Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am left with the same feeling as I am not sure if Conservatives want to build homes for Canadians. We are putting legislation forward.

Instead of constantly focusing on character assassination, maybe Conservatives could just vote for the legislation so we can build homes for Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Yellowhead, The Economy.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for London—Fanshawe.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

Before entering the House, I worked in real estate as a sales agent, a broker and a coach to other brokers across the country. In those roles, I worked directly with builders, real estate developers and municipalities, while also working with first-time homebuyers, seniors who are downsizing, families living through different stages of life, buyers and sellers navigating changing and challenging market conditions, and agents and brokers working in changing markets. I have studied markets, watched trends, analyzed statistics and translated that information for real estate professionals as they have practised in their professions. As a result, I intimately understand how the supply of housing, regulatory costs and policy decisions shape the market in very tangible ways.

Housing policy at all levels of government is extremely important, and the results of these policies determine the success of our communities, whether families can build stability and grow net worth and whether young people can see a future in the areas where they live.

Let me start by saying that Conservatives support building more homes, and we support increasing supply because, most importantly, we support helping Canadians achieve home ownership and restoring their hope for home ownership. We know that home ownership lays a foundation for long-term stability and growth. Building equity through home ownership increases people's net worth while gaining a tangible asset that can appreciate over time. Beyond the financial benefits, owning a home also creates a sense of security, pride, freedom and control over one's future.

While we support building more homes as currently drafted, we cannot support Bill C-20. Canadians want urgency and ambition in housing policy. We share that urgency, but it must be matched with measurable outcomes. It must also reduce barriers to construction while also increasing more supply that is attached to ownership. In addition, builders across the country are asking for less government in the building process, not more, and we recognize that the only way we can build affordable housing to scale in this country is by limiting the role of government in the homebuilding process, not adding more. Canadians, rightfully, have a strong desire for home ownership, but that dream is slipping further out of reach.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors states, “Homeownership is the cornerstone of community stability, economic prosperity, and personal security. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this aspiration has long been within reach, with our province consistently reporting some of the highest rates of homeownership in Canada. It’s a reflection of our deep-rooted values: self-reliance, pride of place, and long-term investment in our families and neighbourhoods. But today, that dream is under growing threat. Challenges around housing supply, rising costs, and affordability are eroding access to ownership for many hardworking residents. If we wish to preserve this legacy and ensure future generations can share in the security and opportunity of owning a home, decisive action is needed from all levels of government.”

Across the country, 88% of Canadians under 45 say they would like to own a home one day, yet only 29% believe that they will be able to, while 66% of Canadians say that affordability in their community has worsened, and 62% of Canadians believe current plans will have little or no impact. When people lose confidence that their country can solve basic affordability, they lose hope for their future.

To restore that hope and to bring balance to housing supply, we know that housing starts must increase substantially, and current projections suggest housing starts could fall to roughly 212,000 annually within the next few years, far below what CMHC says is required to restore affordability. Most important, CMHC has also indicated that approximately 75% of the additional housing needed over the next decade must be intended for ownership, and if policy tools do not address that reality, the gap will persist.

Across Newfoundland and Labrador, we are experiencing record low inventory levels, which we have not witnessed since the post-World War II era. The supply of housing on NLAR's MLS system has been chronically low for four years. NLAR states that supply and demand are completely out of balance and, as a result, housing values have climbed by over 45%. In January 2020, the MLS home price index benchmark single-family home price in St. John's was $276,000. That has risen to $411,000 today, an increase of 48.9%, and the cost of new construction continues to grow. Inventory levels are at multidecade lows, and active listings have declined sharply. In many cases they are the lowest we have seen in more than 15 to 20 years, leaving far fewer homes available relative to demand.

In 2025, active listings in the province fell by nearly 22% compared to the previous year, and months-of-inventory figures remain well below long-term averages, signalling an exceptionally tight market. This lack of supply not only fuels upward price pressures, but also makes it harder for first-time homebuyers and young families in the province to put down roots and stay in the province. Addressing this supply imbalance must be a priority.

