Debates of June 1st, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to speak through the Chair.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would agree that scaling back federal investment, like the Conservatives proposed, would weaken that advantage, like I said before, in aerospace, batteries and clean energy and go hand in hand with the next generation of job jurisdictions that actually invest in growth.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the member talk about aeronautics and aerospace. There have been developments. We are happy to see that.

For years, the federal Liberal government has refused to have an industrial policy on aeronautics and aerospace. We do not have one. There are even members from my region who go around telling unions that people do not want one, that it is pointless and that even the industry does not want one.

However, we heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada at the Standing Committee on Finance last week. They said that they wanted and needed a civil and military strategy, because there was none, and that a procurement process was not enough. On the day the government needs to order aircraft, it is unacceptable to have to decide whether to import them from Sweden, order them from the Americans, or open new factories. That is what happens when there is no strategy.

I think there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked, because we have an electioneering government that goes from announcement to announcement, and there is never any thought about the long term, particularly in the case of the aerospace industry.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This afternoon, I would like to talk about the Territorial Lands Act, the amendments to the act, economic development and nation building in the north, as vice-chair for the rural caucus.

I am rising to speak to the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act that are contained in Bill C-31. At the outset, I want to be very clear. Changes to this initial act are necessary. They would strengthen Canada's sovereignty, security and economic future, while deepening our partnership with the Inuit and supporting northern and rural communities across the country.

I am speaking as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, and I want to underline something that is very fundamental. Rural, remote and northern Canada is very much a part of the country's nation building and where it is actually happening. We will be there to allow it to continue to happen. Today, we are finally making some of these communities feel like they are finally at the table.

I am going to focus on how these amendments would support indigenous self-determination and responsible economic development, as well as long-term nation building in the north.

In terms of a changing global economy, the global economy, as we know, is rapidly evolving. Countries are competing for secure supply chains of critical minerals, minerals essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing and national security. Canada, particularly northern and rural Canada, has an enormous opportunity here. With that opportunity comes responsibility. As competition intensifies, Canada must ensure that its natural resources are developed responsibly and strategically, and in a way that aligns with our national interests. That includes making sure that our rules reflect some of today's realities, hence the amendment.

Nunavut and rural Canada are at the centre of nation building. The Arctic is more important than ever to our sovereignty, economic growth and national security. Nunavut is at the heart of our future here up north.

I want to be honest about something. Projects that will define Canada's next century, like our critical minerals, energy corridors, ports in the north, roads and infrastructure, are not being built in downtown cores. They are being built in rural, remote and northern communities.

For far too long, these communities powered our economy without a full voice in shaping that. That, with this amendment, is changing, and it must continue to change.

Mining is already the cornerstone of Nunavut's economy. It creates good-paying jobs, supports local businesses, builds infrastructure and strengthens communities. In 2025, mineral production in Nunavut was projected at $3.74 billion, demonstrating that importance not only to the territory but to Canada as a whole.

For rural and northern Canadians, this is what economic inclusion looks like. It looks like jobs close to home. It looks like infrastructure that lasts generations. It looks like communities that are growing and thriving.

Why do these types of amendments matter? Canada's free entry system remains an important strength. It has supported exploration and investment for decades. Today, there is a gap. The current system does not allow Canada to act when mineral rights could be used in ways that conflict with some of our national interests, whether related to economic security, sovereignty or critical infrastructure.

Bill C-31 would address this gap. It would introduce a targeted national interest safeguard, which would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act in specific cases.

Examples of this include cancelling existing mineral rights when necessary, preventing new rights in sensitive areas and temporarily closing lands to protect some of these strategic priorities. Examples also include ensuring notification and fair consideration of compensation.

This is not about overreach; this is about responsibility.

In terms of strengthening our investments through this amendment, and I want to address this directly, it would not hurt investment, but strengthen it, because a free entry system would remain in place, as it always has. These measures would be targeted, limited and only used in exceptional circumstances where national interests are at stake. In fact, they would also provide something that investors value deeply: certainty. They would make clear that Canada has strong rules, a stable framework and the ability to protect strategic assets. For rural and northern economies, that certainty is essential. It ensures that investment continues, that projects move forward and that communities benefit.

