Debates of June 16th, 2026

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great question.

I appreciate my colleague's kind words and the opportunity to speak a little, very briefly in the time I am allowed, about some of the improvements. I laid it out fairly clearly in my speech, but it is about accountability. Look, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada. We are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians. No, we are voting against lousy bills that are wasting money and are not building houses, and we have seen that with $13 billion for 11,000 houses. That is what we are voting against. We are voting for Canadians. I encourage my colleague to review my notes and go over the four points for bringing accountability.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague brought up concerns with regard to Bill C-26 and also the spending of $1.7 billion. My concern with this spending is the lack of accountability. Over the last 11 years, there have been various scandals provided by this Liberal government, such as the WE Charity scandal, the arrive scam scandal and the PrescribeIT scandal. With the lack of accountability, there could be opportunities for another scandal with this bill.

I would like my colleague to possibly comment on that and tell us what he thinks.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke of accountability and scandal. He listed some of these scandals, and the list goes on and on and on.

My concern is both the lack of accountability and the illusion. We heard in an earlier statement from the members opposite claims of rejoicing. That is an illusion. We have heard claims, for example, of 2% NATO spending when SIPRI, the global standard for reporting NATO spending, reports it is only 1.6%. It is all an illusion. There were 500,000 homes pledged per year, and only 260,000 starts. Again, that is another illusion.

Canadians are tired of the illusions. They are tired of the scandals, and they are tired of this government.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father's Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father's Day to Dad.

Let me get back to the matter at hand, which is Bill C-26, the so-called improving housing supply act. Before discussing the details of this legislation, it is important to recognize why housing remains one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians.

For generations, home ownership was part of the Canadian promise. If someone worked hard, saved responsibly and played by the rules, they could reasonably expect to purchase a home, raise a family and build a future in the community they loved. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions. They are postponing marriage, postponing starting a family and postponing putting down roots in their communities because the cost of housing continues to rise faster than their ability to save.

According to the OECD, approximately 35% of low-income Canadian households are cost-overburdened, meaning they spend more than 40% of their disposable income just on housing. Renters are watching an ever-larger share of their income disappear each month, making it even more difficult to save for a down payment. The average rent on a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in Canada rose 5.1% to $1,550 per month in 2025, and that is if one is lucky. In my home community of Hamilton, the 2025 average rent was over $1,600 per month. Under the Harper Conservative government in 2015, the national average was just $942 per month.

Increasingly, it has become a question of whether future generations will enjoy the same opportunities that previous generations of Canadians took somewhat for granted. That is why all members of this House should be focused on one goal: building more homes. Unfortunately, while there is broad agreement on the problem, there is far less agreement on how to solve it.

Bill C-26 is presented as a measure to improve housing supply. The legislation itself is relatively short. It is only two paragraphs. In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results. At first glance, that sounds like a big number and maybe that would achieve something. Canadians do want more homes built. The Conservatives certainly want more homes built. The question is whether the legislation would actually accomplish that objective. That is where concerns begin to emerge.

When Parliament is asked to approve $1.7 billion in spending authority, Canadians certainly have the right to expect a clear plan. They have the right to expect measurable objectives. They have the right to expect accountability. Yet, when members examine Bill C-26, they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively? What reporting requirements would exist to ensure that taxpayers could evaluate the results? This legislation provides few answers. Instead, Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial amount of public spending while placing considerable discretion in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If a municipality came before taxpayers asking for $1.7 billion, citizens would expect a plan. If a private company sought $1.7 billion from investors, shareholders would expect measurable outcomes. Surely Canadians deserve no less when it comes to federal spending.

Let me be clear. Conservatives support working with the provinces to increase housing supply. We support reducing the tax burden on new homes. We support measures that make it easier to build. The partnership with the Province of Ontario promises funding over a 10-year period to boost housing supply. However, in the announcement, there are no clear benchmarks on how many houses would be built. In fact, buyers, home builders and even the Government of Ontario are still unclear as to how this rebate would be implemented. In question period today, the Liberal government gave no clear answer to the question from our shadow minister of housing about when the rebate would be implemented.

Time and again, Canadians hear announcements. Time and again, Canadians hear promises. Time and again, Canadians are told that relief is just around the corner, yet housing affordability continues to worsen. The reality is that after Liberal housing programs over the past number of years, with billions of dollars spent and countless announcements, Canadians are still asking a simple question: Where are the homes? The CMHC cautions that Canada needs 430,000 to 480,000 new homes per year through 2035 to restore affordability to pre-COVID levels.

