House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was iran.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Export and Import Permits Act Second reading of Bill C-233. The bill aims to amend the Export and Import Permits Act to close dangerous loopholes in Canada's arms export regime, particularly the exemption for exports to the United States. Supporters argue it ensures Canada's international obligations and prevents human rights violations. Opponents, including the Bloc and Conservatives, warn it is too rigid, could harm Canadian industry, and strain alliances and the crucial defence relationship with the U.S. 6900 words, 1 hour.
Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9 Members debate a motion to expedite Bill C-9, which aims to combat hate propaganda, hate crimes, and protect access to religious sites. Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the motion, citing Conservative filibustering and the urgent need to address rising hate-motivated violence. Conservatives oppose limiting debate, arguing the bill, particularly the removal of the religious exemption, threatens freedom of religion and expression, and that the government is censoring discussion on a "censorship bill." 15800 words, 2 hours.
Canada Post Corporation Act First reading of Bill C-262. The bill aims to modernize and standardize direct-to-consumer shipping of Canadian wine, beer, and spirits across provincial borders, creating a national framework to replace current provincial rules. 300 words.
Build Canada Homes Act Second reading of Bill C-20. The bill aims to establish Build Canada Homes, a Crown corporation, to increase affordable housing supply and promote efficient building techniques. The Liberal government states it will fast-track construction, use federal lands, and leverage partnerships, backed by a $13 billion investment. Conservatives criticize it as a fourth bureaucracy that will not solve the housing crisis, citing past Liberal failures and proposing tax cuts and reduced red tape instead. The Bloc Québécois argues housing is provincial jurisdiction and advocates for unconditional federal transfers to Quebec. 26100 words, 3 hours.
Iran and the Middle East Members debate the hostilities in Iran and the Middle East and their impact on Canadians abroad. The Liberals emphasize de-escalation, civilian protection, and consular support for Canadians, while Conservatives criticize the government's "incoherent and contradictory" position on U.S. air strikes. The Bloc Québécois stresses the importance of consulting allies and preparing contingency plans, and the NDP condemns the strikes as illegal under international law, urging a return to diplomacy. 31600 words, 4 hours.
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Mr. Speaker, being an engineer and formerly the mayor of a small town, I think the more engineers we have in this place, the better off we are going to be.
I would like to have the member's comments on how Build Canada Homes would use prefab housing and modular housing to lower the costs for young families in all of the country.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, during the constituency week, I toured a prefab housing factory in my riding that is gearing up for production. People there are really excited about the federal investment in prefabricated housing, because they see it as a way, once those factories are at scale, to produce much-higher-quality housing at a lower production rate versus doing it on site.
Most countries across the world, including in Europe, have gone in that direction. It is a tremendous opportunity not only for businesses and industry but also for homebuyers, at the end of the day.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, they are not even hiding it anymore. The previous member was asking about modular homebuilding. It is interesting that Brookfield just acquired a modular homebuilding operation. This is going to be the green slush fund all over again.
Would the member not agree that these big institutional investors in the Canadian housing market may be a big problem?
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it embarrassing that the members opposite continuously bring up conspiracy theories in the House of Commons, so I am not going to acknowledge the premise of that question. Suffice it to say, we are taking tangible action to build more housing that Canadians need.
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at second reading to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.
The housing crisis is hitting hard across the country. Too many families, too many young people, too many seniors are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Too many people are priced out of the market. We have a collective responsibility to take ambitious, thorough and creative action.
Bill C-20 is a strategic response. By making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation, we are giving it operational independence, the ability to take calculated risks and the governance necessary to achieve large-scale results, while remaining fully accountable to Parliament and Canadians.
Backed by an initial investment of $13 billion announced in the 2025 budget, Build Canada Homes will have the tools it needs to build more housing that is more affordable, more quickly. A clear definition of affordable housing is housing that does not exceed 30% of a household's pre-tax income, based on regional realities.
Beyond the structures and numbers, this bill is first and foremost a partnership project with the provinces and territories. Examples include the agreements reached between Quebec and Nova Scotia; the partnerships with indigenous communities, such as the agreement in principle signed between Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; and the partnerships with municipalities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has clearly welcomed this measure. Other examples include the partnerships with non-profit organizations, housing co-ops and private developers that are ready to build.
I would now like to talk about my riding of Sherbrooke. The housing crisis is very real in my community. Vacancy rates remain very low. Families, students and vulnerable people have serious needs.
