Debates of March 13th, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first-time homebuyers need supply and affordability. That means more homes being built in communities across Canada, not another federal bureaucracy. We need to be cutting unnecessary taxes and lowering material costs. Speeding up approvals would give young Canadians a real chance to own a home rather than staying in their parents' basements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, the badly misnamed Build Canada Homes act.

Before getting into some of the problems with Build Canada Homes, let me just outline the very real housing crisis that this country faces. After 10 years of the Liberals, housing costs have doubled. In fact, housing costs are now 50% higher than they are in the U.S. Consequently, many young Canadians cannot afford a new home. The aspiration of home ownership has become unattainable, something that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. The Liberals have literally priced an entire generation of Canadians out of the market.

What is the root of the problem? The root of the problem overall is one of supply. The reason housing is expensive is that we are not building enough of it. We are not building enough homes fast enough. Indeed, we are building fewer homes today than we were in 1972, at a time when Canada had half the population we have today.

According to CMHC, Canada needs to build anywhere from 430,000 to half a million new homes for a sustained period, year upon year, to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that mark. In fact, in 2025, new housing starts languished at 259,000, and according to CMHC data, the trajectory is not a positive one. The projection from CMHC is that new housing starts are trending downward year upon year, falling to a mere 212,000 new housing starts in 2028, which is less than half the number of new homes needed to restore affordability.

We enter into Build Canada Homes, which is the Prime Minister's brainchild to solve Canada's housing crisis. What is Build Canada Homes? Well, it is about getting the federal government into the business of building homes. It would establish a Crown corporation wherein the federal government would act as a real estate developer for affordable housing.

The overriding problem with Build Canada Homes conceptually is that it seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. In Canada, we are not lacking real estate developers. We have plenty of real estate developers, but that is what Build Canada Homes is. It is about the federal government acting as a real estate developer.

The real problems that we face when it comes to housing are layer upon layer of red tape, regulation, development charges and taxes, which have discouraged builders from building. Indeed, if one looks at building permits in Canada, we rank 34 out of the 35 OECD countries. It takes, on average, 250 days for a building permit to be issued in Canada. By comparison, for a residential building permit in the U.S., the time is, on average, a month, and in some cases, they are issued in the span of a week.

The source of the layers of red tape and regulation largely falls at the municipal level with big city mayors and councils that have acted as gatekeepers. These local gatekeepers have created some of the most unaffordable, most expensive housing markets in the world. Vancouver is the most extreme example, being the third-most unaffordable housing market in the world, but other cities, such as Toronto, are not far behind. According to analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute, gatekeepers, with their red tape and regulation, have added $1.3 million to the cost of the average home in Vancouver and $350,000 in Toronto.

Given that, is it any wonder that we are not building the homes that we need and that we have a supply issue that has resulted in housing being very expensive, pushing Canadians right out of the market? In the face of that, the solution, intuitively, is to get the gatekeepers out of the way to let builders build. To that end, Conservatives have put forward a number of common-sense proposals.

For example, we proposed the building homes not bureaucracy act. Under this proposed legislation, federal infrastructure dollars would, in part, be tied to the building of new homes to municipalities, so that municipalities that sped up permitting and increased the housing supply would receive a building bonus, whereas those municipalities that insisted on being gatekeepers would see a similar percentage or the same percentage of federal infrastructure dollars withheld.

However, we did not stop there. We are calling for the cutting of the GST on all new homes. That would save the average family $65,000 on the purchase of a new home. The Liberals promised something similar during the election campaign. What they delivered instead is to take the GST off new homes for first-time homebuyers. The problem with that, of course, is that very few first-time homebuyers purchase a brand-new home, meaning that the Liberals' GST cut helps very few purchasers.

Conservatives have also called for the government to take action to reduce development charges. This is something that the Prime Minister campaigned on. In fact, the Prime Minister quite correctly noted that taxes can contribute to 30% of the cost of a new home. When it comes to actually doing something about it, we have not seen action from the Prime Minister, just talk.

