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.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, we generally agree that the problem stems from a bureaucratic structure and that it will delay housing construction. The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should stay in its lane and stick to transferring money to Quebec and the provinces with no strings attached.
What does my colleague think about that?
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have a Liberal Prime Minister who is so out of touch with Canadians, especially young Canadians, that he has told them to make more sacrifices, that they need to be content with less and to lower their expectations. Young Canadians are expecting a leader who will restore hope, not crush it. That has become the psychology of an entire generation, that they are losing hope.
The stats do not lie. Most young Canadians, 93% of gen Z and millennials, believe they need to move out of the area they grew up in because they do not believe they can ever afford a home. That is what the Liberal Prime Minister is doing.
It is time for Canada to restore hope and have a leader who will restore hope for young Canadians, not crush it.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if my colleague could maybe reflect a little bit on what he said in this speech: that a big portion of the cost of a new home for young Canadians is for permitting and bureaucracy. Could he explain to us how the Liberals think that adding another layer of bureaucracy will make housing cheaper for Canadians?
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. Just to reiterate, in Toronto, buyers now pay over $130,000 per apartment in municipal taxes, and nearly $98,000 per condo in Mississauga. For single-family homes, it is up to $180,000 in Toronto and Markham, and in Mississauga, it is $135,000.
Canadians do not need a fourth Liberal bureaucracy. What the Liberal government is doing is laying the foundation for a new bureaucracy, not laying the foundation for new homes. All it has managed to build is new office space for its new highly paid, Liberal-connected bureaucrats and another Liberal bureaucracy.
What Canadians need are homes, not more Liberal press releases.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that the Conservatives would cut the HST off all new homes, cut development charges and give tax breaks, 35% of the cost of new housing being government fees.
It is easy to make those kinds of comments from the opposition benches when you have no plan, but how would you actually pay for that?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I remind members to address their comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Richmond Hill South.
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Mr. Speaker, we would pay for it by not having a fourth Liberal bureaucracy.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, the kids are not all right. I believe that idiom originates from an older song, perhaps known by some of our older members, by a good rock band from the 1960s, The Who. It said, “the kids are alright”.
Over time, those lyrics were inverted, and they are as relevant today and as pointed today as they were when they were inverted. The kids are simply not all right when it comes to housing. That culminated in the lyrics of a rock band of my youth, The Offspring. I know that the Speaker is probably young enough to know The Offspring. They had a song, The Kids Aren't Alright. Part of the lyrics really hit me for this presentation on housing. The song says:
When we were young, the future was so bright...
The old neighborhood was so alive...
Now the neighborhood's cracked and torn...
The kids are grown up, but their lives are worn
That is true today. The next generation has grown up. Millennials are growing up. Gen Z is growing up, and they are worn out. They are tired. They have been working, but they cannot get ahead no matter how much they save, how much they scratch or how much they plan. They cannot get into the housing market. After 10 years of being priced out of the market, they are worn out, and we see it today.
The speakers on this side of the House have been millennials, constantly pushing the message of housing. I do not hear any of the younger members on the other side speaking in this debate. To me, their silence is telling.
Let me take us through some of the brass tacks in my part of the country, Durham Region, to show what has happened to housing and to incomes over the last 10 years. In January 2015, just shortly before the government was first elected, a single-family home in my region of Durham was $399,000. The most expensive was about $448,000. Just five years later, prepandemic, in January 2020, a single-family home in Durham Region was $631,000.
Fast-forward to today, January 2026, and a single-family home in Durham Region is almost $900,000. In 10 years, the price of a single-family home, a starter home, an average home, has more than doubled in my region.
Let us look at what happened to incomes at the same time. According to the 2016 census, with 2015 numbers, the median after-tax household income in my region of Durham was $77,000. Five years later, in the next census, after-tax household income was $93,000. My math is not so good sometimes, but that is not a doubling of after-tax income.