The bill is part of a broader effort to support nation building, especially where it is actually taking place. I would like to remind everybody again that nation building in Canada today is happening in rural, remote and northern regions. It is happening in our energy corridors, our mining developments and our ports and transportation hubs. It is happening with clean energy infrastructure. I have a clean energy project in my riding right now in South Shore—St. Margarets, our Mersey wind project, which is a new direct competitor for Nova Scotia Power. It is a larger-scale clean energy project in our area, which we have not seen before in Nova Scotia.

There are also projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. There are also projects like the Grays Bay road and port project. This is also about Iqaluit's hydro project. These are transformative projects, and when we look at transformational things, they do not happen overnight. They do not happen within one year. They do not happen within two years. These are transformational projects of which, over the next decade, we are going to really see the benefits and reap the rewards. They connect with communities, and they create jobs. These projects also help strengthen sovereignty and reduce emissions. Importantly, they ensure that rural and indigenous communities are not just participants, but leaders and partners in Canada's economic future.

The amendments to Bill C-31 would also help ensure that mineral tenure does not interfere with these nation-building projects. In terms of indigenous partnerships, like how we were talking before about having indigenous people at the table as leaders, I would like to talk about indigenous partnerships and the devolution processes. The legislation is also grounded in respect for Inuit self-determination, for modern treaties and also for indigenous leadership, so engagement has taken place with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and indigenous partners alike. These amendments would support a broader path toward Nunavut's devolution: the historic transfer of land and resource decision-making to the Nunavummiut. This is also about ensuring that decisions are made closer to home by the people most affected.

We are forward-thinking, so we are also looking at safeguards for some of these processes. There would also be a forward-thinking measure in this amendment. It would ensure that Canada's resources are developed responsibly, strategic infrastructure can move forward, Inuit priorities are respected, rural and northern communities benefit fully, and our sovereignty and security are protected. This is about preventing risk while also unlocking opportunity.

In conclusion, we are at a turning point. Global demand is rising, competition is intensifying and Canada has what the world needs, but success also depends on getting it right. It depends on recognizing that rural, northern and indigenous communities are not on the margins of our economy, but at the centre.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Taxation; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Employment.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, and I just want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is wonderful to work with her. She is a new colleague. She is doing great work. I know how good she is. She is representing a rural riding just like me.

In the last spring economic statement, there was $1 billion for small craft harbours, and I know that she was a big part of this investment. She was talking about some of the amendments that are in this bill, and she was talked about mining. I had a lot of mining industry in my region back in the day, but it has closed. There were 2,000 people laid off at a mine in my region back in 2013.

Now with these new amendments that are being putting forward and this new process, we see new mine projects coming into play. Can the member tell us if amendments like that would also help her riding with new projects of this kind?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bathurst for that. On Thursday, there will be an announcement. I will be at the AGM for one of the Nova Scotia mining associations.

With regard to what some of the mining associations are saying about our federal budget update, I would like to read into the record the following quote from the Mining Association of Canada:

MAC applauds today’s federal budget, which contains many measures that will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerate investments in critical minerals.

Budget 2025 responds directly to several requests from the Mining Association of Canada and follows through on a number of mining-related commitments—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to move on to the next questioner.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the dubious record now of having the worst food affordability amongst all G7 countries. In our communities, we see young people struggling to find a job, and people who cannot afford to buy a home. We see a tremendous backlog in the health care system.

We also see the Liberals stand up and tout their credentials on the economy. Does the member opposite think that it is good public policy to bring in an omnibus bill like this and not allow for enough debate to happen in the House?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that is exactly what we are doing right now, debating this bill in the House.

With regard to my statements on the Territorial Lands Act, the free entry system in that act remains in place. These amendments are a safeguard in some of the exceptional cases involving Canada's economic security, sovereignty and other national interests.

I would also like to talk about Arctic sovereignty and the proposed changes within this amendment, allowing for indigenous economic reconciliation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament.

The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned.

My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House. That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that measures in this bill are providing temporary and immediate relief, expensing for eligible manufacturing and processing buildings. The opposition members want to talk about debating here in the House today. Instead of complaining about the length of time to debate, they should actually be asking some of these debating questions.

