Debates of Feb. 5th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Apology to Those Whose Land Was Expropriated in Mirabel

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly appalling to see a fear campaign being waged and to see this House being used to spread misinformation.

My colleague knows full well that the Expropriation Act of 1985 was overhauled to ensure that consultations are included. He also knows that the railway legislation that we introduced in the budget implementation bill goes even further by ensuring consultation, the impact assessment, and consultations with indigenous peoples, as well as providing more clarity on regulatory processes.

They are saying that we are out there holding happy hour consultations. That is such a disingenuous way to describe the very serious and very robust process taking place.

I am a bit perplexed, because my colleague seems to be saying that, yes, they support the project, but at the same time they are trying to scare people and saying that we are not doing things the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, if anything, I wish that my colleague were right and that this were all made up, because I would be less concerned for the people over there. Some mayors are now saying that they are not being consulted. That is a fact.

What does Bill C-15 do? It exempts the project from a number of protections that were enshrined in law. These are legitimate concerns, and it worries me when my colleague dismisses them out of hand because her party is in power. This tells me that they lack sensitivity, perhaps even intellectual curiosity.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today from the member for Beauport—Limoilou that the cost of the Quebec City tramway has risen to $13 billion, whereas it was estimated at about $750 million several years ago. Now, it is going to cost $13 billion and construction has not even begun.

Obviously, we are all in favour of public transit. Nevertheless, we are currently talking about 20 kilometres of tracks costing Quebec $13 billion. What is the estimate for building 1,000 kilometres of tracks across Canada's farmland?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from eastern Quebec and I often talk about trains. We are currently discussing high-speed rail, this major project, but there is also the problem of Via Rail's passenger train service, which I think both of us are concerned about, but that is a separate issue.

On the issue of cost, obviously that is a point that deserves to be raised and studied. If we go too fast, without taking the time to do things right, we run the risk of waking up to a disaster, as happens all too often.

At the end of the day, however, we believe that investing in mass transit is necessary.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and his excellent analysis of the situation, which clearly states that we basically want the project to succeed. However, we want it to be done properly. We want to protect the rights of our constituents.

We agree with the claims that the legislation was improved in the 1980s. What concerns us are the bills currently being studied to allow things to move faster.

I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks the outcome will be. Does he understand why the government members tell us that they do not support the motion? Basically, the government members have repeated every part of the motion all day long. They should then theoretically agree on its content. When we vote on a motion, we have to read it and ask ourselves whether we agree with its content. I believe that the answer in this case is yes, whether they like it or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me to speculate on what is motivating my colleagues' position on our motion. I think the general idea is that this is a great project and we want everything to be great.

Nevertheless, we have to be very careful in life. It is like when someone wants to build something and is too hasty. I believe that we are the voice of reason in all of this, and perhaps this is not welcomed. We are saying that we want to get things done, but they have to be done properly.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, like several of our colleagues have already done, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that yesterday, one of my employees celebrated five years of service. I would like to thank India La Haye for her work and congratulate her on this recognition.

Now let me return to the motion and the subject at hand. Ultimately, what we are discussing here is the Alto high-speed rail project. I have already said several times here, in response to certain colleagues from the Bloc Québécois during their speeches, that I too believe that what happened in 1969 is unacceptable and inexcusable. I have said it before and I will say it again, but it is no longer 1969. It is 2026. In the meantime, a lot has changed, and a similar situation would not and will not happen in the case of the Alto project or any other public infrastructure project.

A comparison is being made here, as our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have pointed out several times. It reminds me a lot of what was also said in 2016-17 about the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM, project in the Montreal area. The government at the time also made certain legislative changes to ensure that the project would be carried out quickly, on budget and on schedule. There were also all kinds of fear campaigns. People said that it would be the end of the world, that it would never happen, that it was impossible, that no one could do it. They said that the government had given the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec the power to seize people's properties. All of that was said. Many concerns were raised by several political parties at the time, parties that were in fact related to our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

Now, several years later, the REM project is a reality, despite the problems associated with the pandemic, among other things. There have been some strange incidents, such as the discovery of explosives in the Mont‑Royal tunnel, but none of the disastrous and catastrophic scenarios that were raised at the time came to pass. There has been no confiscation of private property either. I understand the concerns of people in the Mirabel region, but to suggest that the 1969 scenario will repeat itself nowadays is a stretch, because we are not in the same situation at all.

What exactly is the Alto project? This high-speed rail line connecting Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto has been a topic of discussion for about 30 years. For all sorts of reasons, some good and some not so good, it never happened. It never materialized. Successive governments have all ended up backing down and abandoning the project for all sorts of reasons. Now, however, our government is firmly committed to moving forward and making this project a reality. We are going to take a structured, organized approach, having learned lessons from the past while carrying out other government and infrastructure projects.

Of course the rift of 1969 still hangs over our heads. It is something that we still think about to prevent such situations from happening now.

That is why we created a project office, Alto, to do this preliminary work. We also created a private consortium, Cadence, with companies that have extensive experience with this type of project to ensure that we take the time we need, but no more, to complete such a megaproject. We want to ensure that we complete this project within a reasonable time frame so that we can control costs.