This is why the federal government's focus matters. CREA points out that governments must use existing levers to unlock supply where it is blocked. That means aligning infrastructure funding and federal housing programs with zoning modernization, reducing development charges, having faster permitting and measurable delivery expectations, and focusing on the barriers that stop builders from building and families from buying. That is not another housing bureaucracy. It is also a collaborative approach because it respects the roles of provinces and municipalities while insisting that federal dollars deliver real results.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, residential construction is closely tied to our economy, which is vital to the survival of our communities. According to the Canadian Home Builders Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, residential construction supports nearly 9,700 jobs in our province and generates approximately $712 million in wages each year. It represents roughly $1.9 billion in total investment.

In Corner Brook and surrounding areas, residential construction supports 481 jobs and represents approximately $93 million in total investment. Housing is one of the most important economic drivers in our region. When homebuilding slows, the impact is not confined to one sector; it affects trades people, suppliers, transport, small businesses and local communities.

Vacancy rates remain tight in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and rental costs have risen significantly since 2020. Employers in western Newfoundland tell me that housing shortages are limiting recruitment.

Rent is directly tied to housing costs. When development charges and construction costs rise, rents follow. Even in Newfoundland and Labrador, families are being priced out of rental housing, and that pressure spreads into every part of daily life.

This is why Conservatives are so focused on outcomes and accountability. Instead of a plan to build homes, Build Canada Homes would be a fourth housing bureaucracy delivering paycheques to bureaucrats. It is far from building at generational speeds, as it took nearly a year to introduce legislation that would still build no homes.

Let us not soon forget that the government promised 500,000 homes per year and to double the pace of home construction. Those are their words, not ours. The latest Statistics Canada numbers show that we are not just building fewer homes; we are permitting fewer too. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this program will deliver roughly 5,000 homes, which is about 1% of the promise. There are no binding build targets written into the law, no enforceable timelines and no accountability if these targets are missed. Bill C-20 would expand administration without guaranteeing delivery.

When Canadians are struggling to afford a home, they cannot afford more layers of process. The Build Canada Homes plan to build social housing on federal lands is fine and important, but it will only create a fraction of the supply Canada needs, and it would not meaningfully address ownership supply. If the ownership market remains constrained, prices will remain high, and the pressure will push down on renters and first-time homebuyers alike. That is why policy focused on the ownership share of new supply matters and why results matter.

In Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada, home ownership remains the primary wealth-building tool for most families. It represents stability, opportunity and intergenerational security. Canadians deserve housing policy that is focused on results and prices that they can afford to restore the hope of home ownership and the promise of a bright future. This is why Conservatives are serious about restoring affordability.

We must focus on meaningful measures to increase the supply of homes for ownership. We can do that by tying infrastructure funding to measurable housing completion, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs that add thousands of dollars to the price of a home and ending the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada to unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector.

Conservatives are opposed to introducing further bureaucratic red tape in the housing sector, as it would further block development, increase the cost of government and not help solve the slow approval process. Builders across the country are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more, and we need more overall supply, which will bring prices down and make homes affordable for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative approach, which has been consistent since the days when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, and he did virtually nothing. The record would likely show that he was the biggest disaster when it comes to housing in Canada. It may even be part of why we are in this situation today, and nothing has changed. The far right of the Conservative Party says, “Get out of the way. The Government of Canada has no role to play in housing.”

Does the member not recognize that provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and many other stakeholders want the national government to be more proactive on housing? Why is the Conservative Party so far to the right in ignoring the needs of Canadians?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that whenever we bring forward real, tangible solutions that Canadians and stakeholder groups are bringing forward to us, the member opposite hurls insults about the last Conservative government from 10 years ago. Canadians want us to be serious. They want us to act like adults and have a real conversation about this crisis within the country. They do not want to look in the rear-view mirror; they want to look forward. They believe we can solve this issue, and I do not want to play partisan politics with the member opposite. I would rather have an adult conversation and provide real solutions for Canadians, because that is what they expect of us.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois share my colleague's concerns about the centralizing and bureaucratic nature of Build Canada Homes. Of course we want housing to be built and we want the federal government to invest.