The government frequently talks about ambition, but Canadians are looking for results. The government frequently talks about investments, but Canadians are looking for homes. The government frequently announces new programs, but Canadians are asking why housing remains less affordable today than it was a decade ago.

One of the most notable aspects of Bill C-26 is the government's agreement with Ontario regarding the decision to remove the HST from eligible new homes. Conservatives have long argued that taxes imposed on home construction ultimately make housing more expensive. That is why we support lowering taxes on housing. However, we also believe that Canadians deserve something better than temporary measures and complicated rebate programs. Our position has been consistent: We would permanently remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million. That would be permanent, not a one-year fix.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association agrees with our vision. It too would like relief on taxes to be made permanent. A permanent GST cut would provide certainty for homebuyers, builders and the housing market. It would reduce costs while encouraging the construction of additional housing supply. That is the difference between a measure designed to generate headlines and a measure designed to generate the building of homes.

Another concern is the government's continued focus on creating programs and bureaucracies instead of a focus on outcomes. Canadians do not measure success by the number of announcements issued by governments. They measure success by whether they can afford a home, whether housing starts are increasing and whether their children have a realistic path to home ownership. Those are the metrics that matter. Canadians understand that housing affordability will not improve because government creates another program, fund or bureaucracy.

After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Conservatives believe that federal funding should be tied to those outcomes, and that is what we have proposed.

Municipalities that increase housing construction should be rewarded. Municipalities that continue to block growth should expect that taxpayers will not subsidize that failure. The objective should be simple: more homes built every year, not more paperwork, bureaucracy or announcements but more homes. Canada already has the workers, materials, expertise and entrepreneurial spirit needed to address the housing crisis. What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged.

Conservatives continue to advocate for policies to get homes built. We continue to push for lower taxes on housing. We continue fighting to remove barriers to construction. We will continue standing up for young Canadians, families and workers who simply want the opportunity to own a home and build a future in this country. Canadians deserve those results, they deserve accountability for $1.7 billion, and most importantly, they deserve a government focused on building homes instead of building bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about wanting results and output. When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing, six non-profit houses were built. That is how much he was able to accomplish. He was the worst minister of housing in the history of Canada.

Let us compare that to just over a year ago. Thousands of affordable housing units are on their way to being built, and a record amount of money is being invested to encourage housing development. The Cadillac, of course, with this particular bill is likely going to be the province of Ontario, where there is tens of thousands of dollars in support. Individuals are already making decisions to build homes in the province of Ontario because the Province of Ontario and the federal government are working together collaboratively in order to make it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about reality in his question to the previous speaker. Let me get to that in a moment, but the Province of Ontario, the government itself, home builders and buyers are waiting to see this program actually be implemented. They do not understand how this rebate is going to actually happen. That is one thing. Here is the reality faced by Ontarians, Canadians and young Canadians in particular. Before these Liberals, 11 years ago, because of the taxes and bureaucracy they support, the average monthly mortgage payment in this country was $1,432. The average rent was $943. People could afford to buy a home. Now, a third of the cost of building a home is government, and this is symptomatic of the problem of the current government.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-26 is a good time to take stock of what the new Liberal government has accomplished after a year in office, even though the Liberals have been in power for 10 years, as we all know.

When it comes to housing, there has been talk of cutting spending and eliminating immediate affordability supports, such as the Canada housing benefit, and supports for existing social housing. Budget 2025 also indicates that spending will drop to just $4.3 billion in 2028-29, a 56% drop compared to the funding allocated for 2025-26.

If housing were really a priority for the Liberal government, would it be making such drastic and predictable cuts over the coming years?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point is valid. It is not the spending, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and we have debated that, that is resulting in the construction of homes. We need builders to have confidence. We need an economy that is, as it was 11 years ago, the strongest-performing economy in the G7, the strongest-performing economy in the OECD, not the only economy in the G20 that is in recession. That is what is going to help build homes and ensure that they are affordable for young Canadians to actually enter the market.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the story is the same, same and not different with this bill and all of the other money that has flowed through provinces where housing starts did not increase and the price has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up. Earlier today, we asked the Minister of Housing how many houses the $1.7 billion would build. We even asked the parliamentary secretary, who had a slightly better answer than the minister, but there is still no answer at all about how many houses the $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money would build.

