Debates of Sept. 24th, 2025

Combatting Hate Crime

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

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

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a bill that represents more than just legislative reform. It reflects our Liberal government's commitment to protecting all Canadians from intimidation, harassment and the very real threat of hate in their communities. The legislation embodies our values as a society and recognizes that when people are afraid to attend their places of worship, schools or cultural centres, the very fabric of our communities is under attack.

We are witnessing a troubling increase in hate across Canada, with Jewish Canadians receiving a disproportionately high amount of hate, along with Muslim, queer and racialized communities across this country. In Hamilton, Jewish Canadians account for less than 1% of the general population but are subject to over 80% of religious-based hate crimes, highlighting the urgent need for targeted protections.

I want to thank the Hamilton Jewish Federation and the Sri Radha Krishna Temple, and their communities, for their valuable input and advocacy in shaping the legislation, and, of course, thank the broader Hamilton Jewish and Hindu communities for their valuable input. I also want to extend my gratitude to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety for their leadership and commitment to addressing hate in all its forms. In particular I would like to recognize the Minister of Public Safety, who visited Hamilton earlier this year to visit with the Hamilton Jewish community, Jewish leaders and Hamilton police.

Recent data from Statistics Canada shows that police-reported hate crimes have more than doubled in the past six years, rising by 169%. This is not just a statistic; it represents families that fear sending their children to school, communities that fear gathering to celebrate or pray, and individuals whose very identities are being targeted. There have been physical assaults and harassment in places of worship, targeted shootings at religious schools, and attacks and bomb threats directed at synagogues, mosques, temples, churches, schools and community centres. In response to these alarming developments, there have been calls from across the country for stronger protections.

Bill C-9 would respond to these calls by introducing new offences to criminalize intimidation and obstruction, enhancing the legal framework for prosecuting hate crimes and addressing the promotion of hatred through symbols associated with terrorism and hate. The bill would introduce a new intimidation offence, which would make it illegal to provoke fear in another person to impede their access to a place of worship, a school or a cultural centre that is primarily used by an identifiable group. Likewise, the bill would introduce a complementary obstruction offence, which would target conduct that intentionally blocks or interferes with lawful access to these spaces.

Both offences would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It is important to emphasize that these offences would not target peaceful expression or assembly. They would specifically target morally reprehensible criminal behaviours directed against individuals trying to access spaces that are essential to their identity and their community. This is about protecting Canadians from harm, not reducing their rights to protest or to express themselves peacefully.

Another critical provision of the combatting hate bill is the new introduction of a hate crime offence. This offence would apply to any federal offence motivated by hatred based on grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion or sex. By explicitly addressing crimes motivated by hate, the provision would ensure that these acts are clearly condemned and appropriately punished. The offence is structured to allow the Crown to proceed in summary conviction in less serious cases, while escalating penalties for more serious offences. For example, someone convicted of uttering threats under this provision would face a maximum of 10 years in prison if it was for hate-motivated reasons, compared to five years under the current law.

In addition, Bill C-9 would introduce a new hate propaganda offence to criminalize the intentional public display of symbols associated with hate or terrorism for the purpose of promoting hatred against an identifiable group. This includes symbols such as the Nazi swastika, the SS bolts and symbols principally used by or associated with terrorist entities listed in the Criminal Code, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

I want to stress that this offence is carefully tailored. It does not criminalize symbols displayed for legitimate purposes, such as education, journalism or the arts. This ensures that freedom of expression is respected, while giving law enforcement and prosecutors a clear tool to respond to criminally motivated hate.

To further enhance clarity and consistency, the bill codifies the definition of “hatred” in the Criminal Code, based on Supreme Court jurisprudence, focusing on detestation or vilification. It does not include mere disdain or dislike. Codifying this definition ensures that Canadians, law enforcement and the courts have a clear understanding of what constitutes hate in law. This provision is specifically critical to assist police to determine when arrests are warranted and to remove interpretation and ambiguity that may be present with the current laws.