Alto is a government agency that represents the government. It has begun this groundwork. I would even say that we are in the pre-consultation phase. We have established a corridor that is rather wide, very wide even. Of course, the route is far from final. I think that we are doing things right. By taking four years to carry out this project, we are making sure that things are being done quickly, but not too quickly for a project of this magnitude.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 9, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 29, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-227, An Act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Strategy on Housing for Young Canadians Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, we are resuming debate and I an resuming my speech, because I was barely able to begin it the last time. The two minutes I had was barely enough time to say good evening.

I will pick up where I left off. Housing is an issue that is—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaking is certainly a member who asks questions. I invite him to listen first and then ask questions.

Housing is an issue that is extremely important to me because there is a major housing crisis in my region, like everywhere else. It is hitting us so hard that the city of Saint‑Hyacinthe, which is home to two-thirds of my riding's population, has long had the dubious distinction of having the lowest vacancy rate in Quebec. I think it is somewhere around 0.4%. Today, it has gone up, and that is a good thing. For a long time, however, it remained at an extremely dangerous rate of 0.4%. It is the same as saying there were no more vacancies at all. It is as simple as that.

On top of this, there has been a series of fires in downtown Saint-Hyacinthe. The people they affected were primarily vulnerable individuals, many of whom did not have insurance. It was even more difficult to relocate them afterward and help them out of the hardship the fires had caused.

Of course, the Saint-Hyacinthe region is not in an easy position either. We will never have extremely advantageous vacancy rates for the simple reason that we have the best farmland in Quebec. It is not a region that can easily be rezoned either, but there are still ways to implement smart, responsible projects.

We obviously fully agree with the intention behind the bill, namely, to promote access to affordable and secure housing for young Canadians and Quebeckers aged 17 to 34. There is no issue with the intention itself, but we will vote against the bill because, unfortunately, it is a useless empty shell that claims to create a national strategy while containing nothing whatsoever to that effect. At best, it will allow the government to boast that it has a strategy and claim to have the expertise to show the provinces how to proceed, because centralization and Canada-wide standards are second nature to Ottawa.

The government already has a multitude of programs and, in any case, its only role is limited to transferring money to the provinces and, potentially, transferring ownership of federal lands that are not being used. That would be relevant if that were the case, but this bill would amount to giving the government carte blanche right now. Although it provides for consultations with the provinces and other stakeholders, we have plenty of examples where consultations are limited to sending emails without any actual dialogue. Basically, these consultations are essentially briefings. That is what they end up being. People are told what is going to happen, and that is about it.

Quebec and the municipalities have a much better understanding of the local realities of their residents. That is the virtue of decentralization. Even though the federal government claims to want to collaborate, the usual “Ottawa knows best” attitude leaves little doubt as to how it will respond to such a strategy, and that is not very reassuring. If the past is any indication of the future, it is not at all reassuring.

The federal government already has a $55-billion, 10-year program and is struggling to make it work because of all the red tape. Now it wants to add to that. In any case, Ottawa does not build anything. The municipalities do all the work. That is why we are calling for all housing funding to be unconditionally transferred to Quebec. That would be a much better solution than what is being proposed here. That is the simplest and most economical way to create favourable conditions for housing construction. By adding conditions, the federal government adds public servants, in both Ottawa and Quebec City, to create reports and track the money that is spent. This approach is both costly and inefficient.

What is more, Ottawa's definition of “affordable” is inadequate. We want the government to adapt, adjust and clarify the definition of “affordable” in relation to housing so that the funding is actually used to build affordable housing.

The bill gives any designated minister the mandate to conduct consultations to develop the national strategy on housing, although, as I said, the word “consultation” is debatable. However, the government could conduct these consultations without a bill. Do we need a bill to say that a project or consultation should be launched? I see this as window dressing, a potentially useless empty shell.

The strategy, which is not created by the bill—for the reason I just mentioned—would aim to ensure greater access to affordable and secure housing for young people, that is, people aged 17 to 34. As I said, there is no problem with that. To develop the strategy, the minister will conduct consultations with representatives of provincial, territorial and municipal governments and other groups.

Not everything about this is crazy. There are things that make sense, such as cracking down on real estate flipping, but it is clear that the best solution would be to provide unconditional funding for any Quebec initiative to develop student housing as a way to take pressure off the residential and rental market, particularly in the regions and at the initiative of colleges and universities. I have a few in my riding. I have the CEGEP, the Institut de technologie agricole du Québec, the faculty of veterinary medicine, and the vocational school. All of them could benefit.

Fundamentally, the housing crisis needs to be taken seriously. It should be our chief concern, because housing must be seen as a right. Some community organizations are doing outstanding work in many places to keep tenants informed of their rights, because not all landlords are able to keep them adequately informed all the time. There are organizations doing outstanding work in that area.