Let us look at what that means for the household price-to-income ratio. This is an important metric that I use when I am talking to people, to explain the difference that young people are facing today. I often hear, when we talk about housing, the response that we had a hard time too, that we had to save money and that we endured high interest rates. I am not taking away from that. My parents endured that too, as did others before them, but it is simply different. It is not apples to apples.
Here is the proof. In 2015, the price-to-income ratio in Durham Region was just about five times income. By 2020, it was 6.7 times income. As of 2026, it is nearly 10 times after-tax income, 10 times what one makes in a year, to qualify for an average home. That trend, in my neck of the woods in Toronto, is very on the mark for Toronto more generally, where, many studies have noted, the average price-to-income ratio is about 10 to 11 times income.
I have two more statistics to put this into perspective. First, mortgage payments as a percentage of income shows us how expensive mortgages have become. It shows how much of someone's paycheque their mortgage payment is eating up. According to the National Bank's housing affordability monitor for the fourth quarter of 2025, the most recent numbers, it is nearly 70% of income for a mortgage payment in Toronto. CMHC says that an affordable house is 30% of one's income in payments toward housing, so we are at more than double what the government's own housing agency says is appropriate.
The second statistic is that the average household income needed to afford a representative home in the Toronto area is now $253,000. That is according to the most recent numbers in the National Bank of Canada's housing affordability monitor for Q4 of 2025. If one earns $253,000, that puts them among the highest earners in the country. Most Canadians do not earn that much, which means most Canadians in Toronto cannot afford the representative house. I repeat that the kids are not all right.
Let me give members more statistics to prove my point that the housing crisis is hitting young Canadians the hardest. The lack of affordable housing in Canada is causing Canadians, particularly young Canadians, to feel less free and less happy. That is not just my argument. I have some numbers here.
The world happiness report, which is a joint report of Oxford University and the United Nations sustainable development office, reports on the happiness measures of countries. I will let members decide if this is correlation or causation with respect to the Liberals and our declining happiness. I know where I stand on the issue. In the 10 years of the Liberals being in power, Canada has fallen from fifth place, the fifth most happy nation in the world, to 15th place. That is a pretty poor result in and of itself, but the results are even more dismal for young Canadians. This is where it gets really bad. For those below the age of 30, we rank 58th out of 134 countries. The only countries that scored worse than us in this last rating were Jordan, Venezuela, Lebanon and Afghanistan.
I do not know about other members, but that is not a bunch of countries I want to be ranked with when it comes to happiness. That means increasing proportions of the population of young Canadians are feeling hopeless about their futures and are lacking a sense of connection with their community. It is a concerning trend for future population health and our economy. There are significant studies that correlate happiness with productivity, growth and wealth. We are seeing a divergence in the next generation, who are increasingly feeling despondent, despairing and out of luck when it comes to housing.
How does Bill C-20 fit in? It is the “building no more homes in Canada” act because it is not going to build any more homes, but it will build another Crown corporation. There is nothing particularly unique about the structure of the bill. It is quite a short bill. I have seen it many times before, in fact, to create Crown corporations. One question I have for the government is this: If we want to move at speeds not seen since the Second World War, why did it take nearly a year to introduce Bill C-20? If this was the most important thing, as the government says, why are we only debating this piece of legislation now?
Let us consider what has been accomplished in that year. The new CEO of Build Canada Homes was here in Parliament giving testimony. She said that nine homes have been constructed and are move-in ready. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at Build Canada Homes and said that it might build 5,200 homes a year. Lastly, the minister—
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North can laugh. I will give him another number that is not so funny. It is, in fact, sad.
The minister, in his own speech when introducing the bill, said that he maybe had agreements for 9,000 homes this year. I will remind the member for Winnipeg North what the target was. It was 500,000 new homes a year, so is the target nine, 5,200 or even, at best, 9,000? I would laugh if it were not so sad for the next generation.
Build Canada Homes does not address any of the root issues. We have a permitting and permission issue in Canada. Bill C-20 does not speed up or incentivize permitting. In fact, among the OECD, Canada ranks second to dead last in permitting approvals; it is 29 out of 30. Housing starts are projected to decline every year until 2028. Therefore, the target has been raised, but the numbers are going to decline.