Finally, Bill C-9 proposes to remove the requirement for the Attorney General's consent to prosecute certain hate propaganda offences and the new offences, while safeguards remain through the discretion of the Crown prosecution, which assesses the reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest before proceeding with charges.

This bill is about taking action when action is needed. When Canadians fear walking into their synagogue, mosque, church or school, we must act. When individuals are attacked because of who they are, we must act. When speech is used to promote hatred and violence, we must act. With Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, we are taking action. We are acting to protect our communities, defend the fundamental values of our country and affirm that Canada is a country that says no to hate and yes to safety and dignity for everyone.

I will acknowledge that it is unfortunate that this legislation is necessary. It is a direct response to the growing and targeted hatred across Canada, but, of course, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to our government. Freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to protest are cornerstone Canadian values, but no one has the right to promote hate.

Municipalities across Canada, including Hamilton, where I was formerly a city councillor, are already moving forward with municipal by-laws similar to what is intended here, but instead of forcing municipalities and provinces to have a patchwork of individual by-laws to combat the hatred they are seeing in their communities, we are taking action at the federal level to set national standards.

I call on all parliamentarians to support this bill and to work together to ensure that it passes promptly. This is an important step in fulfilling our Liberal government's commitment to strengthen community safety and uphold the fundamental rights of Canadians.

In my conversations with residents across Hamilton who have been subject to hate, it is absolutely heartbreaking to hear the stories of intimidation and hatred that they have faced in their communities. In particular, I want to thank representatives from the Hamilton Jewish Federation for sharing their stories with me, being frank and forward and sharing exactly what it is like to be a member of their community in the city of Hamilton when there are incidents of hate.

Again, I recognize that it is unfortunate that we have to proceed with this legislation, but in consultation with those groups directly affected and also in consultation with law enforcement, we have no doubt that this is the appropriate action at this time.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, police-reported hate crimes are up 258% across Canada, anti-Semitic hate crimes are up 416%, and hate crimes against south Asians are up 377%. We have also seen well over 100 churches burned down.

It would seem to me that there has been a general lack of enforcing the law but also making sure that people who commit these crimes actually go to jail and stay in jail.

Does the member not agree that it would have been better to reform bail now, as opposed to doing something like this when there are already existing elements to the Criminal Code that criminalize hate propaganda, threats, intimidation and obstruction?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think in these areas there is quite a bit of agreement between our government and the opposition. Going back to the purpose of the legislation and the consultation in the community, the purpose is to make sure all individuals have access to the community spaces central to their identity, to clarify the legal meaning of hatred within the Criminal Code so it takes away some of that ambiguity or discretion that may be in current law and preserve the lawful right to protest under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is definitely a balance there.

Of course, we are moving forward with federal legislation to reform bail and federal sentencing, and I welcome further discussion on that when that legislation comes forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during his speech on his own bill, the Minister of Justice indicated, in response to one of our questions, that he would be open to an amendment on the religious exemption. Let us not forget that, in the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to abolish that exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code. That provision currently allows individuals to engage in hate speech without being arrested, provided the speech is based on religious text. We think that is completely absurd. If I understand correctly, the minister is open to such an amendment.

My question is the following. Given that the Liberals already know our position on this exemption, can my colleague explain to me why we are waiting for an amendment to be proposed when the provision could have already been included in the bill?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an area where I personally have quite a bit of agreement with my colleagues in the Bloc. I personally have issues when religious texts are used at times as a justification for hatred against LGBTQ and queer communities in particular. However, we are trying to reach a balance between freedom of expression and making sure the targeted hate we are seeing in communities is addressed.

Once again, this legislation is supported by municipalities, the local Jewish and Hindu communities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. We welcome further discussion in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to quickly get in two questions for the member about this legislation.

First, has the government engaged with the Hindu community and other communities that use symbols that look like symbols that have an association, in other contexts, with hate but are used in a very different way in their tradition? We want to protect the freedoms of those communities that understand similar looking symbols in very different ways.