I also want to let him know that these expenses qualify as Canadian exploration expenses. Within the bill that we are debating today, we are also implementing a crypto asset reporting framework.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for sharing her time with me.

Unfortunately, I disagree with her last comment that we have time to debate the bill now. Given the gag order, enough time to debate the bill is exactly what we do not have.

I want to speak to what is happening here. I am going to throw in Bill C-30, because I was not allowed to speak to it. We rushed through it so fast that I did not get a speech at second reading. For Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, back-to-back omnibus budget bills, both had a reduction of debate. Due to the newly minted majority Liberal government, we were not given the normal amount of time to have debate before moving to the vote at second reading.

I am sure the Speaker recognizes how often I have raised this concern in the House. It has accelerated. It is becoming de rigueur. It is almost with every single bill that we are told we have had enough time to talk about it and we move on.

There are many things that one would focus on with respect to two omnibus bills. What I want to focus on in the time I have is with respect to the one we are debating today, Bill C-31, which is 331 pages long. I lugged it around with me all weekend. There is only one part of it that I want to raise now, but there would be more. When we get to committee perhaps I will get an opportunity to say a word or two.

These are budget implementation acts. Bill C-30 has now passed second reading and Bill C-31 is what we are debating now. One would think there would be a very strong connection to the budget. That is what the point is; these are implementation of the budget. In Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, I want to talk about the significant changes to the Pest Control Products Act. We remember that the 2025 budget was all about build Canada strong. There is one line about the Pest Control Products Act, which is now the subject of changes in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31.

Here is one line from budget 2025, which states, “the government proposes to amend legislation to remove cyclical pesticide re-evaluations to enable modern, risk-based oversight.”

According to Prevent Cancer Now and Ecojustice, one of the country's leading environmental law groups, this is not about modern risk-based oversight, but about reducing the regulation of pesticides, reducing environment and health and safety controls that can actually affect human health, as well as the environment, in ways that I found completely shocking.

Because the debate on Bill C-30 was shut down after three hours, there was not time for every member or even every party to make a speech. I did manage to ask the parliamentary secretary for finance when it was first tabled how it was that there were these provisions to so weaken pesticide oversight and pesticide reviews. I asked if it would be possible to have a section of the bill, division 8, go to a committee on health or the environment to be studied. The hon. parliamentary secretary said he would look into it, but I have heard nothing further and, as far as we know, this is going to the finance committee, not a health and safety committee.

I have not had an opportunity to speak to this in the House, and it does relate to Bill C-31, because it is more of the same.

Bill C-30 says, which is astonishing, that if a minister decides that a pest control product is so dangerous it cannot be used, that usually is the end of the matter. This refers to a pesticide, and this covers herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and all manner of products that are intended to kill living things, insecticides and herbicides being the most common.

However, now, because of Bill C-30, which as I said was pushed through second reading after three hours of debate, the cabinet can override the Minister of Health or the Minister of Environment if they consider it “necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security, or national food security.”

Going back to the original budget, we see that they have thrown in this justification here and there. Sometimes, it is referenced as having to make these measures because they want to move to, as I mentioned before, modern oversight. In other places, it is referenced as though we can bring down the cost of groceries if we use more pesticides. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Having worked on pesticides in this country as an environmental lawyer, and before that as an activist, I have worked on pesticide issues in this country since 1975. In any case, no government has ever attempted something as reckless as what Bill C-30 would do in saying that the decision of the minister responsible, when a substance is too dangerous to be used, could be overturned by cabinet, at cabinet's discretion, if it seems that it affects, astonishingly, “national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”.

These are the kinds of cuts to regulations that Margaret Thatcher engaged in that led to mad cow disease. We do not cut corners on health and safety. We do not cut corners on pesticide regulation for national economic concerns, overriding a minister of environment or a minister of health. It is quite surprising.

I was unable to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading debate, and now we have come to Bill C-31. I have to say I was astonished, in reading the 331 pages of Bill C-31, to find that it too takes aim at the Pest Control Products Act. This time it is found in division 13 in changes to the Pest Control Products Act to reduce the mandatory review every 15 years to look at a substance and, if the situation has changed, to have an evaluation. They are routine, but the bill we have before us today would change the review, and this gets murky. As someone who practised law, I know that one of the things we hate to see in new legislation is a change to the definitions because, by the time most legislation has gone around for a couple of years, and this legislation has been around for decades, the meaning of the words is clear, so there is not a lot of room for uncertainty and not knowing what we are dealing with.