A previous prime minister said that we are going to “move faster in building supply, issuing permits and developing low-income and middle-class housing, creating the supply that is so needed to take the pressure off families and communities.” That was in 2021. It sounds a lot like the Prime Minister today. Where is that promise now? Is it with so many Liberal promises, on the trash heap of history?
The next generation should have the same opportunities as the generations before them had to earn, work hard, save and buy a home.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite quoted some lyrics from The Offspring, which I really appreciated. It is also a band from my youth.
I am going to quote some lyrics from another band, a hometown band from Hamilton called the Arkells, and its song about cynical people. It goes:
If you're the kind with nothing to say,
You heard about this party,
But you're praying for rain.
Now, if you want me to boil it down,
All you cynical [people],
Get out of town now.
Will the member opposite take the advice of the Arkells?
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am a positive person. I believe in Canada. I believe in the next generation. I do not think this is a laughing matter. It is a serious matter for the next generation, who struggle day after day, week after week, dreaming of home ownership and having that dream ripped away from them by a Liberal government that is presiding over the worst housing crisis in a generation.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that, instead of creating a large, centralizing structure like this one, the federal government would be better off respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and transferring the money with no strings attached?
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should incentivize municipalities to speed up permitting, cut down red tape and get more shovels in the ground. I think that is the same for Quebec as it is for any province in this country. We need the same rules for everybody.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Liberal government has failed by every metric when it comes to housing, especially when it comes to young people.
Since my colleague said he is a positive person, and I know him to be one, I was wondering if he could maybe give some hope to young people and explain the Conservative vision of how we can build homes in Canada.
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I gladly take that opportunity. The first thing I want to say to the next generation, if they are listening, is that we are on their team. We hear their complaints, their struggle, and we will fight every day in the House to make housing affordable and accessible to them.
Some of the suggestions we have are to remove the GST on all homes, get rid of federal lands that are useless, incentivize municipalities to get shovels in the ground and cut development taxes. All of these things would help increase the supply, build it faster and get it to them so they can experience and realize the dream of home ownership in Canada, which is the right of every Canadian.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask members to imagine, if they will, a new Prime Minister, elected less than a year ago, and thousands and thousands of homes, from non-profit to affordable housing, being built. We have a government, a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus committed to support and care about, as much as possible, more homes being built at rates we have never witnessed before in Canada.
The Conservative Party's position is to stand back, do nothing and ultimately cross fingers in hopes that homes will be built. My confidence is in a government that understands it has an important role. That is what the Prime Minister and the government have demonstrated.
What gives the member opposite any sense that the Conservative Party has any concept of how to build affordable homes when the member's leader, when he was the minister of housing, was an absolute failure who only had six homes built?
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would have confidence in any government that can show results, but we do not have that. We have the CEO of Build Canada Homes saying that we built nine, the Parliamentary Budget Office saying that maybe we will build 5,200 and the minister himself, in his own speech, saying maybe we will build 9,000.
The government's target is 500,000. That is the Prime Minister's target. I believe politicians should be held to their promises, so when I see 500,000 new homes, then we will have a discussion.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have been pointing out is that the bill is only adding a fourth bureaucracy to the government. I am wondering why the ministry cannot just fund some of these projects on its own. Why does it need a second party to do that? Is it perhaps because the government wants to distance itself from when this operation gives a whole bunch of money to Brookfield?
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, in short, to answer the member's question, the government does not need this. It had all the tools before it, but instead it has created a new, shiny object to put in the window to distract from its failure.
Also, the government does not even have a target. The Prime Minister says 500,000 new homes and Build Canada Homes says that it actually does not have a target, so who knows what this agency, this new Crown corporation, will achieve. I hope for the best for young Canadians, but I will plan for the worst.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.
Housing affordability is one of the defining challenges that Canadians face today. Across this country and in my community of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, families are really concerned about the cost of housing and whether their children are going to be able to afford a home in their community.