Of course, we need to be able to build. Building takes money. Addressing the housing crisis involves more than simply drafting a bill that does not launch a strategy, but rather a discussion. Ottawa's track record when it comes to discussions is a little unsettling. Maybe the funding could consist of a permanent reinvestment. For example, 1% of the government's annual budget could be earmarked for housing construction. It could be that. It could be a fixed percentage that would stay the same year after year, regardless of inflation, and that would also reflect increases in costs and expenses. The percentage would always stay the same.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today for the second time in 2026 on behalf of the people of Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

We are studying Bill C-227, an act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians. The bill speaks to me personally. I have two children, aged 20 and 23, who are in university. They have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for housing in Montreal. In the coming years, they will have to find another place to live or buy their first home.

Bill C‑227 would require the minister to consult with other levels of government as well as stakeholders to develop a national strategy on housing for young people and ensure greater access to affordable and secure housing. We all know that coordination between levels of government is crucial to get results. During my time as mayor of a small municipality, I worked with the provincial and federal governments on a project to build 30 housing units for seniors, and I can confidently say that the complexity of the programs and the time it takes for files to be processed discourage those who want to create housing, whether they are municipalities or non-profit organizations. In our case, five years passed between the initial announcement and the completion of the project. We need to do better.

Bill C-227 aims to develop a coordinated national strategy to examine these unique barriers and identify targeted solutions in collaboration with provinces, territories and municipalities. That is what is needed now.

Speaking more specifically about young people, young Canadians today are faced with a housing market that is unlike anything we have seen before. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a home, even a rental. The result is a generation that is struggling to put down roots. This challenge is being felt across Quebec and Canada. Without affordable housing options, young Canadians are faced with difficult decisions, such as turning down a job that is too far away, delaying starting a family or feeling disadvantaged compared to previous generations. This undermines Canada's long-term productivity and economic growth.

To address these issues, two things need to be done: more money must be put in the pockets of young Canadians, and housing must be built. In the past nine months, our government has done exactly that, and I would like to outline the measures we have put in place to promote affordability for all Canadians and to enable young people to pay their mortgage or rent. As soon as we were elected, we eliminated the carbon tax for individuals. We have made generational progress for Quebeckers, notably by granting a tax reduction for the middle class, which allows Quebeckers to keep more money in their pockets. We are talking about savings of approximately $800 per family.

To reduce the upfront cost of buying a new home for young people and stimulate new home construction across the country, we eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. That represents savings of up to $50,000. That is very encouraging. We also know that the FHSA, the tax-free first home savings account, is an extraordinary program. My children contribute to it, as do many young Canadians. It represents tax-sheltered savings of nearly $40,000 toward our young people's first home.

Canadians work hard to afford housing, but high mortgage payments are a barrier to first-time home ownership, especially for young people. That is why we have relaxed certain mortgage criteria to allow more young people to qualify for a loan. More recently, we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to protect Canadians' purchasing power. We will put more money directly into the pockets of millions of families. This allowance will benefit more than 12 million Canadians. Child care and dental care programs and school breakfasts will also help ease the financial burden on families.

In addition to proposing all these measures to make life more affordable for Canadians, we have also been working on building homes.

We have created Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will finance and build affordable housing on a large scale. It will also act as a catalyst for a more productive residential construction industry. This is a bold approach that will have positive spin-offs for young people across Canada.

One of our government's key commitments is to double the pace of housing construction in Canada to 500,000 units in 10 years. By combining access to federal land, development expertise and financing under one roof, Build Canada Homes will enable us to build new housing more quickly and easily. As of today, 4,000 homes will be built on federal land, with a significant portion of that being affordable housing.

In Quebec, things are also moving forward. We have a shared commitment to take action to increase the province's housing supply. The governments of Canada and Quebec are stepping up their collaboration to accelerate housing construction and support community development. Through a joint collaboration table, the two governments will work together to fund housing projects aligned with their shared priorities, to simplify and accelerate approval processes and to ensure better coordination between municipal and community partners.

That is exactly the spirit behind Bill C-227. As the former mayor of a small municipality and an engineer by trade, I am well aware that all of these new housing units will have to be serviced by roads, water systems and sewers. Recognizing that accelerating housing construction requires major infrastructure investments, the Government of Quebec and the federal government have also announced the signing of a Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement.

We will invest close to $1 billion, which Quebec can use in accordance with its policies and local needs to upgrade and develop critical infrastructure, including the drinking water, waste water and storm water infrastructure essential to new housing developments.

These measures and investments and Bill C-227 will provide young people with more housing opportunities. In my riding of Les Pays-d'en-Haut, the average price of a single-family home is $540,000. The average price of a condo is $385,000. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment ranges from $1,200 to $1,500 a month.

Most young people in my riding work in recreation and tourism, whether in restaurants, hotels, shops or ski resorts. They tell me that it is extremely difficult to afford housing on the wages they earn. Many young people are leaving Les Pays-d'en-Haut for other regions where housing is less expensive. That is unacceptable.

Bill C-227 allows us to take another step in the right direction. I can say that we are here for young people. I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will prioritize the demands of our young people and vote in favour of this bill. On behalf of my children and all young people across the country, I thank the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston for his work on this issue.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Brandon—Souris and of Westman. It is an important topic we are discussing here today. I often hear from constituents, when I am back at home and when I am here, about the challenging housing climate we are living in. No part of Manitoba is escaping that.