Then again, Sherbrooke is also a laboratory for innovation. It is a vibrant university town, driven by the Université de Sherbrooke and the Sherbrooke CEGEP, where population growth is accompanied by a remarkable entrepreneurial spirit.
Our developers are not just builders. They are partners in social and economic development. They have been able to think up human-scale projects that are integrated into their neighbourhood, promoting diversity and architectural quality. A number of recent projects in Sherbrooke illustrate that creativity: mixed-income housing projects, which combine market-priced housing with affordable units; projects that incorporate community spaces and local services; initiatives that prioritize wood, energy efficiency and sustainable practices. That is exactly the spirit that Build Canada Homes wants to encourage.
Thanks to its new Crown corporation structure, Build Canada Homes will be able to make better use of public lands, particularly by integrating federal expertise in real estate development; deploy flexible financial tools to support complex arrangements; encourage modern construction methods, including prefabricated housing; and support non-commercial and community housing where the market alone is not enough.
In Sherbrooke, as elsewhere, we are seeing the emergence of a new generation of developers who understand that profitability and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bill C‑20 is creating the conditions needed to amplify that momentum.
This is not about replacing the market, but about complementing it, structuring it and stimulating it where the needs are greatest. The CMHC will continue to play its key role. Build Canada Homes will focus on persistent gaps, non-market housing, the strategic use of public lands and the structural transformation of our capacity to build.
We need a streamlined organization focused solely on delivering housing. We are already getting results. In just a few months, Build Canada Homes has launched its national portal, published its investment policy framework, issued requests for qualifications for thousands of units on federal lands and signed major memoranda of understanding. That is not theory. It is action.
The developers I meet in Sherbrooke talk about clear needs: predictability, quick decision-making and financial flexibility.
By becoming a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be able to hold assets, invest directly, enter into complex transactions and act with the agility required in a rapidly changing market. This will enable us to support more meaningful projects, such as housing for women fleeing violence, adapted housing for people with disabilities, cooperative projects led by community-based organizations and residential complexes for seniors who wish to remain in their community. We will do this with local workers and businesses.
Our buy Canadian policy aims to mobilize public funds to strengthen our economic sovereignty. In an uncertain global context, investing in housing also means investing in our industrial capacity, our materials and our expertise.
In Sherbrooke, this means supporting entrepreneurs, engineers, construction workers and the entire regional supply chain. Housing is a key economic policy. Every home built generates activity, jobs and tax revenue. Every completed project contributes to the attractiveness of our region and the vitality of our neighbourhoods.
Bill C‑20 is a bold and necessary change in the way we plan, fund and build housing. It gives Build Canada Homes the independence and means to act. It recognizes that governments, municipalities, community organizations, co-ops and private developers have to work together to succeed. It taps into the very real energy I see in Sherbrooke, that ability to turn ambitious ideas into tangible projects for the good of families, now and into the future.
By passing Bill C‑20, we are sending a clear message: We take the housing crisis seriously, we trust our partners on the ground and we choose to act ambitiously for Sherbrooke, for Quebec and for all Canadians.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering how the Liberal member opposite can square the circle. When we add more bureaucracy, we also add less productivity.
How are they expecting to get more houses built in a more efficient manner when they are increasing bureaucracy, which is the cause of the housing crisis in Canada?
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, by transforming Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, we are creating a specialized organization focused exclusively on housing construction. We are also giving it the full financial and legal independence it needs to act quickly, enter complex agreements and use public lands effectively.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with workers at a factory, a sorting facility, in my riding. The first issue they raised was housing. I was asked how we could ensure that housing gets built faster in my riding. It is a very broad question, but I would like to pose it to my colleague.
How will Build Canada Homes speed up housing construction?
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
As I said in my speech, transforming this agency into a Crown corporation gives it all the independence it needs to speed up housing construction. We are already seeing real results. Just last Thursday, I was in Saint‑Jean‑Port‑Joli to announce the opening of a nine-unit building for women fleeing violence. Everyone was thrilled. The Coalition Avenir Québec member representing Minister Proulx was there. Everyone was of the opinion that the agreement signed with Quebec would make it easier to build housing faster in our communities.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague understands the benefits of the Province of Quebec and Ottawa working together. I just want to read from a press release, if I may. We were talking about it a little earlier. This was done in January, when we had both the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada sitting at a table. This is the press release: “In order to ensure the harmonized deployment of Build Canada Homes in Quebec, in line with its priorities and jurisdictions, the governments of Canada and Quebec have signed a memorandum of understanding to guide their collaboration.”