Conservatives have proposed taking the capital gains tax off reinvestments in Canada, including reinvestments in housing, which would help unlock billions of dollars in Canada's home building sector. In contrast, what are the Liberals offering? They are offering Build Canada Homes, which does nothing to address the underlying cost factors that have stifled supply, resulting in housing being unaffordable due to a lack of supply.

Now, what will Build Canada Homes do? One thing it will certainly do is build a big, fat new bureaucracy, a $13-billion bureaucracy, but what it will not do is build new homes. In fact, according to analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Build Canada Homes will build approximately 5,000 new units per year. That is 1% of the half million new units that we need to restore affordability. This is the brainchild of the Prime Minister, his solution to the housing crisis. He said during the election that he would accelerate housing at speeds not seen in generations. He has put forward a bureaucracy that will build 5,000 new homes.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, Build Canada Homes is badly misnamed because it will not build new homes. It will build bureaucracy. We do not need bureaucracy. We need to get gatekeepers out of the way and let builders build the homes that Canadians need.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps more of an invitation than a question, but I would very much like to offer to my hon. colleague an opportunity to come to Winnipeg and visit, in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre, significant developments that are being made on former public lands to help support indigenous communities and build the local economy more broadly.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that Build Canada Homes allows us to leverage these opportunities in ridings like mine, which are going to help spur development for much-needed growth and to support communities that have historically been disadvantaged?

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

Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes would build 5,000 new units at an extraordinary cost. It would be totally inefficient and would not achieve the results that are needed to restore affordability.

By the way, it is a concept that is not particularly new. In fact it has been tried and tested, and it failed, as recently as the last few years in New Zealand. The socialist government there put forward KiwiBuild, which had the target of building 100,000 new affordable housing units in 10 years. After six years, KiwiBuild managed to build 2,400 units.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that we may simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy. Will setting up a Crown corporation give the government the flexibility needed to respond to the housing crisis? That is also my concern.

Could the government not have addressed these concerns by simply transferring Build Canada Homes funding to Quebec and the provinces, who have jurisdiction over housing construction? Does my colleague agree with me that the government is creating a centralized structure that may serve no purpose, when it could simply have transferred the money to Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a role for the federal government to play when it comes to working with provinces and municipalities. In that regard, I concur with the hon. member, but at the root of the problem is supply.

The reason we have an issue of supply is red tape and bureaucracy due to policies of gatekeepers. We need to get gatekeepers out of the way, cut taxes and reduce barriers in order to increase supply, build the homes that Canadians need and bring home affordability. Conservatives have put forward a number of concrete measures to do just that.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we face a situation similar to the one we faced after the Second World War, with millions of people looking for homes. The solution then was quite different and quite a bit more effective. By 1947, Canada was building 80,000, 90,000 or as many as 100,000 homes per year. Not one Crown corporation was involved, though I should say there was only one, CMHC, and that was explicitly for veterans. How was it done? The private sector did it by responding to demand at the time, and the government helped by getting out of the way.

I wonder if the member could explain to the Liberals how that possibly happened without a giant bureaucracy to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it were a matter of building bureaucracies and spending money, we would have more housing and the most affordable housing in the world, because the government has added layer upon layer of bureaucracy. It has spent tens of billions of dollars around so-called affordable housing, but at the end of the day the results are that fewer and fewer Canadians can enter the market. Housing has never been more unaffordable than it is today after 10 years of the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of housing, he built six houses, and the Conservative policy today says, “Just get out of the way.”

We understand the Conservatives' policy position on housing, but what makes the member believe that we would have more houses being built under the past policy of the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, the past record of the Harper government was a solid one. We did not have a housing crisis in this country at the time. Housing costs were half of what they are today. The idea that a first-time homebuyer would be priced out of the market was not the reality in 2014 or—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recall very well the Prime Minister's rhetoric during the election campaign when he introduced this initiative, Build Canada Homes, as part of a strategy that would allow the federal government to support the forestry industry. I have to say that we are disappointed. I will come back to that.