I represent Brandon, the province's second-largest city. I also represent some of the smallest communities in our province. There seems to be a lack of housing and affordable housing options just about everywhere one goes, regardless of the size of the community. We know that action does need to be taken on this front, so it is good to hear that my colleague, one member of the class of 2025 whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, has brought the bill forward. I am glad to hear that somebody on that side of the aisle is thinking about young people and affordable housing.

Members on the front bench on the Liberal side seem to think everything is doing great, all their initiatives have been a roaring success over the last 10 years, there should be no housing shortages and the programs run perfectly. We know this is not the reality on the ground that our communities and young people across the country are facing when they are trying to get out of their parents' house and into the housing market themselves.

While we appreciate the member from Nova Scotia's bringing this forward, unfortunately it is only another framework, which is part of the problem in terms of why there is a housing shortage in this country. We are very skeptical on this side of the House that it would have any impact on improving the situation. In fact it could quite likely make it worse.

Young Canadians do not need another strategy from the Liberals. They have had a few. They already have the national housing strategy. They already have the housing accelerator fund. They have other programs under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Liberals have all kinds of different initiatives, such as Build Canada Homes, that they have announced and announced.

Almost no homes have been built relative to the amount of money that has been allocated to all the different initiatives, strategies and frameworks. Why is that? It is because the Liberals have put so many barriers in place to actually accessing the money; it is completely burdensome for builders to access it. I hear from them often. Brandon got money under the housing accelerator fund, so I ask why more affordable units are not being built in the city.

The developers, quite honestly, have been very candid with me that there is so much red tape and bureaucratic nonsense at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and hoops to jump through and boxes to tick, that many of them have just completely walked away from dealing with the government and trying to build the units. It is just so difficult to get anything built through it. They do not need to build affordable housing units; they are running successful businesses on their own.

The government needs developers to be doing it, so it should be making it as easy and as accessible as possible for businesses to be incentivized to build affordable housing units and to build homes that people can afford to buy. I do also get concerned that we are often talking just about affordable rental units and not about incentivizing the private sector to build homes and encourage home ownership. Too often the Liberals get sidetracked talking just about the rental market, with not enough time spent focusing on home ownership.

We had hoped that Build Canada Homes might take a different approach. It has been a pretty slow start, but nonetheless we still have hope that the Liberals will perhaps find a way to remove the bureaucracy that they have massively expanded and put in the way, so builders can actually get to work and build homes that Canadians can afford.

Also too often, I must say, programs are focused on the major urban centres in our province. The motion today is talking about young people and affordable housing. I represent a lot of very small communities, as do many others in this chamber. Often, I hear about young people having to leave small rural areas because there is nothing available to buy.

Some of those towns may have just one builder, or they may not even have a builder and would have to bring one in from another community. Those builders are coming in at the request of, perhaps, a retiring farmer who has a little bit of money, and the builder is eager to build a large home for their retirement.

However, there are very few houses of an affordable size being built in our rural communities, which means young people leave. They have good jobs, but they cannot find anywhere to live. They do not want to stay with their parents anymore. They want to get out, live independently and move into that phase of their life, but there is nowhere to live, so they take off for Brandon, Winnipeg, Regina or somewhere else, and we lose them. We lose their job, their spouse's job, and their kids out of the schools. Our rural communities are fading away.

We have to make sure that these programs that the Liberals continue to deliver are accessible to small towns and small municipalities. To some people in this chamber, the city of Brandon, with 56,000 people, is small. I am talking about a town of 1,000 people. Those municipalities do not have a whole lot of extra staff to fill out immensely complicated applications for government grants and programs. They are running as lean as they can possibly run already.

I hear that from builders too. Builders in small towns do not have massive staffs with the time and resources to fill out application programs. Quite often, it is the builders themselves who are doing the books, either very early in the morning or very late at night, and then they are working on a job all day. They do not have time to sit down and spend hours and hours building an application for a large government program.

The Liberals need to stop talking about frameworks and strategies. All that means is red tape, red tape and more red tape. They need to get all of the red tape they have added over the last 10 years out of the way so that people can actually get out there and build homes.

We would strongly encourage our colleague who brought this forward to maybe consider adding some red tape reduction measures to this bill. It would still move through the legislative process, I am sure, with hopefully some measures that would not add to the regulatory burden for builders but actually remove some of that burden. Those measures could get added on to the bill as we move along. At that point, then, it might actually give builders in this country some optimism.

It is also important to recognize that we often hear the Liberals say they do not think we have any solutions. They say all we do is complain all the time. Perhaps it is just that they do not like our solutions, but we have a number of them. I would just like to outline a few of them here today.

One is reducing housing costs by cutting the GST on all new homes under a $1.3-million build cost, saving up to $65,000 on the cost of a new home and $3,000 a year in mortgage payments.

Another is identifying 15% of federal buildings and lands to sell for housing in livable new neighbourhoods within 100 days. That would allow us to build thousands of new homes much faster than the glacial pace that we are seeing.