I am wondering if my colleague and good friend would reinforce just how important it is. Not only does the federal government have a role to play in housing, but it is absolutely critical that we work with our partners. A good example of that is the Province of Quebec.
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for this important question.
When we travel elsewhere in the country, we see how important it is to work with the provinces, particularly in times of crisis. Everyone here today has mentioned how serious the housing crisis is and the many consequences it is having on the lives of Canadians. We must therefore work together with the provinces. This collaboration will really help speed up and facilitate housing starts.
I would like to add that during my visit to Saint-Jean-Port-Joli on Thursday, the Coalition Avenir Québec representative highlighted this fact and even said that we should work together more often in order to achieve tangible results more quickly.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about taking public lands, but here in paragraph 20(g), it says the government could “take any security or security interest in any property”.
This is not just the green slush fund all over again. This would be 30 by 30 going to 50 by 50. They would take more land through this, including private property.
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, Sherbrooke is home to a fine example of the use of public land for the construction of an apartment building, although I cannot recall the number of units. The fact is that Build Canada Homes has a clear mandate, which includes the effective use of public land, and I am confident that this mandate will be adequately fulfilled.
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand very well that the best predictor of future performance is past results. That is why Canadians have every reason to be skeptical about the Liberal government's latest housing promise. For nearly a decade, Canadians have heard the same story repeated again and again: a new announcement, a new strategy, a new fund, a new target. Each time, the government assures Canadians that this time the housing crisis will finally be solved, but when we examine its record carefully, a troubling pattern emerges.
In 2017, the government introduced what it described as a historic initiative: the national housing strategy. It committed more than $115 billion in housing spending over 10 years. It promised to drastically improve affordability, reduce homelessness and expand the supply of housing across the country. Billions of dollars were allocated. Targets were announced. New programs were created, but what actually happened?
During roughly the same period that the government was rolling out these plans, housing prices in Canada nearly doubled. Young Canadians are increasingly locked out of home ownership. Families are struggling with rising rents. In many major cities, housing affordability is now among the worst in the world. The government announced another plan, then another fund and then another target.
The housing accelerator fund was introduced with the promise that it would help build hundreds of thousands of homes by cutting red tape. Then another national plan was released, claiming that Canada had the strategy to solve the housing crisis. Now, once again, Canadians are told that this time the government has found the solution. This time, we are told a new federal housing agency will fix the problem.
Canadians have heard this before. Each time a new program is announced, the government claims the housing crisis is about to turn a corner, yet each time the targets are missed, the timelines are extended and the crisis deepens. At some point, we must ask a very basic question: Why should Canadians believe that this new promise will succeed when all previous promises have failed?
Another question must also be asked. Canada already has multiple federal bodies involved in housing policy. We have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has long been the federal government’s primary housing agency. Infrastructure Canada funds projects tied to housing development. The Department of Finance designs housing tax policies and financial programs. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada is responsible for implementation of the national housing strategy. On top of that, the Liberal government has created additional structures over the past decade, including the federal housing advocate, the National Housing Council and multiple new program administrations.
With all of these institutions already operating in the housing space, Canadians deserve clarity. What exactly would this new agency do that cannot already be done by the existing agencies? What specific function is missing from the current system?
If this new agency is truly necessary, Canadians deserve to hear other answers as well. What existing programs will be streamlined? Which agencies will have their responsibilities reduced? Which bureaucratic processes will be eliminated to avoid duplication and more red tape? If this new agency simply adds another layer of administration, then Canadians are not getting more homes. They are getting more bureaucracy.
Housing affordability will not improve because we create more government entities. It will improve when we build more homes faster and more efficiently. That is why Canadians are skeptical when they hear the Liberal government's latest announcement.
This brings us directly to Bill C-20. Once again, the government's answer to real problems is not reform, but reorganization. Instead of fixing the delays that prevent homes from being built, the government proposed to create another federal housing body.
Let us consider the Minister of Housing's own record. He is now leading in the so-called new housing plan. When he first ran for mayor of Vancouver, he made a bold promise that street homelessness in Vancouver would be ended by 2015. It was a clear commitment that he widely publicized, but by the end of his time as mayor, the number of homeless had increased, housing prices in Vancouver had soared and Vancouver became one of the least affordable housing markets anywhere in the world. That record matters. Once again, Canadians are being told that the same leadership, ideas and approach will now help fix the national housing crisis.