It is very commendable for the government to want to respond to the housing crisis, but is creating a Crown corporation really the only solution? As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. Generally speaking, federal government initiatives take a long time to be felt on the ground in Quebec. In addition, housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I have to wonder why the government did not simply transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a position to undertake this effort to build more housing. I have to wonder why the government wants to create this infrastructure.

However, if we look on the bright side, there are some worthwhile announcements here, such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund. I know that many municipalities raised the issue with us before the last election campaign. That was something they were calling for. Along with the housing crisis, municipalities are also experiencing various infrastructure-related problems, whether it be with the water or sewer systems. This is a major concern for municipalities, so it is encouraging to know that Quebec has been allocated $1 billion from that budget to help deal with the crisis. That was one important aspect. Another important aspect of the housing crisis is the need for construction materials. Wood is the best construction material, and I want to make a quick aside to talk about that.

I do not want to get too far off topic, but I do want to say a little more about the forestry industry. Right now, this industry is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. The industry's lifeblood has been weakened by absolutely appalling conditions, including insect infestations, the historic wildfires in 2023, the caribou order, which created a lot of concern in the industry, and the infamous softwood lumber dispute, which has been dragging on and undermining the entire sector in Quebec. Quite frankly, the softwood lumber industry is now at a crossroads, and its survival is threatened in many regions of Quebec. The vital role it plays for many communities has been seriously weakened. In short, we are well aware that we can no longer rely on the commodity product model, the ubiquitous two-by-four, in the forestry sector. It makes us too dependent on the United States. We must urgently come up with a strategy that would enable us to produce more value-added products. To do that, we need to transform the forestry industry.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has spoken on a few occasions about wanting to revitalize the forestry sector. That is very commendable, but given the severity of the crisis facing the forestry sector, we cannot wait for the federal government to roll out a strategy. Immediate action is needed. It is also important to keep in mind that we will not be able to fully replace the American market by increasing domestic use with a program like Build Canada Homes or by developing new markets. In these circumstances, it seems futile, to me at least, to believe that the industry will make it through this crisis without substantial financial support from the federal government.

The major players in the forestry sector are facing a liquidity crisis that is closing off any opportunities for investment in infrastructure and equipment. The federal government needs to understand that. The forestry industry is being asked to invest in new equipment so it can supply the engineered wood needed to build homes at the worst possible time in the forestry industry crisis, that is, when forestry companies have virtually no access to cash.

In my view, before even thinking about implementing a strategy like Build Canada Homes, the government must ensure that it can help as many stakeholders in the forestry industry as possible continue to operate.

Therein lies the problem. So far, the government's actions do not seem to take into account the fact that the forestry sector operates like a chain. When one link in the chain is cut, all related economic stakeholders are weakened. By failing to protect sawmill operations and the operations of small forestry businesses, the government is putting the entire forestry industry at risk.

Quebec's ministry of natural resources and forestry estimates that, since April 2017, when the countervailing and anti-dumping duties came into effect, 35 plants have permanently closed and 29 others have temporarily closed. That represents a net loss for Quebec of 2,158 permanent jobs and 1,927 part-time jobs.

Let us not forget that this whole fiasco mainly affects Quebec's disadvantaged regions. Right now, the softwood lumber dispute is resulting in a 45% decrease in revenues for sawmills that export their products to the U.S. market. I do not need to point out that no industry can survive with a 40% cut to their profit margins.

With countervailing and anti-dumping duties, plus a 10% tariff, this sector is facing the highest tariffs in Canada, yet the government refuses to take action. Not only is it failing to prioritize softwood lumber negotiations, it is also refusing to introduce a duty buy-back scheme, as industry representatives are calling for. I will explain this later.

In response to the crisis, the government announced a loan guarantee program in collaboration with the Business Development Bank of Canada in early August. Seven months have passed. Having spoken to many stakeholders in the forestry sector, I can assure members that no one is feeling the impact of the program put in place by the federal government. Without a short-term resolution to the liquidity crisis facing the forestry industry, by 2026 we will see many companies significantly wind down their operations, leading to the the loss of thousands of jobs and the accelerated decline of numerous communities that depend on forestry.