In this legislation, we suddenly have the discretionary initiating of an assessment and then, if the minister is convinced that, on the basis of the assessment, the health and safety and the environmental risks of a registered pest control product have increased significantly, then the minister may have a re-evaluation, but the minister may also decide at any time to stop the re-evaluation.

Therefore, there would be no certainty and, certainly from a public health point of view and from an environmental point of view, this would fundamentally weaken the regime within which we use chemicals and products that are, by definition, intended to be toxic. They are intended to kill things. It is not an accident. That is their purpose. Therefore, the notion that we would no longer have cyclical re-evaluations undermines science. That is the bottom line. Ecojustice, one of Canada's pre-eminent environmental law groups, finds that this must be amended, that we must maintain cyclical re-evaluations and uphold science-based decision-making.

Earlier today, one of the members here presented a really important petition, and I am wondering if these things are not connected. Is there a pro-pesticide bias emerging from the current government that connects with cuts at the Swift Current agriculture research station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan? It was the country's pre-eminent research hub for many years in organic agriculture. Does the current government dislike the idea of organic agriculture? Does it want to promote pesticide-based agriculture?

Again, here we are. This bill has had, as far as I can count, about one and a half days of debate. In its first day of debate, most of the debate time was taken up by the farewell speech of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The time is up, but we have to let Canadians know that this is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the average number of days that the House will sit is around 130 or 135 days in any given year. Currently, there are 35 or so pieces of government and Senate legislation before the House. We then need to take into consideration the number of opposition days that are given, and then the number of days when we actually have debates.

Surely to goodness, and the leader of the Green Party has been around for a good number of years now, she has seen that time allocation is sometimes a tool that is necessary to pass legislation. Given the performance of the Conservative Party members and their commitment to defeat the legislation, if we did not have time allocation, the bill would never pass. The member knows that. Would the member not at least concede that fact?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not concede it because it is not true. The reality is that the Conservatives have been more than obliging in helping the government pass lots of legislation, including Bill C-5, and including things I found astonishing.

The reality is that now, with the new Liberal majority, we are seeing time allocation when it is not needed and pushing things through before they are properly studied. In the end, and I offer this from my heart as a warning to the majority Liberals, this will come back to bite them.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to ask this question after the very kind praise from my colleague toward the Conservatives, but I cannot help but recall, in light of her criticism of the budget implementation act, of which there is a great deal to criticize, that she actually supported the Liberal budget based on promises from the Prime Minister on what the government would do.

I do not actually criticize my colleague for this, but I wonder if she might have any cautionary words for others who are similarly being given these grand promises from the Prime Minister and the Liberals and what happens with those when it comes to the actual legislation they put forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did vote for it, and I stand here as the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget, because not only was I given oral promises, but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget. That was reversed within 10 days of that vote, so yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget.

That is quite something. It is a new record. Some governments forget what they said they were going to put in a budget, and two or three years later they have not done it, but I have never seen a promise in a budget reversed. Neither had the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which is why he is going to be leaving this place.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

With all the subsidies being given to the oil industry, including under Bill C‑31, which is expanding these subsidies, I think my colleague will agree that it is becoming impossible for the government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

On one specific issue, the bill will make it possible to consider producing hydrogen from methane as a form of clean hydrogen, while in Quebec, green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.

It is clear that this is, unfortunately, a real tragedy. I am very disappointed. It is now clear that, with the current policies, the Government of Canada can no longer meet the Paris Agreement targets. That will have a huge impact on Canada's security and the economy, as well as worldwide.

We have a great challenge ahead of us and the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have decided that they are not interested in the future. I do not understand how it is possible for someone who understands the crisis to make these decisions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Prime Minister understands the crisis and, if so, why is he acting in this way?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has 10 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 10 seconds, all I can say is that it makes no sense. I do not understand it. Someone needs to ask the Prime Minister why he is making these decisions.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak on behalf of the people of Saskatoon West. I would like to advise members that I will be splitting my time.