I will give an example. There is a program from the Quebec government in my riding, but the situation is somewhat similar. The cost of modular homes was calculated, and the same rule was applied all across Quebec. However, the government did not take into account the fact that, in the Gaspé, house parts need to be delivered. As a result, everyone who was accepted for the program is now short on funds to finance the construction.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the bill seeks to give Build Canada Homes the power to carry out construction work? Is there not once again a risk that Ottawa will impose a one-size-fits-all solution and think it can oversee housing construction?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like we see this in a lot of the Liberals' policy, their standing in the ivory tower and wanting to take credit for all kinds of things that they never have anything to do with. We need to respect municipalities and provinces and the solutions they bring forward. I think that is the best approach. These overarching, large federal policies oftentimes do not make sense, and I definitely feel that in my part of the country, where I come from. I do not believe that is effective policy that manages the diverse country we live in.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment a little more on this adding of bureaucracy. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have the Canada Lands Company, and we have the first-time homebuyers' programs. We have a number of federal government programs in place already.

What we said during the election was that it was oftentimes municipalities that were standing in the way. I am wondering if the member has heard anything from the government on what it is going to do to incentivize municipalities to get out of the way so we can build more homes in this country.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point, and I think that is consistently what we have been saying about Bill C-20. It never ceases to amaze me that more bureaucracy is, somehow, going to get solved by another housing bureaucracy. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we need modernization at the provincial level and at many of the municipal levels. I think if we tied federal infrastructure dollars, those conversations could start to happen. There could be collaboration without adding all kinds of expenditure to the taxpayer. I think that would be a much better approach.

Even CMHC says we should use existing levers. It is not just us but people who understand this issue intimately. I absolutely agree with the comments that my colleague has made on that issue.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to two points of order raised in the previous sitting week by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes with respect to the consideration of Bill C-2, the strong borders act, in the context of Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.

Both members allege that Bill C-2 cannot proceed, on the basis that Bill C-12, which has been passed by the House, represents a similar question.

As the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes stated in his intervention, with respect to the rule governing a similar question:

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill [or motion]...then the other similar or identical...[motion] may not be proceeded with.

However, this does not address what constitutes a substantially similar question.

On February 18, 2021, the Speaker ruled on this matter in the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-218. He stated:

This makes clear that if...[both] bills are similar, without being substantially...[similar], both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.

He went on to state:

In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting.... In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend.

This is the clearest ruling that identifies what constitutes a substantially similar question. The precedent just mentioned, however, is not in any way analogous to the situation with Bill C-12 and Bill C-2. Bill C-12 has a much narrower scope than Bill C-2.

In fact, of the parts contained in Bill C-2, the following parts were not included in Bill C-12.

Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an act of Parliament. It also amends the act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.

Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more.

Part 14 modernizes certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public. It also amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public.

Part 15 of Bill C-2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, which establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that act to collect and use an individual's personal information where the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency, and the collection and use are for the purpose of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.

Members, and the Speaker, will note that there are many more elements and, by virtue of these additional measures, a much broader scope in Bill C-2. Since Bill C-2 has not come to a vote at second reading, there is no procedural obstacle to the progression of Bill C-12 in the House. I will return to this issue in a few moments.

Moreover, the rule that governs what constitutes a substantially similar bill or motion is that the motion or bill must seek to accomplish the same objective by the same means. This is the basis of the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, on sports betting.

Since Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means, the rule governing substantially similar bills does not apply. If this rule was as strict as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes allege, then it would have been impossible for the House to consider 15 opposition day motions from the Conservative Party on the carbon tax in the previous Parliament. Alas, the rule is not interpreted in the manner they suggest.

Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 do contain some similar elements, but there is a great deal of difference in their composition. Therefore, the question on either of these two bills would be a substantially different question upon which the House would make decisions.

There have been points of order in the past that the same question rule applied where it clearly did not. For example, some budget implementation bills contained items of Private Members' Business that had been voted on at second reading. This did not prevent the budget bills from advancing.

In conclusion, the substantially similar question rule has been applied by Speakers with restraint and has only been invoked in specific situations where the two items were substantially similar in the objectives they sought to achieve in a very similar, if not identical, manner.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. The Chair will take it under advisement.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Build Canada Homes Act

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple in their thirties here in London both work hard. They did what they were told to do. They saved. They planned. They imagined buying a home and starting a family in the city where they grew up. However, over the past several years, home prices surged far beyond what they could realistically keep up with. The down payment required moved further and further out of reach. The life they pictured for themselves, a home, stability and children growing up near grandparents, began to feel uncertain. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot.