I say this because the first thing the federal government should do is protect Canada's capacity to manufacture building materials to ensure these materials remain accessible when Build Canada Homes is rolled out. That is what the federal government should be doing.

How can it go about it? How can we maintain our capacity to produce construction materials? It is fairly simple. The forestry industry will not be able to turn things around overnight. It will take months and months to rebuild its capacity. It will take a fairly long time before it is able to supply materials for the construction of new homes.

If we want to keep jobs in the forestry industry in the meantime, the only solution is for the federal government to accept the proposal that was made by industry stakeholders and the major unions. We, too, have been pushing for the government to accept that proposal.

At the end of every month, the government could easily buy back 50% of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties from people who sell softwood lumber to the United States. That way the government could keep lumber mills operational and ensure that, when its Build Canada Homes strategy is deployed, we have an industry that is capable of supplying lumber in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, through a joint collaboration table, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec agreed to work together to fund affordable housing projects aligned with their shared priorities. On this side of the House, I am pleased to sit with more than 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec who understand the importance of working together to address housing needs.

In light of this formalized collaboration between the two levels of government, will the Bloc Québécois member vote in favour of the bill to create the Build Canada Homes Crown corporation, or will the Bloc Québécois decide to oppose it by voting to block housing construction in Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the agreement with Quebec and its $1-billion infrastructure funding was a good thing.

I certainly will not stand in the way of housing construction. It is the government's ineptitude that is killing one of the economic sectors that is essential to housing construction: softwood lumber. The federal government is literally allowing this sector in Quebec to die. There has been no negotiation to resolve the tariff crisis that is affecting the softwood lumber sector. I am not hearing anyone across the way express concern for forestry workers or their plight. Sawmills might eventually get a retooling program, but they are all in the process of closing down.

I am not the one slowing down housing construction in Canada. The government's inaction is to blame.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every time the government has an issue, it either throws money at it or creates another bureaucracy. Would the hon. member agree?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the bureaucracy issue. I do not believe that creating a Crown corporation is the way to solve the housing crisis.

The simplest solution would have been to take the money associated with this program and transfer it directly to Quebec and the provinces, which have the capacity to build these housing units. However, the federal government likes to slap a little Canadian flag on its measures and continues to be a little less efficient than it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

It is rather shocking to see that, throughout his speech, my colleague pointed out the lack of support for the forestry industry, which will be vital for the housing construction, but nobody on the other side has responded. What does my colleague have to say about that?

When he says that the $1 billion is a good thing and a good start, he is right. However, what does he think of the fact that this $1 billion represents 16.6% of the amount, while Quebec's share of the population is 22%?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague so eloquently highlighted is the injustice that Quebec has become accustomed to.

Specific sectors of the Quebec economy are overlooked when it comes to government policy. Which two sectors are currently subject to the highest tariffs? They are the aluminum sector, which is predominantly based in Quebec, and the softwood lumber sector.

Is anyone in government expressing concern about those two sectors? All we hear about are the gas, oil and automotive industries. That is Canadian history in all its glory. That has been the case for the last 30 or 40 years.

There is a fairly simple solution: independence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member. The federal government has programs that really promote things such as housing co-ops. My question for the member is this: Does he make any attempt to communicate with his constituents about programs the federal government is offering from which they would actually benefit, such as housing co-ops and things of that nature, including, in the future, this particular corporation being established today?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are federal programs to support housing co-operatives. It is only natural for an MP to support projects in their constituency. That is simply part of an MP's job.

What I wish the member for Winnipeg North would take away from my speech today is that the government is putting the cart before the horse. The government is creating a framework without first securing the materials that are logistically required for housing construction. That is what my colleague should worry about.

Creating a framework to address the housing crisis without taking care of the underlying logistics makes no sense.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-20, a piece of legislation purportedly aiming to address the housing crisis in Canada. We know that the Liberals are talking about the legislation in the light of believing that it would build Canadian homes, but we know from reading through the legislation and from the past work, after 10 years or 11 years of Liberal governments, that it would only build more Canadian bureaucracy.