I ask my hon. colleague if he knows how many houses the $1.7 billion the House is being asked to approve right now will build.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that. In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period. We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening. We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday. I would like to tell him that I am very proud to be his father and offer him my sincerest congratulations, especially since he made a name for himself in Quebec with his performance at the Quebec Games last summer, where he won two gold medals in swimming, for the breaststroke.

I also want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Let us start by saying something important about Bill C-26: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill simply because it is necessary to transfer funds quickly and without delay to help Quebec build and set its housing priorities.

It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone. This system is renowned and has proven its worth.

Transferring the money directly to Quebec will allow Quebec to manage its affairs as it sees fit and in accordance with its own reality. That is precisely what Bill C‑26 does. It transfers the funds earmarked for affordable housing to the authority that has jurisdiction in this area. As a result, Quebec will be able to ensure that it develops strategies based on its priorities and aligned with the realities of the various communities within its territory. It will be in a position to develop its own strategy for social and affordable housing.

Another advantage is that it reduces administrative costs, because the province already reports on its own expenditure through its own budget. Instead of duplicating costs, the government sends the money directly, cutting red tape and eliminating duplication, which means that everyone wins. Since the money comes without conditions, Quebec will be able to use a variety of means to influence the rental supply, whether that means building housing-related infrastructure, such as sewers and water systems, introducing tax relief or building social and affordable housing. In short, Quebec will have the tools it needs to take effective action using the various levers at its disposal.

Transferring this $1.7 billion allows the provinces to take immediate action, and that reduces wait times. It differs from the strategy of Build Canada Homes, which is just another Crown corporation that creates more duplication, more management costs, more public servant hiring and so on. Transferring the money to the provinces reduces the size of government and gives responsibility to the governments that are actually responsible for housing. Quebec and the provinces each have their individual realities. Quebec's reality differs from the reality in British Columbia. Yukon's reality is completely different from New Brunswick's reality. If every province takes charge of its responsibilities based on its own reality, we will end up with more tailored, more flexible programs.

Over the past few months, at meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have personally questioned various departments about their definitions of urban, rural and remote regions. As the member for a region that could be described as rural and remote, this question concerns me tremendously. What we observe is that the federal government has a distorted view of rural regions. To the Government of Canada, any census area with a population of 100,000 or less is a rural region. Geographic factors apparently do not matter. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is located six or seven hours from urban areas, depending on the destination. That makes it impossible to compete with cities located in the suburbs. The reality is that transferring the funds to Quebec ensures that realities like mine are respected.

Another issue is all the regulatory requirements in federal programs that do not apply to Quebec because it has the Civil Code. Basically, this creates new obligations for Quebec stakeholders, resulting in additional delays and costs to meet a requirement that does not even apply in Quebec. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynda Perreault, a member of my team who works in my office and helps organizations navigate the complexities of organizations such as CMHC and Build Canada Homes.

To date, Build Canada Homes still cannot meet its own 30-day deadline for responding to proposals. It made that commitment during a technical briefing on February 17. The truth is, Build Canada Homes does not have enough staff to review the applications. As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves.

For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season. Unfortunately, our summers are shorter than elsewhere. We lose years to administrative delays. Mortgage costs are often passed on to the organizations that wanted to balance their budgets without taking out a mortgage. Winter construction in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is not t really an option. Our winters are very long, so we have no choice but to be more efficient during the summer. Delays result in additional costs for many non-profit organizations that are just trying to create social and affordable housing for vulnerable populations. They end up with extra costs, forcing them to cut back on their operations, which means they end up helping fewer people.

A lot of construction is happening in Abitibi–Témiscamingue right now. However, it is private development. While that is a good thing, it means that families and lower-income individuals are unable to afford these new properties. Furthermore, several developers were told that their applications would be transferred to Build Canada Homes. The reality is that this has not happened. They have to start all over again and resubmit their projects. This means even more hours of work lost for non-profit organizations. If the money had been transferred to Quebec, this sort of problem would not be happening. The solution is so simple.

That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years. The result was an agreement under which Quebec received only $1 billion of the program's $6-billion budget, or 16.6%, which is far less than its share of the population. This is also what is known as a fiscal imbalance. Quebec should have received $1.3 billion to match the figures calculated using the needs identified by the Union des municipalités du Québec, yet we received $300 million less.