Second, I wonder if the member can comment on the significant violence we have seen targeting the Christian community, the burning of churches, and what the government's response, or lack of response, has been to the number of churches that have been vandalized or completely destroyed during the Liberals' tenure in office.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to our government, including the freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to peaceful protest. However, when that extends to hatred, when that extends to specifically targeting identifiable groups for any reason, it is completely inappropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber. Here we have before us a really important issue. The issue of racism and hatred is very much real and has been for many years. Over the last number of years, for different reasons, we have seen the escalation of hatred. This is something that all of us should be concerned about. There are reports of crimes motivated by hatred; I was provided a graph that really highlights the issue. The one that is most concerning is race and ethnicity; we are talking about huge increases over recent years. Religion is the second one, followed by sexual orientation. There are other forms but those are the three big ones.

Just this last summer, I had the opportunity to sit with some young people from the Sikh community over at the Singh Sabha temple on Sturgeon in Winnipeg. I listened to their thoughts on the issue. The purpose was to talk about racism and hatred. Some of the things that were discussed, I found very beneficial. I think, at the end of the day, there needs to be more dialogue on the issue. Hatred and racism are two things I have zero tolerance for.

As a legislature, I would like us to look at things we could do to ultimately minimize what takes place in our community that is so hurtful in many different ways. There are real people at the other end who are victims, who suffer virtually every day of the year as a direct result.

In the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. He indicated that he would bring in anti-hate legislation. That is what we are debating today, Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. I think that, overall, it has been fairly well received by Canadians.

The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General was very clear earlier today. In presenting the legislation, he indicated that he is very much open to possible amendments, the sorts of amendments the opposition might have, to give strength and to deal with concerns that opposition parties might have. I say that because I believe that even the Conservative voters in the last federal election wanted to see all political parties work more co-operatively in order to pass good legislation.

If there are things we can do together at the committee stage, in order to pass this legislation, I believe we should do them. The Attorney General has made it very clear that he has an open mind in regard to amendments.

We can look at what the minister has said and what the Prime Minister said in the last election, as an election platform, making that commitment. Not only do we have a government that is prepared to work co-operatively with opposition parties, we also have a mandate to bring in the legislation. I would suggest that the two combined should be enough of an incentive for members to, at the very least, allow the bill to get to committee stage, so that we can hear first-hand what stakeholders and Canadians have to say.

If there are issues or concerns, by all means, members should bring them up. If there are amendments, let us see what they have to say. The shadow minister from the Conservative Party expressed concern about the AG consent. I see the AG consent as a bit of a barrier that could potentially delay the laying of charges.

I do not see the issue with what the Conservatives have raised on this. I really do not see it, even in private prosecutions. I do not quite understand what would cause them to raise the concern that they do not have the same level of confidence that we do in government with respect to law enforcement and our judicial system. I believe that a very high threshold has been established. I have appreciation, respect and confidence in our system to ensure that the law is utilized for the betterment of our communities.

Someone suggested it would cause more action in the courts. Hopefully, it will. I want to see charges being laid. I want to see convictions. I believe this legislation would open the door to making our communities better and safer.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ethics

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the government in May relating to the Prime Minister's financial holdings, potential conflicts of interest and his total lack of transparency concerning these matters.

At the time, the Prime Minister was hiding behind an ethics loophole in Canada's ethics laws by hiding his assets from public disclosure. Finally, in July, the Prime Minister's ethics disclosure was quietly released. Canadians deserve to have the assurance that policy decisions made by the Prime Minister in no way further his private interests. From that standpoint, the Prime Minister's ethics disclosure is completely inadequate insofar as it provides a vague outline of the Prime Minister's financial interests, but not the full and complete picture.

More specifically, the Prime Minister continues to hide the full extent of his financial interests in the trillion-dollar investment firm Brookfield Asset Management, for which he served not only as board chair but also as head of transition investing. The National Post reported that, during the time the Prime Minister served as Brookfield's head of transition investing, he coled efforts to raise capital for two very large clean energy funds: the global transition fund and the second global transition fund. He was also involved in raising funds for a third Brookfield investment fund shortly before he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party to become the Prime Minister of Canada.