There is no question that we are in a housing crisis. We see it right across the country in communities big and small, whether large cities like Toronto or the small rural communities of northern Ontario that I represent. It is the result of Liberal policies and a high tax-and-spend agenda that has driven up the costs of housing construction, interest rates and mortgage rates, and has led to a situation where people right across all walks of life, at different income levels and different ages, are struggling to find appropriate housing. As I mentioned, this is something we see right in northwestern Ontario.

I do not know how many seniors I have spoken to who are looking to downsize but cannot find an appropriate place. They are in too big a home. They want to be able to downsize and to move out of their home. They want to allow a young working family to be able to buy their home, but they are unable to do so. As a result, an entire generation of young Canadians are being priced out of home ownership. Mortgage rates are rising, and many people, even those who have a home, perhaps even their dream home, are now worried they are not going to be able to continue making payments. In fact, Canadians are carrying record household debt of $2.6 trillion, and most of that is from mortgages.

There is no question as well that homebuilding is trending down. The Liberal government likes to talk a big game about building housing and other infrastructure at speeds never before seen, but homebuilding has been trending down under Liberal governments over the last 11 years, including under the current Prime Minister. From spring to fall last year, 26% fewer permits were issued to build homes. This is a dramatic decrease, showing that the government's policies are continuing not only to not address the issue but also to make the issue even worse.

We see it right across the country in the headlines. I would like to look at a few headlines from the real estate section in The Globe and Mail today. I will point out that The Globe and Mail is not necessarily known for its street cred as a Conservative newspaper. Nonetheless, we see, “Townhouse seller in Bolton accepts bid $24,000 under asking”. There is also “Five bidders vie for semi-detached in [Toronto]” and “Buyer waits for Calgary condo price to come within range”.

These are just a few headlines from today's paper. We see this over and over, week after week, right across the country. The Liberals have created a housing market where buyers cannot buy, sellers cannot sell and builders cannot build.

How does that look locally? Of course, what is going on in northwestern Ontario is not likely to be captured in a national newspaper, unfortunately, but in northwestern Ontario, the city I live in, Kenora, currently has a shortage of 1,620 units, and that deficit is projected to grow to 2,500 units by 2031 as population grows and service demands increase. This has led to rising rents and home prices, of course.

Businesses and organizations are also reporting difficulties attracting workers to the region and retaining them, due to the lack of housing and rental options. Many business owners are looking into buying houses that would be owned by the business, strictly for their workers to live in, because there is no other way of bringing workers to the region or keeping them there.

In northwestern Ontario, in Red Lake, I was speaking with the mayor last night, and he told me that the community must build at least 40 new homes over the next decade, with an expected population increase of 1,900. That population increase they are expecting is good news. It comes from new mining developments in the region and job growth, with 1,000 jobs at the Kinross Great Bear project. First Mining Gold is bringing in 600 jobs, and Frontier Lithium is bringing over 700 jobs. In addition, there is an expansion of the current Evolution Mining operation by 300 people. West Red Lake Gold Mines is also looking to hire another 200 people.

These are just a couple of local examples of the massive gap in housing that exists, but in northwestern Ontario, I think we can see some of the solutions to the housing crisis, namely the land we have. There is a lot of land in northwestern Ontario, and indeed, a lot of land right across the country. Much of it is either vacant land or properties that can be used for housing development. I would include in that the underused and, quite frankly, deteriorating Health Canada-owned properties in Sioux Lookout. I implore the government, once again, to release these properties for housing development to help address the massive gap in housing that we see in the community of Sioux Lookout. It is a hub of the north and a service centre for many remote first nations.

We see it in Ear Falls as well. Ear Falls is an interesting community. It is about 336 square kilometres and has a population of less than 1,000. There is a lot of space to build in Ear Falls. There is nothing but space. In fact, there are even many lots that are serviced for housing development in Ear Falls. They are ready to go. Residents in Ear Falls are hoping as well to capitalize on some of the mining activity that we are seeing in the Red Lake and Ear Falls region, but they need to be able to build the houses to make that happen.

