Debates of March 9th, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. colleague talk. At the very opening of her speech, she talked about a very important economic concept, that of home ownership. We agree that home ownership creates a foundation for long-term stability and growth, especially for the next generation.

I am just wondering if she would like to expand on that, specifically about what the implication might be for the next generation if we do not get serious about addressing home ownership in this country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is bang on. The Liberals just keep on talking about housing. We are talking about building homes. When renters have to stay being renters and cannot set aside enough for a down payment because the rent keeps on going up, that means at the end of the day they are going to have smaller families, and their families are not going to be able to have the foundation because they are paying rent too. They will never get the amount of money to set aside and buy a home themselves, because the prices keep on going up. This affects the whole economy. A good economy begins with home ownership, and the Liberals are bereft of that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier to another hon. colleague on the Conservative benches if there was not an improvement in seeing if, now that we have Bill C-20's approach, we actually are no longer describing Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency and there may be more transparency—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will give the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke a chance to respond.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can save taxpayers a lot of money if we just vote against this bill. One less bureaucracy is going to be one less notch in every taxpayer's bill. Let us save taxpayers' money, so they can set aside enough money for a down payment to buy and own their own home.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and Canadians all across this country, the young, the old and everyone in between, who do not need to be told that there is a housing crisis. They can see the fact that there is a housing crisis clear as day. They see it in the listing prices. They see it in the rent that is consuming half their paycheques. There are young adults living in their parents' basements, unable to leave those homes. Families, young people, are seeing this in delayed family plans.

After a decade of having the Liberals in government, housing prices have doubled in this country and home ownership is increasingly out of reach. For young people in Canada, they are the first generation less likely than their parents to own a home. Eighty-eight per cent of renters say that they feel they will never own a home. It is just a dream somewhere far off in the distance. Half of millennials and two-thirds of gen Zs are delaying starting a family. Youth unemployment has reached record levels at 14.7%, and a generation has been locked out of work and housing.

However, this crisis is not just specific to the young. Slower growth, weaker retirement security, the cost of living and the cost of housing affect everyone. They put pressure on a construction industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people all across Canada. There is a dream in Canada of home ownership, and it is more than a dream. For many people, it is a rite of passage. For many people, it signifies the transition from childhood to adulthood, and that dream is eroding.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, just the other week said that there are only 269 homes that have been sold in the GTA. That is down 36% year over year, and 80% below our 10-year average. Typical January sales in 2026, for example, are 1,300 sales or more. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, has said that housing starts are down 15% in January, and it sees construction declining through 2028. It argues that 2026 might be the weakest year in decades.

Builders are hesitant to build due to the rising uncertainty in the market and the rising uncertainty with government policy. Let us take a look at what some of the building associations are saying. Kevin Lee from the Canadian Home Builders' Association says that the biggest barriers to our housing development are development charges, permitting delays and insufficient processes.

Let us look at the municipal fees. They have completely skyrocketed. They are up $27,500 on average since 2022. The average is now $82,600. Some cities cite as much as $200,000 per home. I have heard from people in the industry, as I am sure many others have, that we are now looking at approximately 33% of the list price of a home in government development fees, taxes, levies and red tape.

Approval timelines are another hurdle preventing builders from building. It is nearly one year for a permit, on average. Thirty-plus studies are being required in some municipalities. Delays equal higher borrowing costs for developers, and higher borrowing costs equal higher prices. New home sales are down roughly 90% since 2021, and as I mentioned earlier, construction jobs are at risk. That is the backdrop in which we are discussing Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 does not address any of these issues I laid out. What it would do is create a new Crown corporation that would have sweeping powers to acquire land, invest in housing ventures and provide loans and financial assistance. The government plans to spend $13 billion over five years: $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for Canada Lands Company. That is the third housing agency and fourth federal bureaucracy.

The central problem with this plan, as the minister himself admitted, is that there are no actual top-line targets. An economist at the Ivey Business School, Mike Moffatt, has said there are no key indicators in place. He has never seen this before. There is no clarity on price points or on what the target should be. The PBO said that only 26,000 units will be built over five years. That is 26,000 units in a country that needs hundreds of thousands of homes per year.

What does Bill C-20 not do? It does not cut development charges or assist municipalities with cutting development charges. It does not reduce approval timelines. It does not tie infrastructure to housing results. It does not cut the GST for all buyers on new homes. It certainly does not eliminate the capital gains tax on reinvestment or remove a single study requirement, or remove or reduce a single municipal fee.