The government's own housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its latest housing market outlook, projects that prices are expected to continue rising in the years ahead because we are not building enough homes to meet demand. That is the reality facing families in London, and that is what this bill must address. The housing crisis did not happen because the Liberal government failed to expand its role in housing enough. It happened because housing supply did not keep pace with the surge in demand created by government policy.

Over the last decade, the government dramatically increased immigration levels without ensuring that the housing supply could keep up. The result was predictable: Demand surged, supply lagged and prices were pushed beyond the reach of young Canadians. Housing capacity was never aligned with immigration policy. This is a supply and demand problem driven by inadequate housing construction and immigration levels that were never aligned with housing capacity. Any economist will tell us that what happens when demand rises while supply lags behind is that prices go up.

On top of that, the cost of building has risen sharply across the country. According to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, government taxes and regulatory costs now make up nearly one-third of the price of a new home. That was not always the case. Over the last 25 years, those taxes and regulatory costs have increased by more than 700%. Development charges, fees and regulatory levies are not marginal add-ons. In many communities, they represent a substantial portion of the final sale price before a family ever receives the keys.

Layer upon layer of government-imposed costs and approval delays are built directly into what buyers are forced to pay. Builders are telling us clearly that current cost pressures and regulatory burdens are making it harder, not easier, to bring new homes to market. Housing starts are projected to decline in the coming years, and the share of homes intended for ownership has fallen.

For years, Conservatives warned that the housing market was heading in the wrong direction. When the Liberals finally acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, their default response, under the previous prime minister and with the support of the NDP, was the same response we have seen time and again when challenges arise. It was to expand the role of government, with more programs, more spending and more federal control. However, affordability declined, home ownership fell and confidence was eroded. Canadians do not need more announcements; they need more homes.

Now we are presented with Bill C-20. At its core, this legislation would significantly expand the role of the federal government by turning it into a direct participant in the housing market, acting much like a national developer with broad authority to finance, acquire and manage housing projects. Instead of focusing on removing barriers so that builders can build, it places the government deeper into the business of building itself. This approach is not unique. We are hearing similar arguments from voices within the NDP leadership race, suggesting that government should enter other sectors as well, whether that is grocery stores, banking or telecommunications. It reflects a growing faith that whenever a market struggles, the answer is for government to take over.

After seeing first-hand how overwhelmed and inefficient parts of the federal system can be, I can tell members that this faith is misplaced. Since I took office, our constituency office has helped thousands of residents navigate basic federal services, many of whom come to us as a last resort after being unable to get timely answers or assistance through the system itself.

That experience has made one thing clear: Expanding the size of government does not improve its performance. Canadians do not need government-run grocery chains, and they certainly do not need government acting as a national housing developer. Canadians need conditions that allow supply to increase, competition to work and costs to come down.

The central question is this: Will expanding the federal government's role as a developer lower the cost of building homes in London and increase supply at the scale we need?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that Build Canada Homes will add roughly 5,000 homes per year. The minister has confirmed there are no top-line production targets set. Meanwhile, the government's own outlook projects that housing starts will decline over the next several years.

There is a gap between rhetoric and results. When something is not working, adding another layer does not fix the underlying problem. After nearly three decades working in information technology, something I learned first-hand is that when a system fails, it is not solved by adding more complexity. One needs to troubleshoot what is broken, remove the bottlenecks, correct the misalignment and then rebuild it so that it works. That mindset is why I entered public service. What fixes the problem starts with identifying what is actually broken and then fixing it. Conservatives want to work with anyone in the House to restore affordability, but that has to start with an honest look into why young Canadians have been priced out of home ownership.

That begins with first principles. If housing is unaffordable because supply is constrained and costs are inflated by policy, then the solution must be to remove those constraints and reduce those costs. Federal tools should be used to align incentives with results. Infrastructure funding can be tied to measurable increases in housing approval so that municipalities are encouraged to speed up permitting and reduce unnecessary obstacles. Development charges and other local levies that are driving up final sale prices must be addressed. That goal should be simple. When more houses are approved and barriers come down, communities see tangible benefits.

At the federal level, tax policy also matters. Reducing the GST on new homes would directly lower the cost to buyers and improve project viability for builders. Unlocking private capital and removing disincentives to reinvest in housing would allow the market to respond at scale. Affordability is not only about the price of a home but also about the ability to save for one. When families face rising daily expenses driven by punishing policies such as the industrial carbon tax, it becomes harder and harder to put money aside for a down payment. High energy, transportation and input costs ripple through the economy and the cost of building as well. Restoring affordability means tackling both sides of the equation, increasing supply and lowering the policy-driven costs that make homes and everyday life more expensive.