We would cut building taxes. We need to incentivize municipalities to reduce development charges. We would then reimburse them up to a maximum of $50,000 and scrap the underused housing tax, which costs more to administer than is collected.

We need to remove gatekeepers to fast-track homebuilding through shovel-ready zones that the federal government would create, so that municipalities could then enable builders to get in right away and get the work done. We need to tie federal infrastructure dollars to results. That goes for municipalities as well.

The carrot-and-stick approach is not new. We need to start incentivizing municipalities to bring down development fees, so that builders can build without adding development fees on to the cost of rent. I mean, we could have a building with 15% affordable housing units. The rest of the units in that building could also be reasonably priced, but when municipalities are doubling or tripling their development fees, all that just gets passed on to the consumer, the young people who are trying to rent in this country until they can save up for a mortgage and get into their first home.

Those are the ways that the federal Liberals could use the billions of dollars that are tied up in bureaucratic red tape and actually deliver more affordable homes and units for young Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, as I talk about housing, I would like to also broach the subject of young people, justice and hope.

First, let us talk about our young people. They are buckling under the weight of a triple crisis: unaffordable housing, crushing debt and unemployment, which is two times higher than other generations. In fact, 59% of people under 35 report having serious housing problems. That figure is 38% for the rest of the population. Rents are skyrocketing. The cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Quebec has increased by nearly 8%, while average salaries have only increased by 4.5%. The average income of students in Quebec is approximately $16,500 per year, and they spend an average of $11,220 on housing. That does not leave much at the end of the month.

People are so desperate that 10% of student tenants report sharing a one-bedroom apartment with two other people. Worse still, unemployment among young people aged 15 to 24 soared to nearly 14% in December 2025. It reached a peak of 14.7% in September 2025. That was the highest rate in 15 years.

Youth homelessness has also been on the rise in recent years. An estimated 20% of homeless people in Canada are between the ages of 13 and 24. There are 6,000 young people experiencing homelessness every night, and 35,000 young people experiencing homelessness over the course of a year. This is a generation that is facing challenges, often unable to find housing, deeply in debt, or stuck in precarious employment.

Now let us talk about intergenerational justice. Mortgage debt remains overwhelming. The average rate has risen from 2.5% in 2020 to over 7% in 2023. When they were 25, baby boomers could easily buy a home. With just one or two modest incomes, they could make a down payment, and the payments generally represented one-third of their income. Today, young people need to save for 14 to 20 years to make a 20% down payment. Even with lower interest rates, the absolute price of housing is 10 to 15 times higher when adjusted for inflation. However, incomes have not increased 10 to 15 times. Rather, they have increased two to three times since the 1980s. The result is that, without significant parental assistance, buying a home at age 25 is often impossible for the majority of young people.

Even for me, as someone who is not a baby boomer, it was easy to do that as soon as I started working. When my group of friends and I in the Gaspé were in our 20s, no matter what work we did, it was obvious that we would become homeowners. We were going to work and buy a house. The size could vary, but access to a property was not really an issue in the early 2000s. Now, it absolutely is. These young people feel a sense of injustice that I understand and that we must address.

Let us talk about hope. There is hope; there are solutions out there. There are a multitude of programs that already exist, and the government could invest more in them. We believe that an additional $7 billion should be invested over five years in the rapid housing initiative, and an additional $1.7 billion over five years to address homelessness, which is half of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said would be needed to reduce this tragedy by 50%. It would take an additional $1.5 billion over five years for municipal infrastructure. So there are several things we can do. There is hope, provided the government takes action.

We also believe that the federal government should transfer all of the funding for housing to Quebec with no strings attached. Quebec has already set up an affordable housing program, and we think that the federal government should contribute to it directly.

Until these things happen, the Bloc Québécois will work to streamline federal programs and try to ensure that they align with those of Quebec so that the money goes where it should, to housing for Quebeckers. In order to give hope to our young people and respond to their legitimate aspirations, we need to resolve the alignment issues between Quebec and Ottawa.

Along with the Government of Quebec, the federal government made an announcement in Quebec City on January 21. It was announced that the portion of the Canada housing infrastructure fund earmarked for Quebec was finally being transferred. It was a $1-billion announcement, but the important thing to remember is that this fund was announced in April 2024 by the Trudeau government. Unfortunately, it took until January 2026 before an agreement was reached and the funds could be released.

It is an interesting program because it enables municipalities that want to develop a residential area to seek grants to invest in sewers, water systems and roads. However, as long as Quebec City and Ottawa fail to reach an agreement and as long as Ottawa wants to impose conditions in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, it will delay things. It is easy enough to understand, and it could have a fairly direct impact. If, two years ago, municipalities had already been able to obtain funds to invest in their infrastructure, housing projects could already have been completed. Homes would already be under construction and part of the problem would be solved. However, what happened instead was a series of lengthy negotiations between the federal government, which wanted to impose its conditions, and Quebec, which wanted to defend its jurisdiction.

Housing takes a lot of effort and coordination by all the partners. I see it in my riding. Housing projects get started by organizations and municipal housing offices. Every time, these people have to do cartwheels to move their project forward while meeting the deadlines set by Quebec and the federal government. Last fall, there were times when some projects were in serious jeopardy because Quebec grew tired of waiting for a confirmation, but a federal election was in progress.