Why does that matter? Very simply, it is because, according to the Prime Minister's ethics disclosure, he is entitled to carried interest payments from these funds, which are potentially worth tens of millions of dollars. To be clear, carried interest payments are essentially bonus pay based upon the performance of these investment funds. What is completely lacking from the Prime Minister's ethics disclosures is which companies the Prime Minister's performance pay is tied to.

The Prime Minister will say there is nothing to see and everything is on the up and up because he has set up a blind trust, but I ask what good a blind trust is when the Prime Minister knows the companies that these funds are invested in and, therefore, knows which public policy decisions may impact upon their profitability, which, in turn, is tied directly to the value of the Prime Minister's future performance pay. When the Prime Minister talks about a blind trust, it is not the Prime Minister who is blind. It is Canadians who are blind. It is Canadians who are left in the dark in respect of a multitude of potential conflicts of interest involving the Prime Minister in such public policy areas as transport, finance, energy and infrastructure.

Canadians deserve transparency. The Prime Minister needs to come clean and disclose the full extent of his financial interests in Brookfield Asset Management, including the many companies to which tens of millions of dollars of his future performance pay—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the way the Conservative Party, over the last number of years, always tends to deal with the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers. At the end of the day, we have a wonderful opportunity on the floor of the House of Commons to debate ideas and policies, to take a look at what the government is or is not doing and so forth. It is a fantastic opportunity that I would argue is in the public interest. However, the member wants to talk about the Prime Minister and his financial interests.

We have an Ethics Commissioner who is ultimately responsible for specific requirements that were established by parliamentarians. The Conservative Party is not responsible for this. It is the same process that Stephen Harper had to go through, and the Prime Minister is in compliance with the Ethics Commissioner. Now we have a Conservative Party that, over the years, pushed all that to the side, because they are more concerned with character assassination. I have always suggested this in the past. They are trying to take a look at the character of an individual and do whatever it takes in order to portray that person in a very negative light. The member even made reference to it in his comments. It is in a blind trust, which was the obligation.

The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has an incredible history as a former governor of the Bank of Canada, a former governor of the Bank of England, an economist and one who managed many corporations. Let us contrast that with the history of the leader of the Conservative Party. Well, he has been a politician, but I do not know if there is anything else. Maybe in rebuttal, the member can actually talk a little more about it.

The bottom line is that, yes, the Prime Minister had a life outside being a parliamentarian. As a result, because he was very successful in terms of economics and managing his portfolio, he has built up and put things into a blind trust, which is in compliance with the Ethics Commissioner's requirements. At the end of the day, after doing this, his focus, as it should be, is on serving Canadians.

The policy decisions that are being made deal with the types of actions that are absolutely necessary in order to advance the best interests of Canadians as a whole. Examples of that would be a tax break for 22 million Canadians and, for young people who are trying to get a home, getting rid of the GST on the purchase of new homes. This is not to mention building one Canadian economy and all the efforts, discussions, meetings and consultations, whether it is with premiers, indigenous people and the stakeholders that are out there in order to ensure that we get that. I could also mention legislation, whether it is the hate bill we were talking about a few minutes ago or the commitment to bring in bail reform legislation this fall. We have a busy Prime Minister, but all that some members of the opposition want to do is attack his character.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The Prime Minister, in his capacity as head of transition funding at Brookfield, raised capital of $27 billion for three funds. He hand-picked the companies; therefore, he knows what public policy decisions may ultimately impact the value of his future performance pay, which is tied to these funds.

Canadians deserve transparency, and they deserve disclosure. I am simply asking for the Prime Minister to be transparent, to come clean and to disclose all of his financial interests. Why will he not do that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like prime ministers before him, the Prime Minister has put things into blind trusts and is being transparent.

I am trying to provide some sense of accountability and transparency, in terms of the motivation of the Conservative Party of Canada and why its members continually attack personalities as opposed to dealing with substantial public policy. That is what I find quite unfortunate.