Housing is too important for structural experiments that do not confront the underlying drivers of unaffordability. The young couple in London does not care which department holds the file. They care about whether they can put down roots, plan for the future and raise their children in the city they love. Let us fix what is actually broken. Let us remove the barriers holding back supply. Let us deliver results, not just rhetoric, because families in London deserve more than another expansion of federal control over housing. They deserve a home.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two different things here. The member opposite mentioned the need to speed up housing writ large and to address a lot of the barriers that are at the municipal level. In fact, we have programs that are doing just that. One called the housing accelerator fund is helping municipalities speed up their permitting systems, and I have seen its impact across my riding.

Today, we are talking about Build Canada Homes, which is an agency to build below-market units. We have a major need for this right across the country. I know the leader of the official opposition has called this Soviet-style housing, which he does not support, but this agency is meant for things like supportive or transitional housing for low-income folks.

I am wondering if the member agrees that this is a need across the country and something that the federal government should be involved in supporting.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that I feel that wanting housing built and supporting this bill are also two different things. This bill would expand the federal government into the role of a national developer. It would not reduce development charges. It would not speed up approvals. It would not align immigration with housing capacity. It would not lower the tax burden on new homes.

If the problem is cost and supply, expanding government control does not fix what is broken. We are ready to work with real supply reforms. This bill is not that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take a moment to congratulate the Citadelles de Rouyn‑Noranda on making it to the finals of the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament. It was a remarkable achievement. Indeed, my nephew Renaud was among those who participated in the tournament. I want to tell everyone that I am very proud. It was a heartbreaking overtime loss, just like Team Canada. Still, it is an experience that makes us proud and that will inspire the youth of Rouyn‑Noranda.

As for Build Canada Homes, there is something that still baffles me. It is the federal government's stubborn determination to build only in already populated areas where housing already exists. These programs are not going out to the regions. There is nothing in the bill that gives me the sense that there is a desire to decentralize and move closer to rural regions. Build Canada Homes has so many criteria that, at the end of the day, decision-making is still centralized. The government is not connecting with people's needs, particularly in rural areas.

Is my colleague concerned about that too?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite's family celebrating the win in Quebec.

With regard to the bill, the government absolutely has a role. The government sets tax policy, controls immigration levels, transfers infrastructure funding and sets regulatory frameworks. The question is not whether the government acts. It is whether the government acts in ways that remove barriers or add new layers. We believe a government should remove obstacles to building, not compete with builders.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw to the attention of my colleague that Build Canada Homes is a big bureaucratic program. It has been around for six months and, according to its own website, it has not finished one single home.

I am wondering what my colleague would suggest as the Conservative solution to building houses without this huge bureaucracy surrounding it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when nearly one-third of the cost of a new home now comes from government taxes and regulatory costs and those costs have increased by more than 700% over 25 years, we cannot ignore the structural drivers of unaffordability. Reducing the GST on new homes, aligning infrastructure funding with approvals and removing policy-driven barriers would allow builders to build at scale. We want more homes. We want to make it easier and more affordable to build them. That is how we restore affordability for young families in London and across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe is a really important issue. One of the things I really like about this issue is that it clearly demonstrates the contrast between the Conservative Party of Canada and where it is on the political spectrum today, and the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, as we develop, promote and encourage good, sound public policy.

That is what Bill C-20 is all about. It is sound public policy. Canadians would benefit from the passage of Bill C-20. Listening to today's Conservative Party, a party that, as I have articulated in the past, is pretty far to the right, it is hard to imagine what Canada would look like today.

We have had Progressive Conservative prime ministers, from Diefenbaker to Brian Mulroney, who actually contributed to the building up of non-profit housing. There are literally tens of thousands of non-profit, affordable housing units across Canada that exist today because of the government, whether it was the federal government, provincial government or municipal government, and the efforts of indigenous communities. If it were not for that direct involvement, we would not have many aspects of affordable housing today.

If we were to follow the leader of the Conservative Party, I suspect we would have very few housing co-ops in Canada today. People need to listen to what the Conservative members of today are actually saying. They like the slogan “Just get out of the way.” They talk about it a lot.