Instead, it centralizes more authority in Ottawa and expands the federal footprint, adding yet another layer of government. The problem we are facing here is simple. It is the cost of building: the development charges, the industrial carbon tax that is impacting material costs, the endless regulatory layering, the approval delays and the lack of clarity. Builders want less government in the way, not more. What has the government's response been? It is that they have a bureaucracy that will solve that problem, which seems to be a common theme with the Liberal government.

What would we do? The Conservative approach would be tied directly to results. We would tie infrastructure funding to 15% annual increases in homebuilding. We would cut development charges by 50%, and we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. This would save families $65,000, approximately, on a purchase. We would also end capital gains on reinvestment in new housing to spur the economy.

If we look at the bigger picture, housing starts are less than half of what is needed to restore affordability. From 2022 to 2031, it is predicted we will see the fewest homes built per person since 1972. This is a crisis that is built layer by layer, with rising taxes, rising fees, rising delays and rising uncertainty. All of this creates conditions in which development will not foster and will not spur, and developers will not build. Everyone is feeling this and everyone is paying: young Canadians, families and retirees.

What we need to do is contrast this bill, which reorganizes authority, expands spending, lacks measurable targets and does not confront structural barriers, with what the Liberal government needs to do. It needs to adopt our plan and target structural reform. We see this time and time again when we are talking about various areas of policy in this country. We have structural issues facing our country, such as regulatory hurdles and the tax framework, all these things that need to be revamped significantly to get the economy moving.

We have the workers. We have the materials, and we have the capital. We need a government that is willing to work with us to remove these barriers. Canadians deserve measurable targets, lower costs and real supply growth, and they deserve a path to ownership. That is the social contract in this country: People want to own their homes. Government can partner with municipalities to make these things happen. It can partner with the provincial governments and work together to remove some of the costs impeding the growth of this sector. It is long past due that we have a change in direction.

What we do not need is more recycled policy. We do not need to see the same approach over and over again. We certainly do not need more government bureaucracy and more government spending. Housing must be restored for an entire generation of Canadians that feels left out.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line. Less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a government that made the commitment to achieve 500,000 homes being built per year within the next 10 years, to get to that goal. We are working with provinces of all political stripes, from Progressive Conservative governments to New Democratic governments. We are working together in order to be able to achieve a goal that will provide the hope that Canadians want to see, and that includes working with the many different stakeholders out there.

Bill C-20 is a critical component in dealing with affordable housing. It seems, once again, that the official opposition, the Conservative right, has made the determination that the government has no place in affordable housing. Does the member believe that the government has any place at all—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will interrupt to give the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge a chance to respond.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has been in power for 10 years now. That member himself has been here for the last 15 years, or is it 20 years at this point? Either way, we have the same problem facing this country that we have had over the last 10 years. We have house prices that have doubled. We have stakeholders and industry stakeholders who are yelling at the top of their lungs what the solutions are, which I laid out. They are to cut government taxes, facilitate the reduction or removal of DCs and of levies, and get rid of the HST on home purchases. Just work with us. Steal our ideas. Take them. Implement them. Let us solve this crisis together.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been saying it all day and since the debate began: The Bloc Québécois thinks that the government is making things a lot more complicated than they have to be and that it is preventing the municipalities and the Quebec and provincial governments from doing their work effectively in their own jurisdictions.

I want to know whether my colleague agrees with the Bloc Québécois, which is suggesting that instead of complicating the process, the government should simplify it by simply doing its job and transferring money to Quebec and the provinces. They will each be able to manage this with their municipalities in a much more efficient and targeted manner, based on their specific needs.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that the government needs to not add more layers of bureaucracy. It does not need to spend more money on another Crown corporation that would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The provinces and municipalities know what needs to be done. They need to be able to facilitate a reduction in development charges and levies. The federal government should partner with them by creating targets and transfers, so that governments at the municipal level and the provincial level can get rid of these barriers and let developers build and get shovels in the ground, so we can create the housing supply that we need in this country.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to welcome one of our newest constituents, Harper Alice Frang, born February 9 in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We wish her and her family all the best.

I listened closely both to the speech and to the member for Winnipeg North and his question. In fact, he is the only Liberal I have heard ask a single question today. We have heard Liberal plan after plan, and every time it is the greatest housing plan.