Build Canada Homes is an important step forward in addressing the housing supply crisis across Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging plainly that the cost of housing is far too high. While incomes have been increasing, we are nowhere near the sustainable market that we need where the average income earner can afford an average-priced home. Young Canadians are feeling locked out while renters are feeling squeezed. Parents worry whether their children will be able to live in the communities where they grew up, and seniors cannot afford to downsize in their own community.
My kids are 17 and 19, and as a parent, I think about this often. My children are at the age when they are starting to look towards independence. They are going off to university. They are building a life of their own, just like so many kids in so many families across Hamilton. I want them to have those opportunities to be able to stay in Hamilton, get a job and be able to afford the lifestyle that they deserve. A big part of that is being able to afford a home in their community in Hamilton.
I do believe Hamilton is a city of tremendous opportunities. We have strong industries, amazing opportunities in the skilled trades and small businesses, access to nature and vibrant communities and neighbourhoods, but those opportunities only exist if housing is affordable and attainable.
Before being elected to this role, I served nearly two terms on Hamilton city council. A significant portion of that was as the chair of Hamilton's planning committee. I also worked as a licensed professional engineer in the construction industry. I have worked on construction sites and navigated the approvals process, so I understand how homes actually get built. I do acknowledge and understand how easily projects can be delayed or be made unviable through permitting and business cases.
Over the past several years, the City of Hamilton has been very proactive and has taken significant steps to enable housing development and construction. The City of Hamilton modernized zoning to allow more as-of-right development, expanded permissions for secondary dwelling units and reduced parking minimums. They set a firm urban boundary and protected the greenbelt from development, and promoted smart, sustainable infill growth throughout the city. I really believe that Hamilton is a leader across Canada when it comes to municipal housing reforms to make sure that the permitting and permissions are in place to get as much housing built as possible.
A really important part of that was the implementation of the City of Hamilton housing secretariat. This created a real housing strategy, with centralized accountability and faster approvals for housing projects across the city. That structure is making a measurable difference.
Hamilton and representatives from all levels of government have been working with the housing development industry to ensure good quality developments are approved for construction as quickly as possible. In fact, the City of Hamilton recently implemented a 20% decrease in citywide development charges, applying to both residential and non-residential development, with the goal of boosting housing construction and promoting jobs during the difficult downturn in the construction market.
The housing secretariat is currently prioritizing over 30 projects within a three-year investment plan that is expected to deliver, at minimum, 2,100 new affordable housing units, of which 511 will be supportive units and 138 attainable, low-income or geared-to-income special markets.
We are hearing from the mayor and council that Hamilton's application through the Build Canada Homes fund will be targeting 4,500 new housing units, leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in private, institutional and public funding across all levels of government. That is the plan moving forward, which this legislation would help unlock for cities such as Hamilton and municipalities across Canada.
That is what coordinated action looks like to provide more affordable homes, with the federal government taking a leadership role and stepping up to the table with the housing accelerator, agreements, relief for first-time homebuyers and historic investments in housing and housing-enabling infrastructure.
It is important that we also be honest about how we arrived at this moment, and it is not just the opposition's talking points about the last 10 years. Over the last 25 years, Canada has experienced historically low interest rates. Housing increasingly became viewed as not simply shelter but an investment asset. That happened across multiple federal governments, from Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin through Stephen Harper and into recent years. Housing markets evolved in ways that encouraged commodification. Families found themselves bidding against investors, homes sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking, and real estate became tied to global capital flows, which was then accelerated even further with unprecedented inflation during COVID and the resulting increase in the cost of construction.
The current housing affordability crisis was not created in a single year by a single government. It reflects long-term structural pressures. At the same time, many of the core legislative tools that directly shape housing supply and affordability, for both ownership and rental housing, are strictly under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Ontario Heritage Act are all provincial acts and provincial systems.
I also want to talk about supportive housing. When we talk about supportive housing, the wraparound supports that are needed include addictions treatment, mental health treatment and health care services. These are strictly within provincial jurisdiction as they are tied to provincial health care systems.