To conclude, Canadians have seen a pattern for more than a decade: promises made and promises broken. Billions have been spent and bureaucracy has expanded, yet the homes Canadians need are still not being built. Canadians are told that this time it will be different. Canadians do not need another layer of bureaucracy; they need homes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing, which is that Canadians would love to have hope. We have a Prime Minister who was elected less than a year ago. Take a look at the number of initiatives that this new Prime Minister, along with the government as a whole, has taken in order to provide that hope. There are number of initiatives and thousands of homes. It is a plan that is accepted by other jurisdictions across the land, including stakeholders.
Does the member opposite not agree that the government has a role to play in providing the leadership that we have seen by this government, recognizing that in order to build homes we need co-operation from the different stakeholders?
That is exactly what we have, and why I would suggest that the Conservative Party needs to revisit its policy decision and vote in favour.
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how recycled ideas could be disguised as new operations. We have seen repeated announcements in the last decade promising the same thing. Recycled ideas will not bring hopes or homes. It is not even a dream; it is just a disillusion. I do not understand why these recycled ideas could be disguised as new.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The Conservatives are known for trimming the fat, so to speak, wanting to reduce the size of government and make it more agile. However, we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Build Canada Homes and the Liberal government in general tend to encumber and complicate the system and its processes rather than simply respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
Does my colleague not agree that it would make a lot more sense to transfer the money owed to Quebec and the provinces so that they can manage these programs? Does he not think that would be more effective than getting involved in some sort of huge bureaucratic machine that will almost certainly slow down the process and complicate things, when there are such pressing needs on the ground in the regions of Quebec and Canada?
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government has a role to play in providing affordable housing to Canadians. However, I have the experience of being a city councillor for the last 12 years, and my experience has been that first, the federal government always downloads everything to the local government and second, the federal government does not consult. There is a lack of consultation, and at the end, the federal government does what it wants to do, and it does not provide the means that the local community could provide in a better way.
It is better for the federal government to get out of the way and let local governments and other partners work to make things better for our communities.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member has highlighted concerns about Bill C-20.
I would like to ask him what he is hearing from the grassroots constituents and the youth of his community. What are their concerns, and what are they saying to him about the current rising unaffordability?
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr Speaker, what we hear, day in and day out, in our communities is how unaffordable things are, including housing. It is because all kinds of bureaucracy, taxation and added costs in building new homes have created this problem, the crisis that people are facing right now.
Again, the lack of consultation by the federal government has resulted in inappropriate solutions for the problems that people are facing. I was told that before the launching of this new agency, the Richmond City Council was not consulted. They have no role to play in giving feedback and inputs to the new agency. This is one example where the lack of consultation is a problem.
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of an academic community organization in that member's province called the Balanced Supply of Housing, or BSH, and it works in tandem with the University of British Columbia.
BSH has stated that “Build Canada Homes is not a silver bullet, but it may be a turning point. By investing in non-profit, co-op, supportive housing, and by creating the financing and land pathways to make projects possible, Ottawa is reasserting itself”. It points out opportunities in achieving scale and goes on to state that, “For now, Build Canada Homes represents a step in the right direction”.
Does the member disagree with that organization's position on Build Canada Homes?
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not need more bureaucracy and we do not need more reports to build more homes.
Let me give another example. Just last week, Richmond opened 84 units of affordable low-income housing, without federal funding. Cities can do it. They do not have to be told what to do. They need the opportunities, freedom and resources to build homes, not another layer of bureaucracy.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, just to show some contrast, we have the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier of Manitoba and different stakeholders in Winnipeg all recognizing the valuable contributions that the federal government is making in terms of expanding affordable housing. It is all public information.
Would the member not at least recognize that we do have a government that is working with the different stakeholders, and that the stakeholders are responding positively to the program?
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Speaker, my response to that question would be that we do not need the federal government to direct us on what to do. Each community would have its own priorities, needs and the best way to resolve them.
Again, using Richmond as an example, in the past 15 years, because Richmond has a good housing strategy, we were able to build thousands of homes in partnership with the building community, not with any government funding from the Liberal government.
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Build Canada Homes does not address is the need for construction for ownership. This is a huge issue. In fact, the supply that we need should, predominantly, 75% in fact, come from home ownership.
I am wondering if this is something the member hears about when he is in his riding, and if he would just like to speak to that.