I was criticized a bit earlier because I was reflecting too far in the past. The leader of the Conservative Party previously sat in the government caucus and was the minister responsible for housing in Canada. That is when the leader of the Conservative Party had his hands on the public purse. He was the one responsible for building non-profit housing and supporting it.

Six houses were built in total. It was amazingly deficient, if I can put it that way. He was arguably the worst minister responsible for housing in Canadian history. Now he is the leader of the Conservative Party and has convinced the far right that the best way the Conservatives can help Canadians on the housing file is to just tell the Liberals to get out of the way.

I have talked to mayors, including the mayor of Winnipeg. I have talked to the premier of the province of Manitoba and to many others stakeholders and indigenous leaders. I can say that they want the federal government to be involved in housing. This should be of no surprise to anyone who is following the debate today with regard to Bill C-20. This is something that has been important from day one.

On April 28, 2025, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. I believe we had over 70 new Liberal members of Parliament, more than any other political party. Our new Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, brought forward a throne speech. Less than a month after the election, a throne speech was delivered to Parliament by the King of Canada, because there was a great deal of concern in regard to Canadian sovereignty, members will recall. I will not get into that aspect of the debate, but the King was here, and he delivered a historical throne speech.

I would like to quote part of the throne speech just to remind all members exactly what was said within a month of our new Prime Minister's assuming his role after the election:

...the Government will undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of home building while creating an entirely new housing industry – using Canadian technology, Canadian skilled workers, and Canadian lumber. The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes. This mission-driven organization will act to accelerate the development of new affordable housing. It will invest in the growth of the prefabricated and modular housing industry. And it will provide significant financing to affordable home builders.

Members should really listen to this part here. This is what the King had to say: “The Government will introduce measures to deliver affordable homes by creating Build Canada Homes.”

What are we talking about today? We are actually talking about Bill C-20, which is the build Canada homes act. We have a Prime Minister who is fulfilling an election platform campaign promise that was put into the throne speech delivered by the King, and today we have the legislation.

The Conservatives, true to form, according to the guru, the leader of the Conservative Party, do not believe there is any need for the federal government to get directly involved in housing. As a direct result, I would suggest that the Conservatives are wrong in the biggest way.

Where are the progressive or red Conservative Party members, the individuals who, I suggest, understand and appreciate that there is a role for the federal government? Surely to goodness they would recognize that Bill C-20 is a bill that would help Canadians in every region of our great nation, yet the far right continues to dominate the Conservative Party today. That is why Conservatives are opposing this legislation. I find that unfortunate, because the legislation itself has demonstrated very clearly that it can and would be effective.

We are talking about the establishment of a Crown corporation that, upon royal assent, has already been budgeted, I believe, at $13 billion, which is already in the 2025 budget, so the money is there. Many of the stakeholders are very much aware of it and are eager to see Build Canada Homes fully up and running as a Crown corporation. A Crown corporation is good. It would then be at arm's length and would be more permanent. Members of the Bloc ask, “Well, is it going to be there into the future?” Having it be a Crown corporation, I think, would make a very powerful statement. I think it would have a greater ability to deliver on the needs of housing in Canada.

The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has made the determination that there is no need for the government to get engaged or involved. How does that compare to what we hear from the different stakeholders? I wonder, if we were to talk to some of the mayors, premiers, municipality leaders, rural communities, indigenous community leaders, or some of the purpose-driven, non-profit organizations that are looking for partners that want to develop plans to be able to provide low-income housing, what kind of consensus we would find.

I believe that the Prime Minister and the government got it right, because the stakeholders I just referenced, as a whole, understand and appreciate the impact that a Crown corporation could actually have on providing homes and making them more affordable. That is the reason, I would suggest, that today's Conservatives really need to revisit their positioning.

I have asked questions to the members opposite in terms of the issue of filibuster.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Someone said, “Why are you bringing up filibuster?” Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that significant legislation has been held up by the Conservative Party because its members just do not want legislation to pass, even legislation they support. We passed bail reform legislation just a week ago, and they apparently supported that legislation. Bill C-20 is now before us, the Build Canada Homes act, and we are getting a very clear indication that the Conservatives are not going to support it. If they are not going to support it, I will pose this question to members opposite: Does that mean we can anticipate that they are going to filibuster this legislation too?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member across the way said, “apparently”. We will have to wait and see. Hopefully the Conservatives will recognize and allow legislation of this nature to, at the very least, get to the committee stage.