I am wondering whether my hon. colleague, also of Italian heritage, agrees with me when I say that Canadians and we, in this House on this side, have just lost hope because there is always a new Liberal housing plan and never any results.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third housing agency and the fourth government bureaucracy that has been created. At some point, we are just wondering where the fresh ideas are. Where are the new ideas? Instead, the Liberals are recycling old policy and old plans that would do nothing but add money to the debt. Right now, the PBO has said their plan would create only 26,000 homes over a five-year period.

We know what to do. Get government out of the way. Let us get the industry building.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, the Liberals' latest promise to solve a problem that they created. The bill would create a Crown corporation, their third that deals with housing, while our young people have watched the prospect of owning a home slip away. As rents have doubled over the last 10 years, the prices of those homes have also doubled. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future.

In the last election, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister promised he would build at speeds not seen in a generation and has since spent his time invoking grand speeches reminding us that for much of our proud history, Canada was able to build vital projects and the housing people needed. I say “much” of our history because over the course of the last decade of Liberal rule, businesses have been forced to shut their doors, companies have been forced to lay off their workers, and builders have been left unable to build because of an increase in costs and regulatory burdens.

After the Liberals promised to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. Rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, they have decided to build yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using a bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they created.

While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, that they are going to deliver and that all they need is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. If 10 years was not enough, just how much time do the Liberals need?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Speaking of time, I must interrupt. That is a good segue.

We will have to break here.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 7 under Government Business.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 7, Francis Scarpaleggia in the chair)

Iran and the Middle East

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Pursuant to order made today, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

I would like to remind hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 17, every member participating in person desiring to speak must rise in their place.

We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

moved:

That this committee take note of the hostilities in Iran and the Middle East, and the impact for Canadians abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the hostilities currently unfolding in Iran and throughout the Middle East and the very real impact they are having on Canadians abroad.

The situation in the region is changing by the hour. Military strikes and retaliatory attacks have drawn several countries into a conflict that continues to spread.

Several countries in the region have faced repeated waves of missile and drone attacks. Civilian infrastructure, including airports, ports and energy facilities, have been damaged and blatantly targeted by Iran. Maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf has been disrupted, with the Strait of Hormuz essentially closed. The risks of even further escalation are real. Millions of civilians across the region, including Canadians, are now living under the threat of violence and instability.

Canada condemns attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. International law must be respected by all parties. The focus must be on rapid de-escalation.

Canada has long considered the Islamic Republic of Iran to be one of the main sources of instability and terrorism in the Middle East. The regime's actions have caused enormous suffering, both in Iran and throughout the region.

When the IRGC shot down flight PS752, the terrorist regime murdered 176 civilians, including 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents. Six years later, the regime has still failed to fully comply with the investigation and continues to deny accountability. Within Iran, the regime has severely restricted the rights of women and girls and the basic freedoms to which every human being is entitled.

Today, the day after International Women's Day, I want to take a moment to recognize the brave women of Iran who are fighting every day for equality and justice. Canada stands with them.

In recent months, the regime has further intensified its crackdown on peaceful protests, arresting demonstrators, silencing journalists and intimidating those who speak out.

Once again, lives have been lost as the regime responds to calls for freedom with violence. Canada has consistently condemned these actions and will continue to support the Iranian people in their fight for human rights and freedoms.

Canada has taken strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account. First, let me point to the listing of the IRGC in June 2024 as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code of Canada. Canada has also listed the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations under the Criminal Code of Canada. Second, Canada continues to implement measures to hold Iran accountable for its support of terrorism, human rights violations and destabilizing activities. This includes Canadian sanctions on 222 Iranian individuals and 256 Iranian entities for peace and security violations, human rights abuses and terrorism support.

In its response to the current crisis, Canada is following clear principles.

We did not participate in the recent military strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. We were not consulted in advance about these operations, and we have no intention of joining them. At the same time, Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons and grow its arsenal of missiles that represent a serious threat to international peace and security.

The U.S. strikes come as a result of a failure of the international order. This is not a blank cheque. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all parties, including the United States and Israel.

Again, let me be clear. International law binds all parties. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected. We will continue to bring Canadians home.

For our government, the primary responsibility at this time is clear: to ensure the safety of Canadians abroad.