We also see that some programs are not properly aligned. That is something this government can work on. I also think that it needs to acknowledge that Quebec has jurisdiction and that its own role is to transfer funds. If that happens, each province will finally be able to set up programs the way they want. Programs will be better suited to provincial realities, and housing can get built. In any case, this is what we propose as a way to give hope, especially to our young people.

As for Bill C‑227, unfortunately, it does not address the hopes of young people and the intergenerational justice we are seeking. We, in the Bloc Québécois, oppose this bill. My colleague spoke about it a few minutes ago. This bill seeks to develop a national housing strategy for young people through consultations. It raises issues of policy consistency and public efficiency.

It is a very short bill that tells us that a national strategy will be developed and that consultations will be held. It is important to be wary of legislative bloat. We know that the government does not need a law to consult young people and the provinces. All it takes is a telephone or a computer and an email. All of my colleagues from all parties here are in fairly constant consultation with groups that have housing projects in their ridings. I am convinced of that. As for the notion of consultation in this bill, it is rather astounding.

Furthermore, developing a strategy when one has already been launched is, unfortunately, an initiative that we consider unnecessary. We believe that the Government of Canada has already consulted sufficiently. What it must do is respect Quebec's jurisdiction and transfer funds to Quebec. That is how to give the provinces the means to act to restore hope to our young people and to re-establish the intergenerational justice that we have unfortunately lost in recent years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Before resuming debate, I would remind members to please be very careful with the way they move papers on their desks. Those sounds are amplified for the interpreters.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-227, an act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians, introduced by the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston.

I represent Spadina—Harbourfront, one of the most densely populated ridings in the country and one of the youngest. In fact, I want to thank my youth council, which is meeting for the first time this evening back in the riding.

According to the 2021 census, 94% of homes in my riding are in buildings with five or more storeys. Our median age is just 32 years old, nearly a decade younger than the national average. Over the past few decades, Spadina—Harbourfront has been transformed with rapid growth, bringing thousands of young people to live, work, play and build their futures in the heart of our city. We have reshaped the Toronto skyline, bringing more people closer to jobs, transit and community. We have created opportunities for young people to live near where they work, study and build their lives.

This growth has not come without pressures, but it offers important lessons for the national housing conversation we have been having over the past several years. One of these lessons is the vital role that non-market housing, particularly co-operative housing, plays in keeping communities livable and inclusive, especially for young and low-income households. Co-operatives like Harbour Channel Housing Co-operative and Arcadia Housing Co-op, in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront, are thriving waterfront communities, where residents share governance, build strong neighbour-to-neighbour support systems and access stable, below-market housing in one of the most expensive areas of our country.

These homes have allowed families, seniors, newcomers and young people to remain in the downtown core for decades. They stand as powerful examples of the type of housing enabled by legislation such as this. The fact that these communities are still thriving today is not accidental. It is the result of deliberate public investment and long-term thinking.

The challenge we now face is not a lack of what works, but a failure to scale it for a new generation of Canadians. A national housing strategy for young Canadians that meaningfully considers co-operative housing alongside student housing, purpose-built rentals and pathways for first-time buyers is not just sensible; it is long overdue. As serious as our government is about building homes, we must also be serious about building the right mix of homes, so young people can actually afford to live in the communities they study in, work in and help to build.

Why is this overdue? It is because our young people today face a housing affordability crisis unlike any generation since the post-war period. For far too many, home ownership is out of reach. Even securing a stable, affordable rental has become a challenge. When young people cannot afford housing or cannot move for housing, the consequences extend far beyond shelter.

As I knock on doors in my riding, I hear the same message again and again. Young people and young families want to stay in the communities they love. They want to build their careers here, raise their children here and remain close to the networks and supports that make urban life possible.

However, the homes we build must reflect the lives people are trying to live. We cannot keep building cities as if they are only for singles and short-term renters. If we want young Canadians to put down roots, our housing supply must include family-friendly homes that make long-term life in our downtowns possible. The ripple effects are obvious: lower productivity and economic growth, and decreased well-being, both over the short and long term of one's life.

The economic case is just as compelling. A 2024 report from the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis found addressing housing unaffordability could generate $24.4 billion in additional disposable income, increase our GDP by $22 billion and create 189,000 jobs, while delivering $5 billion in new tax revenue. These are real, tangible benefits for young Canadians and our entire economy.

When housing instability begins to shape who can move, who can work and who can plan for their future, it stops being only an economic problem and becomes a social one with real consequences for safety, autonomy and equality.

Let us be clear. Housing insecurity is not gender-neutral. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has reported that women are more likely to experience acute housing need, and those rates are higher for racialized women. For young women in particular, the shortage of accessible options, whether it is emergency shelters, transitional housing, co-operative housing or affordable units, can carry serious safety implications.

Without safe and affordable alternatives, some young women cannot leave unsafe and unhealthy living situations. Some remain trapped in abusive relationships simply because they have nowhere else to go. This is why housing is about far more than affordability alone. It is about safety, it is about dignity, and it is about security.