I am very interested in what my colleagues in the Bloc have to say about the legislation. With the legislation and some of the basic debate that has taken place already on it, the Bloc appears to at least be somewhat open to it, recognizing that the best way we can deliver the type of results that Canadians need today is to have the different levels of government and stakeholders working together in order to advance and deliver in a stronger and healthier way.

I would argue that provinces play an absolutely critical role, in many ways a leading role. We would no doubt see this through the creation of the new corporation. I suspect there is going to be a great deal of dialogue on the new corporation. I would like to think that organizations that are really strong on missions will say that they want to establish, for example, a housing co-op and look at how the Build Canada Homes corporation would actually be able to assist in facilitating, making dreams come true for some of the non-profit organizations that want to deliver affordable housing. I have always been a strong advocate of housing co-ops, because a housing co-op in a non-profit setting makes housing affordable, and one is not a tenant but a resident.

It is interesting that the Conservatives say, “Well, we already have CMHC, so just allow CMHC to do it.” However, I do not think they fully understand what CMHC does. There is a focus, in regard to the free-market system, on providing insurance for backup. Most people who are homeowners or are going to be homeowners need to get that insurance, which CMHC provides. There are other areas in which CMHC has done quite well over the years, such as providing stats and monitoring the industry as a whole.

Saying that we can just add something that is being proposed within the legislation tells me that the Conservatives do not necessarily want to see the type of success that the Prime Minister and the government are talking about when we talk about increasing the number of homes being built.

Taking a look at Canadian technology, how often do we hear about supporting modern manufacturing, factory-built homes, prefabrication and the potential growth within that industry? I think of it in terms of Canadian technology, as was mentioned in the throne speech. I think in terms of the workers who are working at plants rather than on site, building prefabricated homes.

These are the types of things that can make a tangible difference. These are the types of things that Build Canada Homes would be there to support and encourage, and they would turn dreams into reality. That would have a positive impact in terms of the issue of affordability, even in the open market system.

Build Canada Homes has an important role in terms of low-income housing and affordable housing; in providing supports for municipalities, provinces and indigenous communities; in looking at ways in which we have literally hundreds of non-profit organizations that have a key concern in regard to housing; and in bringing it all together and working so that Canada can continue to build on our non-profit housing stock.

The lead on this, from the nation's perspective, is going to be taken by Build Canada Homes, the corporation that would be created by this legislation. Where do members think it is going to take place, if not there? If we really and truly believe that we need to look at ways we can dramatically increase the housing supply in certain sectors, encourage further growth, see more jobs created, take advantage of the Canadian technology that is there and use Canadian lumber and Canadian steel, these are all the types of things that are best handled through an arm's-length corporation, which this legislation would provide.

It is not just talk. A substantial amount of money has been allocated from the 2025 budget. A newly elected Prime Minister, a cabinet, a throne speech and 170 Liberal members of Parliament have recognized that this is a commitment that we have to make good on. Part of that infrastructure, in terms of the corporation, is already in place to a certain degree in different ways, so we will be able to make things happen quickly.

Someone might ask the question, “How many houses?” There have been thousands of homes, and that is in a relatively short period of time. I can encourage the Conservatives on the other side who are maybe a little more progressive than the far right, and maybe some of those red Tories, to think that the government can have good social public policy that would make a positive difference for all Canadians. Bill C-20 is one of those policies that would be good for Canada, and I would encourage the Conservatives to consider allowing it to pass into committee, so we can get it to the next stage as soon as possible.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. There are so many elements to what the hon. member across the way has discussed. I would like to just begin with the preamble that he recognizes again that I am right, and in fact probably far right, and more right than him.

I would ask the member opposite, if the government is so interested in collaborating and so interested in collaborative results and progress at speed, that its members actually consider talking to us ahead of time, before they start the drafting process, to get prior approval. They are fully in charge of the legislative agenda and the calendar. If they wanted to get more done, they could have had more sitting days.

I implore them to recognize that they are the guardians of the public purse. With the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimating that $5.4 billion more is needed, where is the money going to come from?