Bill C-31 is the second budget implementation act from the 2025 budget. If members are paying attention, that was passed back in November, so it was seven months ago that we talked about this. The government still has not learned how to get stuff through the House, but here we are.

This budget is huge, technical and packed. Between the two implementation bills, there are well over 500 pages. Clearly, it is an omnibus bill. Clearly, things like this need to be studied. Things like this need to go to committee. They should not be rushed, but I fear that will not happen here. This will be rushed through by the government. I am sure of that.

The question I have to ask when I am looking at this is, does this make life better for residents of Saskatoon West? I think the answer, looking at this, is no. There is not enough here to lower grocery costs, reduce home prices or make our streets safer.

On the subject of balancing the budget, this does not even come close. In fact, if we look at the deficits run by former prime minister Trudeau, this budget has more than double the deficits that were run by the Trudeau government, which is unbelievable considering that, supposedly, our Prime Minister is this economic genius. It is hard to believe.

Of course, everybody understands that more borrowing means more inflation, and the subject of that is in interest costs. Even in this budget, the interest costs paid by the federal government are going to exceed the amount of money we provide for health care in our country, and that is just a very bad thing. This budget has massive spending increases, and Canadians are worse off.

Bill C-31 would bring more bureaucracy, more CRA powers, more complicated tax rules and more Ottawa control, but there are no real fixes for what I hear when I knock on doors. This past week, I was out talking to folks in the riding, and the things I heard about at the doors were lower food prices, affordable homes, safer streets, lower taxes and a government that stops wasting money. These are things I heard about over and over again. The budget, and Bill C-31 before us, would not address any of these things. It would not help the issues of the people in Saskatoon West.

I am going to focus a bit on housing affordability. People need homes they can afford, and Ottawa has numerous failed bureaucratic programs. Bill C-31 tinkers with housing a bit. There was the elimination of the GST for first-time buyers, but members need to keep in mind that they are only 10% of all buyers. It is a very small fraction of homebuyers who would be impacted by that reduction of tax. I do not know why the Liberals did not take our advice and reduce it for all homes under $1.5 million for everybody. That would have actually made a difference.

On the subject of first-time buyers, here is a fun fact: 39% of first-time buyers are over the age of 35, and that component is rising right now. Close to half of first-time buyers are 35 years old. Back in the day, at 35, people already had their family, so this is a very big concern, and that group is growing.

The other thing this budget would do is create a massive new bureaucracy, a $13-billion bureaucracy, for housing. It is the fourth bureaucracy we have in our country for housing, and in my view, it is completely unnecessary. Really, this whole thing misses the point. As the budget tinkers with housing, the real problem is that houses are too expensive to buy and ultimately too expensive to build, because every level of government adds more costs, more delays, more rules, added fees and red tape, and this needs to change.

I was a home builder for 11 years. I believe I built more homes than the Liberals ever did. My customers wanted homes that were safe, durable, efficient and well built. That is what they wanted, and that is what I delivered. Many home builders across the country deliver that all the time. How does this come to be? Well, part of it is building codes. Building codes are part of what drives the way that houses are built.

In our country, we have the National Research Council, which is a federally funded agency that develops building codes. Its employees do research and come up with the different ideas for new changes and things that should be put into the building codes. Then they are offered to the provinces to adopt, because building codes are a provincial issue, but the federal government, through the National Research Council, develops these building codes, and that sounds like a good thing. However, there is a big problem in this, which is the special interest groups that are able to get their pet projects onto the agenda. Often, those end up in the building codes that we see because there is a lack of cost consideration when these codes are developed.

We can have a million good ideas, but every good idea adds cost. In this case, the Canadian Home Builders' Association looked at the latest building codes, which are the 2025 building codes, did some math and tried to figure out the cost impact of these codes. It determined that the changes in the 2025 building codes were going to add $56,000 to the average house in Canada, and that is not all. It gets worse, because there are also energy upgrades that were specified. If we add those in, it adds another $60,000. The total of that is about $114,000 that it estimates. No province has yet adopted these building codes. In fact, the CHBA is suggesting to provinces that they do not adopt these building codes because there is so much confusion, frustration and added cost. The budget does nothing to address this core issue that is driving housing costs. Members can imagine adding $114,000 to the cost of an already expensive house in our country. It makes no sense.

