are how we close the gap. Supply is the solution. Affordable supply, market supply—we need all of it. We need it to be financially viable. That is the test for this legislation and for the housing policy that follows.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Gascoyne.

Who is doing the presentation for UTILE?

[Laurent Levesque, Chief Executive Officer, UTILE]

I will be starting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. You can share your time, if you so choose.

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

[Laurent Levesque]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the invitation.

I'm the CEO of UTILE, a social economy enterprise that builds and manages affordable student housing in Quebec. Today, we have over 750 units already built in the past five years. Our team of around 50 people is currently working on another 1,000 units. We're a major partner of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, which has helped fund almost all our projects. This makes us one of Canada's leading non‑market housing developers.

I should note that we carried out one of the largest modular prefabrication projects in eastern Canada. Last year, we built 155 units in Rimouski using these modern methods. UTILE readily welcomes Bill C‑20, given the urgent need to implement Build Canada Homes, especially now that the CMHC has less leverage in affordable housing owing to the end of the affordable housing fund.

In recent years, Canada's national housing strategy has really helped create significant momentum in the non‑profit and affordable housing sector. We currently aren't alone in having a large stock of tens of thousands of units whose funding scenario remains uncertain given the end of the affordable housing fund.

The Build Canada Homes program is vital to maintaining the momentum and pace of affordable housing construction in Canada. If this program fails to hit its stride quickly, we risk losing some of these projects.

I would also like to point out the need, in recent years, to explicitly integrate student housing into federal government policies. This approach is a key solution to Canada's housing crisis. It helps to densify areas already served by public transit, to take action in urban areas and to increase supply at a lower cost, while freeing up for families rental units that would otherwise be occupied by student households.

During the implementation of Bill C‑20 and Build Canada Homes, we believe that all policies must explicitly maintain the openness and integration of student housing, including off‑campus student housing. This must remain part of the continuum of solutions for housing in Canada in the years to come.

I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Pelletier.

[Maxime Pelletier, Director, Public Affairs, UTILE]

Thank you, Mr. Levesque.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having us here today.

In terms of what we expect from Build Canada Homes, we have three main messages for you today.

First, we really want Build Canada Homes to implement a true portfolio approach to funding. Both the industry and the government realize that we can't emerge from the crisis on a project‑by‑project basis. Build Canada Homes has announced its intention to shift to a portfolio approach to funding. In our view, for this to work, Build Canada Homes must establish partnerships with housing developers in order to fund a number of projects at once. The accountability structure must shift from a system where a funding agreement is established for each project to a system where accountability is reported across all units.

This means that a housing developer would enter into a partnership with Build Canada Homes with unit targets across the entire portfolio. There could also be affordability targets and location targets. This would give us, the housing developers, both predictable funding and the flexibility to optimize public contributions. That way, if a project needs less funding than expected because things are going better than anticipated, we could transfer the money to another project to increase affordability in other areas. This might prevent a project from stalling owing to unforeseen circumstances and a shortfall of one or two million dollars. This would really mark a turning point for housing developers if Build Canada Homes were to implement a true portfolio approach to funding.

Second, there's an urgent need to align the CMHC's programs with Build Canada Homes' programs. As far as we know, Build Canada Homes has no intention of handling major mortgages. This means that all non‑profit housing projects must still go through the CMHC, even with the implementation of Build Canada Homes.

The CMHC programs, such as the apartment construction loan program, weren't designed with non‑profit housing developers in mind. As a result, certain challenges arise when it comes to implementing the loans. It's extremely important to tie them in with the Build Canada Homes programs to ensure the prompt implementation of the projects funded by Build Canada Homes.

Lastly, the final point concerns modern construction methods. We know that Build Canada Homes is geared towards modern construction methods. However, we currently lack a clear idea of the expectations. Needless to say, changing construction methods later in the project to comply with the Build Canada Homes requirements entails considerable costs. We want to say that we're ready to adopt modern construction methods. That said, please tell us quickly exactly what you want so that we can develop projects accordingly.

In short, we're keen to continue working with Build Canada Homes and our current federal partners, such as the CMHC. This will give us the opportunity to build more housing and above all to optimize the use of public funds.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.

We'll go on to Mr. Watts for five minutes.

[Samuel Watts, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Welcome Hall Mission]

Thank you very much.

I'll warn the interpreters that I will move between English and French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's fine. Just speak slowly.

[Samuel Watts]

Mr. Chair and committee members, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.

I'm Sam Watts. I'm the CEO of Welcome Hall Mission in Montreal. I also serve as an appointed member of the National Housing Council of Canada, and I chaired the working group that produced the council's March 25 report, “Scaling-up the non-market housing sector in Canada”. In it, I argued very strongly for something that, today, looks like Build Canada Homes. The report that we issued forms a part of the evidence base for my remarks today.

I must say that I'm here before you as a strong supporter of Bill C‑20.

Before talking about these matters, I would like to briefly discuss the other challenges and not just housing construction.

We aren't facing the challenge of a broken system. Rather, we're operating within a system designed to address the realities of people in need in the 1970s. It's now 2026. Successive governments have simply tried to do the same thing. However, these things worked 50 years ago. The Canadian safety net components that serve the most vulnerable people need an overhaul to reflect the realities of the 21st century.

Bill C-20 is a step in the right direction, but it addresses a downstream challenge—we desperately need more affordable housing—and BCH must be accompanied by parallel upstream efforts. These upstream efforts would reduce the inflow into core housing need that no building program can address on its own.