I would note as well that the government is always talking a big game when it comes to first nations but not following through. That is certainly the case when it comes to housing in first nations. We have seen a number of reports, whether on housing, drinking water or other critical infrastructure, where the government is spending a lot of money, making a lot of announcements and creating a lot of programs, but the results are not changing. Life is not improving in the communities. I am proud to represent 38 first nations across Treaties 3, 5 and 9, and each of these communities has their own unique housing challenges.

We have seen reports from the Auditor General, which have repeated that the government is failing when it comes to first nations housing. The Auditor General has pointed out that, despite massively increasing spending, as I mentioned, the Liberals are not meeting their obligations. In fact, homes are being built without being up to code. The prices are skyrocketing because of red tape and a lack of competition in the builders that are available to build these homes. However, instead of addressing these concerns, the Liberal government just keeps throwing money at the issue, and not just in first nations but right across the country. The Liberals are creating more bureaucracy, and communities are not receiving adequate housing as a result.

When we look at the Liberal approach overall over the last 10 years, they have failed to recognize that housing is a crisis of their own policies and of their own making. Under their watch, housing prices have doubled, and many young Canadians have given up completely on their dream of home ownership. The Liberals have now admitted that it is a crisis, but their answer is only to create another multi-billion dollar housing bureaucracy, their fourth housing bureaucracy, which is only going to construct 1% of the promised homes they need. They promised 500,000 per year, and in reality, housing starts are expected to fall to just 212,000 per year by 2028.

However, Conservatives have a solution. We do not support adding more bureaucratic red tape to the housing sector. That is why we would cut the GST on new homes under $1.3 million, which would save families up to $65,000 and unleash new buildings. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, ensuring that municipalities must permit at least 15% or more for homebuilding each year. We would cut development charges by 50%, something the Liberals have promised but have failed or refused to do after being elected. We would also end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in the country's homebuilding sector.

It is clear that only Conservatives have a plan to restore the Canadian promise of home ownership by axing bureaucracy and taxes on homebuilding, requiring municipalities to issue more permits and letting builders build the homes we need.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to correct an error I made in my remarks earlier. Tuesday is my 25th wedding anniversary, not my 20th, and my husband let me know immediately when I left the chamber. I wish a happy anniversary to Mike.

To the member opposite, we agree that we need to see housing prices come down. We have had a housing bubble since the 1980s, so when we are seeing homes selling under their asking price when we increase the supply, that is the housing bubble starting to deflate. When we increase housing, we create competition, both with new homes and the ones for resale.

I am just curious about development charges. I was a city councillor for six years. I wonder if the member opposite knows that if we cut development charges, and he voted against supporting infrastructure, that is a direct download of the cost of infrastructure to the property taxpayer.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the member that she ran on a platform to cut development charges. This is something the Liberal government promised it was going to do in the election campaign and, after being elected, has completely walked away from. It is one of many solutions I have laid out, solutions to address the Liberal-made housing crisis. We know that housing prices have doubled since they took office in 2015. It has priced many young Canadians completely out of home ownership altogether.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague's husband. If 25 years have felt like 20 to her, that is a good sign for their relationship. It means that time is flying by.

On a more serious note, I have a question for my Conservative colleague. I would like him to comment on the fact that the government is creating a new centralizing structure that will incur administrative costs, among other things, rather than transferring the money to the provinces, which have jurisdiction over housing.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. Does he agree with that?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the premise that the government is creating another Ottawa-knows-best bureaucracy that is not going to be effective. I would submit to the member that we should look at ways of incentivizing the provinces and the municipalities to get more homes built. That is part of what I mentioned in my remarks, tying infrastructure dollars that municipalities receive to homebuilding permits. This would ensure that we are not just giving a blank cheque and expecting that something is going to happen with that, and that these dollars are going toward houses being built, doing everything we can as a federal partner to work with municipalities and provinces, and doing all we can to incentivize that development.