We should actually be encouraging individuals from all sectors of society to engage in politics and not have to worry about having their character assassinated if they are actually put into a position where they are making substantive policy decisions. However, if that is the member's sole interest, then he should put in an application to become Canada's next Ethics Commissioner.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals are desperate to defend their jobs, my question tonight is about the jobs of the many unemployed Canadians who are desperately looking for jobs and cannot find them.

We have a serious unemployment crisis in this country that is particularly affecting young Canadians. The unemployment rate has been continuously going up over the last three years. It has now hit 7.1%, but the youth unemployment rate is really at catastrophic levels, at 14.5%. Many young people are desperately looking for jobs and are unable to find them.

This is a continuation of a trend that has been going on for the last three years. We have been regularly highlighting the problem of the jobs crisis and calling on the government to have a plan of some kind and present a plan. In particular, as part of that plan, it should reverse some of the policies it has put in place that have led us to this point.

Under the current government, things have gotten so much more difficult when it comes to investing, building a business, growing a business and employing Canadians. Many barriers have been put in place that block economic development. We have seen this especially in the area of natural resource development, but in other areas as well.

The government has continuously put roadblocks in place that have undermined the competitiveness of our economy. The result of that is that it is harder to start and grow a business, and therefore fewer jobs are being created. When it comes to addressing this unemployment crisis, a critical priority needs to be removing the barriers that prevent economic development and unleashing economic opportunity.

A second area where we see major problems in the government's policy is immigration. It has allowed, in particular, temporary migration to get completely out of control. Even within the intended parameters, there has been rampant abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. We have inland asylum claimants who are forced to wait years and years before their claims are evaluated. I have dealt with instances of fake college acceptance letters being used as a tool for immigration. Sometimes students have been deceived by unscrupulous consultants, and the students thought they were coming to study somewhere here when they were not.

There has been a lack of enforcement, a lack of administrative competence and a lack of prudence when it comes to immigration. This has led to an unprecedented spike in temporary migration, and it is affecting youth employment numbers.

We also continue to see a failure of the government to recognize the importance of ensuring that training aligns with the needs of our labour market. The Conservatives have emphasized the value and dignity of all work. We have celebrated work in the trades and the natural resource sector, and we have encouraged policies, such as increases in funding for UTIP, that align training investments with the needs of the labour market.

These are some of the things we have put forward as concrete, positive proposals to address the unemployment crisis, and the best we hear from the government is that it is increasing public subsidies for the Canada summer jobs program. In reality, the increase in public subsidies being proposed is a drop in the bucket compared to the vast unemployment numbers we are dealing with.

We in the opposition have talked about what our plan and proposals are. I would like to know what the government's plan is for dealing with this escalating unemployment crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, we take this issue very seriously. We are very much concerned about Canada's economy and the issue of employment. In fact, when the Prime Minister was elected six months ago, one of the first pieces of legislation we passed was to build one Canadian economy. This is something that is going to generate literally tens of thousands of jobs.

Recently, we heard the announcement about major projects. Premiers have been working with the Prime Minister and other stakeholders, such as indigenous community members. We have literally presented five major projects.

We could talk about LNG in B.C. By the way, there is also a copper component in B.C. We could talk about the issue of the nuclear energy development in Ontario. We could talk about the copper mine in Saskatchewan. We could talk about the port of Montreal, which is obviously in Montreal, and its impact.

The member made reference to a small amount of money. We are talking about $60 billion, with a “b”. This is something that our new Prime Minister, who has only been the prime minister for six months and after putting together a cabinet, has already put onto the table.

We have a budget coming on November 4. I suspect we will see some very encouraging signs in that budget.

At the end of the day, we are very sensitive to important issues like inflation and the need for job creation. That is why the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus continue to work very hard on that particular issue.

The member made reference to immigration and temporary workers in particular. I can tell the member that when we think of immigration, we want to have sustainable immigration. The Prime Minister has made that commitment. There have been some problems. We have a new minister, Prime Minister and caucus that are determined to fix those problems, but the issue is not as simple as the member has tried to portray it.