These upstream efforts include agreements across all levels of government to fund targeted rental support and support services. Four walls and a roof are important. That said, the support that helps people maintain residential stability remains the key part of the equation.

I say let's move ahead with Bill C-20, but let's also be very clear that BCH on its own is not the only piece of the puzzle.

I'm going to make one suggested amendment to Bill C-20, which I know the committee has touched upon already, and that's the definition of affordable housing. Dr. Whitzman, who was here, pointed out that there are many different definitions of affordable housing.

Build Canada Homes has put one on its website that I think all of us tend to agree with, at least those of us in the sector. My suggestion is this: Why not put it in the legislation and not just on a website? A website can be changed, but for legislation, it's a little more difficult.

I'm asking the Parliament of Canada to make these developments permanent.

Good intentions are good; let's make those intentions an act of law.

Beyond the act itself, I have four other asks for the Government of Canada. They are not amendments to the legislation, per se, but they are upstream conditions under which this legislation can be successful.

First, Build Canada Homes should establish permanent and dedicated funding for transitional and supportive housing.

This is important, because those are component parts to permanent housing—getting people in the process.

Second, the federal government must negotiate with provinces and territories to implement a targeted rental protection fund. Rental protection falls under provincial jurisdiction—it can't be done unilaterally—so the federal government needs to lead it, but with urgency. If you can protect rental housing, it helps people stay in housing and is much less costly than having to build housing for them.

Third, when public funds are created for affordable housing, the affordability must be maintained in perpetuity.

We have to avoid the possibility that affordable housing eventually becomes unaffordable.

My fourth ask should be an easy one. I think the CEO of Build Canada Homes should sit on the National Housing Council as an ex officio member. If BCH becomes the most significant federal housing instrument, its leadership should be accountable to the broader ecosystem that it's meant to serve.

I'll flag something else as well. There are many different players in the housing space in the Government of Canada: HICC, CMHC, BCH and Canada Lands Company. Without any formal coordination mechanisms—I've been around, peripheral to government agencies, for a while now, sitting on the council—there are going to be some mix-ups, and we need to fix that.

In conclusion, BCH is the right way to go; however, its credibility will eventually be measured not in units built but in lives changed.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Watts

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Watts, I'd like to start with you since you were the last one to speak.

I appreciated your comments about the need for coordination among what I think are too many federal housing agencies. I'm wondering if you could tell us specifically what tools Build Canada Homes has been granted that the Canada Lands Company or CMHC didn't have or couldn't be granted to achieve the same objective.

[Samuel Watts]

That's a really good question.

I don't know the specifics, but I'll tell you about one thing that struck me, in the role that I have on the National Housing Council. Very clearly, housing was one of those things that tended to ricochet around policy-wise, depending on the temperature of the water in Ottawa and which government was in power.

I would feel, personally—and I think a number of other people agree with me on this—that in order to address the housing crisis and the vulnerability crisis we see in Canada, we are going to need to have something that transcends what government does and what government programs or agencies do. We need something that is going to be for a much longer term. The sense of BCH that I am seeing is that it is taking a longer-term, broader approach that is not going to be subject to four-year policy initiatives.

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

How? I'm sorry. I don't mean that glibly.

The Canada Lands Company has been around for a while. It's a Crown corporation. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation started out as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation after the war. It is also a Crown corporation that has been around for a while. Its mandate, I guess, has been changed over time. When the national housing strategy came in, it was plopped in CMHC's lap and it had to learn fast how to deliver that.

What specifically about BCH leads you to believe it has some super, long-term vision and purpose that can't be affected by the political whims of the day?

[Samuel Watts]

Again, that is a really good question. I hope I'm right on this. It seems as though the mandate that's been given to BCH—and this is why I doubled down on the affordability question—is to focus on deeply affordable housing. This is not something any of these other agencies will do consistently. Where we need to go is probably toward making sure that the mandate is anchored very carefully and that it is understood and considered to be long-term—not something that's going to shift and change.

We did not get to where we are in Canada in a weekend, did we? It is not going to take us a year or two to get out of it. We can get out of it. I can see the way. I'm an optimist; that's why I do what I do. We need to make sure we have a long-term view and focus on the affordability sector.

If we can help Canadians who are struggling to get into housing, stay in the housing they have and maintain a certain sense of balance, it will free up dollars for all the other social services that we think of as part of the brand image of Canada. Right now, we are spending a lot of money solving problems that really need to be solved upstream. That is why BCH actually has a chance.

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

Thank you. I would like to talk to you more, but we don't have time to do it here, so I am going to reach out to you.

I want to switch over to Mr. Gascoyne for a second because he is in the private sector.

I am wondering if you can speak specifically to the relationship that you see between market housing, the burdens on market housing and how that impacts social and supportive housing.

[Mitch Gascoyne]

When we talk about housing, there are various forms of affordability that need to be addressed. One of those is mid-range and moderate affordable housing, which is for the postman or the teacher who needs to find a place to live—to either own or rent.

The overall housing solution needs to be sensitive to the deeply affordable housing that others are addressing. Mixed-use, market and affordable housing types are things that I think can, are and should continue to be delivered in a way that creates supply and creates affordable supply at the same time. That's what the thrust is.

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

Would I be putting words in your mouth if I said...would you agree that if all homes were more affordable, it would be like a rising tide that lifts all boats? Purposed investing into social and supportive housing, for sure, but if all homes were more affordable, would that be better for all Canadians?