In my view, the problem is a lack of focus on costs in building codes. The government is good at putting what it calls a “lens” on things. Members may have heard the term “climate lens” or “gender lens”. What we are missing is a cost lens. We do not think about cost when we do things like this. Why not have clear cost-benefit information for the building codes, not to weaken building codes, block safety improvements, stop accessibility or tell technical experts how to do things but to simply tell builders to show their work and let the consumer decide? There is currently no explanation of what a change would cost, who would pay for it, what housing types would be affected, what benefits would be expected, what trade-offs there would be or what assumptions would be used. One small change may not seem like much, but many small changes stacked together is how we end up with $114,000 in changes from a building code.

Of course, these costs get passed on to builders, but ultimately, they get passed on to and paid by the buyers and the renters, the people who use the housing. This matters in Saskatoon West. It matters whether it is downtown, in an older inner-city neighbourhood, in a rental-heavy area or in a newer subdivision. Housing challenges are different in each community because older areas face different problems. They might have aging infrastructure, irregular-sized lots, drainage, utilities, infill constraints, things like that.

This budget missed the point on housing. What the budget tried to do was give people a little bit to help them deal with these very expensive costs of housing, but what it should have done is get to the source, the root of the problem, which is to lower housing costs and certainly to prevent these massive increases in costs from affecting the next houses that are built. That is what the budget should have done, and that is not what it did.

I think the National Research Council needs to get serious about cost because every change it makes adds cost of one nature or another. How could we do this? We could have some sort of a housing cost and impact summary that, for every change, would explain what the proposal would do, what problem we are trying to solve, what housing types would be affected, the estimated cost for a typical house, who would be expected to bear that cost, what the benefits and drawbacks of this would be and what the implications would be on timelines of construction, complexity, administrative burden and things like that.

Other information that would also be helpful would be a public registry of proposals showing who pushed for a particular change. It could include clear information about committee roles, members and affiliations, things that could be kept so that people could understand who was pushing this. Was this being pushed by a particular company? Did it have some kind of an agenda? That is very useful and helpful information. This is important because industry lobbyists and special interest groups push their products and desires onto Canadians through this system of building codes, and Canadians need to know that.

We must keep in mind that the federal government does need to stay in its lane. This is a provincial jurisdiction area, so we have to make sure the federal government provides the information but allows the provinces to make those decisions. What did the government do? It tinkered with housing instead of actually solving the problem. It could have tackled the hidden costs and made better and more affordable homes.

Bill C-31 is a missed opportunity for affordability. Conservatives will continue to put forward solutions so that homes can be affordable and built better. We do not necessarily have to add $114,000 of costs. We will continue to push hard for affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this budget and this bill missed the mark on that.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a structural engineer, I spent a lot of time with the building code, so it was interesting to hear the member's speech, which focused quite a bit on the building code across Canada, the national code. One of the issues in Canada is that we have individual building codes for each province. There is no standardized code, which really impacts our ability to standardize housing design and to scale modular housing. I would also remind the member that, as he knows full well, building codes are a minimum standard, so it is kind of interesting to be talking about reducing minimum standards even further.

I want to talk about the need for increased energy efficiency in building codes. Yes, that does increase the initial purchase price, but then it has a far better life cycle cost for that house. The member spoke about a cost lens. I wonder if he also thinks that should include the life cycle cost when we include energy efficiency.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, actually, and there are two things in there I want to talk about. First of all, this is exactly my point. When there is a cost, for whatever reason, whether it is a climate issue or whatever it is, there should be a benefit. It should be easy to understand what the benefit is on a per house basis. This is exactly what I am asking for here. It would be helpful to have that information so we could actually make those decisions.

The other thing the member mentioned was the way that building codes are different across the country. I agree that it is not an ideal situation, but I would also suggest that it is like that because the building codes that are created are so difficult to work with, the provinces choose not to implement them, or they choose to cherry-pick certain things because they do not have the information. They do not have what they need to know, and that is why I think it is important to make sure that information is there, and then provinces can actually use it.