He made the argument that the temporary workers are causing problems, but that is not the case in the province of Manitoba. Talk to the province of Manitoba and take a look at some of our rural communities, and even those in rural Alberta. Listen to what rural communities in Alberta or Saskatchewan might be saying. Talk to some of our rural communities in the province of Quebec. Are they all taking the same side as the leader of the Conservative Party? The short answer is no. It is not as simple as the Conservative Party tries to portray it.

Again, on behalf of the government, the Prime Minister has made a commitment that we are going to deal with immigration and the temporary visa issues. Yes, that means it might take some time, but we will deal with it. We will get through it. In all fairness, he has been the Prime Minister for six months, along with the cabinet. We have a budget that is coming forward, I believe, on November 4.

At the end of the day, I am confident that we are on the right track. We are in fact improving the conditions. Look at all the things that have to be overcome. Whether it is Trump, tariffs or the need to expand our international trade opportunities, we are doing what we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate what a difficult job the hon. member for Winnipeg North has. He spent the last 10 years defending every aspect of the Trudeau government, and now he is here as the spokesman for this promise, attesting that his government will fix the problems that his government created. I do not think that the Liberal fixes to Liberal problems are going to work either. They have created new bureaucracies to identify as priorities some projects that were already under way.

Fundamentally, when it comes to unemployment, I will just say this: The proof will be in the results. If we include the self-employed, there were over 100,000 jobs lost last month. That is long post Trudeau, and our economy continues to shed jobs. It continues on the same trajectory.

At what point will the member realize that we continue to see the loss of many jobs and we continue to see high unemployment? At some point, will he recognize that what they are doing is not working?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says, though I do not necessarily believe the number, that we lost 100,000 jobs in the last few months. When there is a new government and a new prime minister, we cannot expect that instantaneously the stats are going to reverse. Instead I would suggest taking a look at the initiative the Prime Minister has just announced with the different premiers and the stakeholders that is going to generate in excess of 60 billion dollars' worth of investment and is going to generate tens of thousands of jobs. These are projects that are taking place and are going to happen.

The bureaucracy that the member just made reference to is the Major Projects Office, which is located in Calgary, Alberta, so he is even criticizing the government for establishing a Major Projects Office in Calgary. I wonder whether all his Alberta colleagues agree with that.

Housing

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in June I stood in the House and asked the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure about the housing market and the housing market's stall in the GTA. I noted at that time to the minister that housing sales in the GTA were 89% below their 10-year average. In response, the minister agreed with me in part; in fact he said, “We are seeing a stall in the market as people wait for that cut.” The cut the minister was referring to was the GST cut for first-time homebuyers, and then he invited me and my colleagues in the Conservative Party to support that proposal.

We kept our end of the bargain; we worked co-operatively with the government and supported the cut on the GST for first-time homebuyers. Unfortunately, the minister has not kept up his end of the bargain. The Building Industry and Land Development Association confirms that the market stall continues, despite the minister's promising to reverse it. BILD says that new home sales in August were down 81% below their 10-year average, and new condos were 90% below their 10-year average.

Another study released this week, by Missing Middle Initiative and the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, provides some stark numbers on the ongoing market stall. In the town of Georgina, in my neck of the woods, total housing starts in the first half of 2025 for singles, semis and row housing were just 42; that is nearly 60% below the previous four-year average. In the town of Stouffville, another town in my riding, the number was just 12. The numbers are equally troubling for the largest housing market in the country, Toronto, of course, where housing starts for singles, semis and row housing are down 40%.

The report goes on to say, “This is a clear indication that Ontario’s housing situation will get worse”. Young people need a house they can afford, not a Brookfield-built, government-approved shipping container.

Let me go over a bit of history for the parliamentary secretary. During the reign of Catherine II, former empress of Russia, it is alleged that during her tour of the Crimean region, her lover and minister, Grigory Potemkin, went before her to set up villages along the Nepa River so that as the empress came down the river to tour her empire, she and her foreign entourage would see thriving villages full of happy villagers. Of course the reality was quite different, because the villages were fake, and the villagers were just actors.