In Ontario, municipalities are often left carrying significant financial and service delivery responsibilities that have been downloaded from the province. As an example, Ontario Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, and broader provincial policy decisions downloaded about $55 million in annual expenditures to the City of Hamilton, which resulted in a 2.4% property tax increase each and every year for every single City of Hamilton property taxpayer. That is not a sustainable system. Costs cannot be continually downloaded onto municipalities.
I am optimistic that new partnerships through Build Canada Homes will come forward with the province of Ontario, and provinces across Canada, but we need all levels of government at the table to be successful, and we need to be working toward solutions that actually work. I know there is a genuine desire across the House to see more affordable housing units built, and that is something that all members share.
Build Canada Homes reflects that understanding. It is designed to streamline federal funding so that projects move faster. It seeks to scale up modular and prefabricated home construction to improve productivity. It emphasizes energy efficiency and quality, ensuring that the homes we build today are net zero and are reducing costs for families over the long term. Most importantly, it positions federal funding to be proactive, to unlock and leverage private investment, rather than simply react to market cycles.
I want to reflect on the position of the homebuilding industry in municipalities and communities as a major employer. Many of these builders are people I have worked with for years as chair of the planning committee. They provide thousands of jobs in Hamilton and drive billions of dollars in economic activity. Local homebuilders in Hamilton are our partners, and they actively deliver quality housing.
This growth drives the need for roads, transit, water and waste-water infrastructure. New housing construction enables infrastructure, and infrastructure enables more housing. When we build homes, we support thousands of direct and indirect jobs, from the skilled trades and suppliers to manufacturers and small businesses. Hamilton has the workforce and the expertise required to scale growth responsibly and efficiently.
It took nearly a quarter of a century of structural market shifts to create today's affordability challenges. They are not going to be solved overnight. With Build Canada Homes, supported by unprecedented federal housing investments and long-term infrastructure funding, we are aligning federal tools with municipal action, and we are working with provincial partners toward genuine, long-term solutions to housing affordability in Canada.
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite acknowledged there is a housing crisis. For 10 years, the Liberals have said everything is fine as costs drive people, particularly young people, out of the market. We know many young people are still living with their parents, unable to find a place to rent, let alone a place to buy, and start their family, but the Liberals are still talking about this issue as if there is nothing they can do about it and they are just bystanders in the process. The solution they are now bringing forward is yet another housing bureaucracy, which has been proven to not work time and time again.
There are tangible things the Liberals can do, like cutting taxes on new homes or stopping their inflationary spending that is driving up the cost of living. Why do they not look at those solutions rather than just creating another housing bureaucracy?
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I see the Build Canada Homes Crown corporation as similar to the approach that the City of Hamilton took with its housing secretariat. It would be an oversight agency, to make sure that $13 billion of funding is flowed through to the areas across the country where it is needed most. On top of that, there is another $51 billion in infrastructure, which would offset a lot of those costs that are going into development charges, allowing municipalities to further reduce development charges with the goal of a 50% reduction.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from talking about delays and bureaucracy although I really want to.
However, I want to ask my colleague from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas whether he thinks this is a normal state of affairs. On January 21, 2026, the federal government finally signed an agreement with Quebec. However, this program, the Canada housing infrastructure fund, was actually announced two years earlier, on April 16, 2024. Is it normal for it to take such a long time, especially since the agreement amounts to $1 billion for Quebec out of the $6 billion set out in the fund? That represents 16.6% of the envelope, while Quebec has a demographic weight of 22%. Why the discrepancy?
I would be curious to know whether, if the situation were the same with Ontario, my colleague would be clapping his hands and saying that it is a great program and that we need to continue like this.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite brings up an interesting point in the fact that we recognize the need to build more homes faster, and the goal was to double the speed of construction across Canada. My experience is that this takes a cultural shift. This needs to have the government get to a point of yes, and that is what Build Canada Homes would do. It would build a way to get those approvals done faster and get to yes, to get those houses built.