A national housing strategy for young Canadians must also reflect this reality. Housing lives at the intersection of personal autonomy and personal security, and this must find its way into our legislation. This is precisely why Bill C-227 is so important. Establishing a national housing strategy for young Canadians would ensure that federal housing policy responds not only to market pressures but to the social realities that shape young people's lives.

The economic and social benefit of government action to address affordability is clear, and our government understands that. With the launch of Build Canada Homes, the federal government is taking decisive steps to accelerate the construction of affordable housing at scale through a single, streamlined agency. By financing and prioritizing non-profit housing, including transitional, supportive, co-operative and affordable housing, the federal government would be ending a decades-long retreat from building homes that Canadians can truly afford. This would create real opportunities for young Canadians, not only to find housing that meets their needs in the short term but to build the conditions for home ownership in the future.

By easing the costs faced by non-market builders, Build Canada Homes would increase supply of deeply affordable housing, help cool an overheated market where these housing options have not been sufficiently built and ensure that housing policy once again works in the public interest. By establishing a national housing strategy for young Canadians, as Bill C-227 seeks to do, the purpose and impact of Build Canada Homes becomes sharper and stronger, ensuring that federal investments deliver real, generational impact for Canada's young people.

Housing is foundational. When it is unstable, everything else becomes unstable too, especially for young people who are trying to establish themselves. The government is building Canada strong by recognizing housing as essential infrastructure. Bill C-227 builds on that momentum, recognizing that young Canadians face unique barriers in today's housing market and that meeting those challenges requires coordination, data and long-term planning.

The evidence is clear. Addressing housing affordability strengthens our economy, boosts productivity and creates opportunities. Housing insecurity and instability carry real social costs, especially for women and those seeking safety, dignity and independence. Through Build Canada Homes, our government is acting to scale what we know works. Bill C-227 would enhance that effort by ensuring young Canadians are not an afterthought but a focus of our plan.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote in favour of Bill C-227.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is a rumour spreading. It has been around a while, but it lingers. People thought that by now this rumour would be dead, but unfortunately, it still lives on. In almost every corner of Canada, we hear the three big words: Canada feels broken. Why? Why does Canada feel broken? Once we start asking that question, we will get many answers, but at the core of all those things, I see one issue that affects almost every neighbourhood across this country: a housing crisis.

Housing conditions have changed dramatically in recent years. Cost has risen faster than wages. Demand has increased. Supply has not kept pace, and young Canadians are feeling the pressure more than any generation before them. Housing is not just about shelter. It is about economic stability. It is about mental health. It is about whether young people can make a wooden box into a home. Young Canadians are not asking for guarantees or handouts; they are asking for fairness. They want to work. They want to contribute. They want the same opportunities as the generations before them. They want to own a home.

In my province, we face the highest unemployment rate in the country. Add that to rising rents, rising home prices and limited supply, and young people are being forced into impossible choices. Some are staying with their parents. Some are even staying with their grandparents. These are grown men and women, oftentimes older than me, working full-time, yet still having to face these unfavourable choices.

I went to university. I got a degree in civil engineering. Even with a degree that offered great employment like that, in order to afford a home, I still had to work two jobs. I would work week on, week off at a gold mine. On my weeks off, I would work with a consulting company in the oil and gas sector. These are the consequences of the inflationary Liberal decade. Us young people have to work twice as hard to get the same things our parents had.

We are seeing even greater consequences of the lost Liberal decade. Youth shelters are full. Housing wait-lists are growing. Homelessness, once unthinkable at this scale, is now a reality in communities across my province and this country. Over the summer, I was able to have a tour of the Salvation Army homeless shelter in St. John's. I spoke with a few young men in the cafeteria. I heard their stories. They started out not much different than we did.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, they lost hope, and when hope was lost, they searched for something to fill that void. Like many young people, especially young men, they turned to drugs. Why did they lose this hope? As the inquisitive young man that I am, I asked workers at the facility that exact question. A young lady working there came up to me and said, “All these men, they just hit their breaking point. We see these kinds of surges when the economy gets bad. They lose their jobs, which causes stress. They often lose their wives and their families too, and they end up here.” How heartbreaking.

Her statement stuck with me because what we do here in Ottawa does not just affect our economy. It does not just affect unemployment, and it does not just affect housing stats. It affects real people, real Canadians, people who are hurting and looking for hope. Now these men are homeless. They have no jobs, and it is like a dog chasing its tail. Last night, as I was writing this speech, I came up with a revolutionary idea. What if we started building more homes to create more jobs for these young men and to give families homes to live in? I think that is an idea we can all get behind. The question is, how?

Economics 101 is a lesson on supply and demand. As supply increases, the demand decreases. This means that the more homes we have in Canada, the lower the demand will be, and prices will begin stabilizing to make houses more affordable for all Canadians. The solution seems simple: build more homes. Unfortunately, nobody in this country seems to be doing that. Why? Canada has an abundance of land, we have record high unemployment, and we have young families ready to move in. Once we start talking to developers, though, they will quickly tell us it is often the government's fault.