If we fast-forward to summer 2025, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure presided over a modern-day Potemkin village, where the Prime Minister announced housing construction in front of a housing construction scene. The problem for the Prime Minister, just like it was for Catherine the Great at the time, is that it was just a scene. The cranes and construction buildings were just a scene, just like out of a Hollywood movie, because the Liberals are not building homes; they are building illusions.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Will the minister agree that he has failed to reverse the market stall, change course and let Canadians buy homes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree on this. Everyone in this country should have access to an affordable, safe and healthy place to live. Let me assure members that this government is focused on making housing more affordable and attainable. This is why we are taking action on affordable housing across the range of the affordability continuum. We are talking about co-ops, social housing and deeply affordable homes, exactly the kinds of homes for the missing middle the member is talking about.

Our government is taking action with the recent launch of “build Canada homes”, with $13 billion in investments, including funding for supportive and transitional housing and for the Canada rental protection fund to preserve the affordability of units. At the core of its mission, “build Canada homes” will finance and build affordable housing at scale across Canada, including in rural areas. It will leverage public lands, offer flexible financial incentives, attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects and support manufacturers to build the homes that Canadians need.

“Build Canada homes” will partner with builders and housing providers that are focused on long-term affordability. It will focus on using Canadian-made materials and modern construction methods, such as factory-built housing, to catalyze an entirely new Canadian housing industry, one that builds faster and more sustainably. When we talk about that, we are talking about really increasing the productivity of the construction industry through digitization and automation where it makes sense.

“Build Canada homes” is one of the ways our government is addressing barriers, reducing risk and helping to navigate the process of building non-market housing. We will work closely with builders, investors, indigenous partners and all levels of government to continue to implement innovative solutions to complex problems.

The government is also taking targeted financial measures to make home buying more affordable for Canadians. As my colleague noted, by eliminating the GST for first-time home purchases at or under $1 million and lowering the GST on homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, our government is making it easier for Canadians to enter the housing market.

We are also making the process of buying a home fairer, simpler and more transparent through actions such as the creation of the blueprint for a homebuyers' bill of rights, which sets out principles for a fair and transparent rental system. We are calling on provinces and territories to take actions that support the blueprint's principles, improve the rental system and ensure rental markets work for Canadians. Working together with our partners, we will help deliver affordable housing options that meet the needs and the budget of families, the kinds of homes that families need.

We will continue our work to ensure that all Canadians have a place to call home, because housing is a basic need. We hope our colleagues across the aisle can support us on this as we move forward with measures to support the industry.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said the Liberals are trying to make it easier for Canadians to enter the housing market. I think she should walk down any street in Ontario. It is harder than ever to buy a home. At no point in history has it been harder to buy a home in this country. That is not getting better; that is only getting worse.

In fact, the president of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario said, “Housing projects have been shelved and the industry has hit a wall. The outlook is bleak, and we are trending in the wrong direction.” Their prescription was “to lower the tax burden and modernize the [building] process” and get government out of the way. What was not in their prescription was a fourth bureaucracy to build homes that people do not want.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is using every tool at our disposal and taking coordinated action to help increase supply and ensure it is adapted to the needs and budget of Canadian families, change the way Canada builds housing and make housing more affordable for Canadians. We all know that right now a lot of affordable housing is not really affordable, including all of the condo market that the member is talking about.

“Build Canada homes” will offer a bold new approach combining financing, land access and development expertise under one roof to get big projects off the ground and tackle exactly the barriers the member is talking about. Unlike the Conservatives, who advocate a do-nothing approach, we are full steam ahead. These actions, along with measures like the affordable housing fund and the apartment construction loan program, will help restore affordability for Canadians.

Given the urgency of the housing crisis for Canadians, we are taking immediate action. We are doing it in a way that will support our workers and our industries and make life more affordable for Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:13 p.m.)