Global Affairs Canada has activated an extensive consular response across the region. Consular teams have been deployed across several countries to assist Canadians navigating the crisis. Additional staff have been positioned near border crossings, for example, to help Canadians leaving affected areas, and our emergency watch and response centre has over 150 people working every single day to answer Canadians' calls for help.

Our government is offering three options to help Canadians depart safely: charter flights, block-booked seats on commercial airlines, and buses to help Canadians reach safer locations when onward travel can be arranged. We have made sure that officials from Global Affairs Canada are in place to help Canadians across the region, including 15 countries in the region, and we have arranged for hundreds and hundreds of Canadians to return home.

Diplomatic missions in the region remain open and continue to provide consular services. Consular officers are in contact with thousands of Canadians who have requested assistance. Canadians in the region are encouraged to remain vigilant, follow the instructions of local authorities and register with Global Affairs Canada to receive the latest updates and advice.

In closing, at moments like this, Canada's approach must remain steady and principled. We will continue to support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions. We will continue to work with international partners to reduce tensions and promote stability across the Middle East. Above all, we will continue to prioritize the safety and security of Canadians abroad.

Canada stands with the Iranian people in their long and courageous struggle for freedom. Their calls for dignity, for justice and for basic human rights have been met with repression by the regime, but their voices continue to resonate around the world. The Iranian people deserve a future free from fear and oppression. On our watch, we will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account.

In conclusion, the situation remains unstable and deeply concerning, but Canada's commitment is clear. We will stand up for international law, we will stand up for the protection of civilians and we will stand up for the safety of Canadians, no matter where they are in the world.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said three things about the U.S. air strikes that are incoherent and contradictory.

First, on March 4, the Prime Minister said, “Canada’s policy itself is to always and everywhere respect international law.” He went on further and said, “Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerents.” The minister herself just said, “International law binds all parties.” Second, on March 4, the Prime Minister also said about the air strikes that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.” Third, the government has said multiple times since February 28 that it supports the air strikes.

The government sees the air strikes as inconsistent with international law but supports them anyway, and the government policy is to always and everywhere support international law. Can the minister explain this mumbo jumbo of foreign policy?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear. Canada was not consulted, Canada did not participate, and Canada has no plans to participate in the offensive strikes against Iran. We support efforts to end the Iranian nuclear program and the regime's decades-long pattern of state-sponsored terrorism.

Canada's priorities are clear. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected, international law must be respected, and we will stand for the safety and security of Canadians wherever they may be in the world. That is clear, and that is a clear statement of Canadian foreign policy.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will correct the minister. The Prime Minister was very clear. He supported the American military offensive from day one of the American offensive.

The government cannot say one thing and then contradict itself on a topic as complex as the one that brings us here this evening. How can the Prime Minister say that we must defend international law at all costs and, at the same time, in his own words, support an offensive that violates international law?

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs really think that is a serious position from the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. Let me be clear. While we support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, our support is not a free pass.

Canada reaffirms that international law applies to all parties. All actors, including the United States and Israel, must respect the rules of international law. International mechanisms exist to determine compliance with international law.

My immediate priority and that of our government is de-escalation, the safety of civilians and efforts to bring Canadians home.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, on March 8, our Prime Minister convened the incident response group with ministers and senior officials to discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran and the Middle East and continued vigilance to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Based on Canada's recent discussions with leaders in the region and the G7, could the minister update the House on the efforts to de-escalate the situation and could she assure Canadians that Canada will not engage in the military actions in Iran?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada had no advance notice of these strikes and we were not consulted. We have no plans to become involved in offensive actions taken by the United States and Israel.

Canada supports preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and preventing its regime from further threatening international peace and security. We have been clear for years that Iran's nuclear proliferation is unacceptable and contrary to international law. We will stand by our allies when it makes sense to do so and we will always defend Canadians when we are called upon. This position has not changed.

Canada was not consulted, did not participate and has no plans to participate in the offensive actions taken by the U.S. and Israel. We have been clear on this point.

I respect my hon. colleague's question on the matter.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I will ask the minister to clarify the government's position.

The government has said multiple times that international law binds all parties and that Canada, everywhere and always, respects international law.

The Prime Minister said in Australia on March 4 about the air strikes, that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.” The government then also says that it supports the air strikes. These things are all contradictory.

Can the minister clarify what the government's position is in a coherent, consistent and cogent manner?