Developers spend years and thousands of dollars trying to acquire the land, the permits, the developmental fees and the approvals, oftentimes having to work with three levels of government. Once again, the developers want our government and bureaucrats to simply get out of the way, but the Liberal government wants to do the opposite. The Liberals now want to introduce a new bill so they would be directly involved in maintaining the illusion that they are trying to put out the fire they started.

This is not the first time that the Liberals have done this. In 2017, they launched a national housing strategy that was administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If they already have the solution, why do they need to repackage the same old plan? They spent over $115 billion to build 170,000 homes. That works out to $676,000 per home. The money was wasted on bureaucracy.

Can members imagine how many homes we could have built if the Liberals had worked with the Conservatives to remove the GST on new home builds? Taking off GST would have instantly saved 5%, which would have encouraged thousands of Canadians to build new homes right across this country. By partnering with Canadians, we could have stretched our dollar and built 95% more homes with that same dollar.

Instead of letting Canadians keep their own money, the Liberals want to keep taxing things such as housing, which they call a human right. Then they give that money to corporations and landlords to build homes, not for young people to own, but to rent. “Own nothing and be happy” is the slogan of the Liberals' plan for their new world order.

Young people do not want to rent their whole lives; they want to own a home, a place where they can paint their kids' bedrooms and build a fence for their dog. They want to own a home that builds equity toward retirement and gives them pride and hope for the future. This cannot be done by building rentals; it is achieved by letting the free market do its thing.

For generations, we had a system. Young people would buy a small starter home from a middle-aged family. This allowed them to build equity and their careers. When it was time to have kids, they could sell off their starter home to another young family and afford to build their new family home, perhaps even their dream home. Once their new home was built and their family raised, couples often decided to sell their home to the next generation as they downsized for retirement. Using their equity from the sale, they could build a small home for retirement. Once their lives came to an end, the family would sell off the property so that a young couple could start their journey on this housing cycle. Hakuna matata, it was the circle of life.

When bureaucrats got in the way, they damaged the whole cycle. It became too difficult for people to build new homes and move up the housing ladder, so they just stayed. No homes were built, the demand grew and prices skyrocketed.

Give a man a fish and he is thankful; give five men a fish and the whole village wants one. That is the problem with handouts: Everybody gets in line with their hand out. Investors no longer want to build homes with their own money because they are in line, waiting to see if they will win the Liberal lottery. Even in housing, instead of making housing incentives that would encourage all Canadians to build homes, the Liberals want to pick winners and losers.

Last year, the Liberal government announced that it wanted to build programs similar to the one described in this bill to build modular homes. Is it a coincidence that, when our Prime Minister was the chair of Brookfield, it acquired a modular home company called Modulaire Group? I think Canadians are curious, and even anxious, to see how much Modulaire, Brookfield and our Prime Minister will financially benefit from the programs in this bill.

It is time to build homes and hope. It is time to be more focused on getting our hammers up instead of our elbows.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston for his right of reply.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues who spoke today to my bill, Bill C-227. In particular, I want to thank my colleagues from Spadina—Harbourfront and Les Pays-d'en-Haut for their comments.

I want to touch on a few things here quickly. The first is that one of the privileges I have had in my life, in addition to being here, was serving as a member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly for about four years. I served most of that time as the housing critic for my party. One of the things I learned during that experience is that housing, more than any other issue facing our country, demands collaboration, co-operation and teamwork between levels of government. It is simply not possible to say one level of government by itself is going to fix the housing crisis or make any difference for anybody, especially for young people.

Cities set bylaws. Cities do zoning. Provinces provide affordable housing and deal with homelessness. The federal government, in my view, has a critical role to play to set policy, set strategy and put forward a system so that, in all corners of this country, from Victoria to Halifax to Nunavut, and all the places in between, young people have hope for the future. We will not achieve that if we simply go into our silos and say, “The federal government only does this, while the province only does that and the city only does that.” That is one of the reasons we have ended up in the situation we are in today.

I also want to touch on one other comment that was made during the debate. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe called the bill useless. That is offensive. It is not offensive to me, as I have thick skin and it does not bother me, but I will say that it is offensive to the young people across this country whom I spoke to over the last number of months while developing this bill.

I visited people at the University of Ottawa two weeks ago. Dozens of students in their late teens and early twenties whom I spoke to came up to me afterwards and said, “This is interesting. What can we do? How can we help?” They came to my office here on the Hill a couple of days later, filmed videos with me and put the message out there that the government is interested in solving the housing crisis for young Canadians. It is offensive to the young Canadians I met at Saint Mary's University in my hometown of Halifax and the students in Nova Scotia who are interested in making sure that they are part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. That is the essence of what I have put forward today.

My colleague from Brandon—Souris has a background very similar to mine in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. He talked about red tape reduction measures, which is an interesting step forward.

What I would ask is that all of us work together to bring this bill forward to committee, sharpen it and make it as good as possible so that young Canadians have hope and a vision for the future, so that all those people whom I have spoken to over the last number of months feel that the federal government and all parties have their back on this issue, because I know, on this side of the House, we have their backs.