The Liberal members from Quebec do not boast too much about that. If we add the inflation of the past two years, we must acknowledge that that money will not go as far today as it could have. It is important to remember that Quebec municipalities are currently experiencing one of the most serious housing crises ever, while a lot of the infrastructure is aging and no longer suitable to today's reality. It is time for Ottawa to do what it must do, which is to unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces as soon as possible. This would be a win-win situation for everyone.

I want to give some examples. In 2016, funding for major housing-related infrastructure was also announced, and that funding was immediately allocated to Ontario. It is interesting because the programs in Ottawa are designed with Ontario's reality in mind. It took over three years to reach an agreement with Quebec. I have to talk about inflation again. Then came COVID-19. Then came the skyrocketing cost of housing. Because of this, we were not able to build as many housing units. The amount of housing built was much less in Quebec because of all these constraints. If Quebec's reality had been respected and this money had been transferred with no strings attached, the housing shortage that we have been seeing across Quebec, and particularly in Abitibi-Témiscamingue for the past 20 years, would not be as significant now. That is not without consequences.

I can give a wide range of examples that show that federal programs do not work in Quebec and in rural and northern regions like mine. Energy efficiency requirements are problematic. Ottawa wants to tell us how we should manage energy efficiency, but Quebec City's criteria are different. This means we have to send an inspector on site. That results in additional costs and delays. All of this means we cannot meet deadlines. We cannot finish construction on time, and we lose years of construction time.

It is entirely Ottawa's fault. Ottawa should mind its own business and do what Bill C-26 thankfully calls for, namely, respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and transferring the funds unconditionally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe that federalism works when we have collaboration between different provinces. For the member to try to give the impression that one province is given a priority over other provinces is just wrong. There is a collaboration that works with different provinces. Different provinces have different time frames.

What I do know is that Canadians in every region of the country understand and want to see the federal government play a role in regard to housing. If there had been a stronger role from 2006 to 2014, we probably would not have the serious issue regarding affordable housing today. Some provinces might do better than other provinces, but the federal government does have a role to play and it is not just to be an ATM.

Does the member not believe that working—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes. When will we see a program that is truly adapted to the regions of Quebec? When will the government stop focusing solely on Toronto and its suburbs? When will the government take an interest in the true rural regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada? Not all of Canada's regions are within 200 kilometres of the U.S. border.

Unfortunately, such programs do not exist because they are designed for towns with a population of 100,000 or less. We do not have those resources or that expertise in our municipalities.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits. For each household, that amounts to $3,400 a year in federal government debt and $3,000 a year in provincial government debt. That money is being thrown down the drain. We are paying more in interest.

Is supporting this government bill a waste of money?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre, whom I hold in particularly high regard.

As I said, this is one of the few bills that involves an unconditional transfer. In effect, this means that Quebec's money will be returned to Quebeckers. For that reason, we are somewhat open to it.

We generally find that, with programs such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund, Quebeckers pay their full share, namely 22.5%, corresponding to their share of the population. However, they receive only 16.6% of the funding, meaning that Quebeckers are paying to create housing elsewhere rather than at home, even though Quebec has significant housing needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is anything my colleague has not mentioned. This evening, we are considering Bill C-26.

Is there any aspect of Bill C-26 that has not been mentioned that my colleague would like to address?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one issue that is very important to me, particularly as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is access to housing for first nations.

I would like to see a program created by and for first nations. I am thinking in particular of the Yänonhchia' program, which aims to develop indigenous expertise but is not necessarily reaching the communities because of the way federal programs are designed. In every budget, the federal government allocates billions of dollars for indigenous infrastructure, and it presents that as though it is something really wonderful. Even today, $4.5 billion is being set aside for access to clean drinking water.

In reality, however, expertise is not being developed within first nations. So many unattainable standards and requirements are imposed on the communities that, one year later, because the deadlines are extremely tight, Ottawa takes its money back and puts it back in the coffers. It then pats itself on the back for properly managing the money, since, in the end, it spent less than expected.

At the end of the day, the needs remain unchanged and the quality of life for first nations is getting worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer.

What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following:

The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply.

This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so.

The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance.

The second subclause provides the following:

Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.

The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later.

Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa.

This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers.

We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction.

We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March.

We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said.

The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.”

The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.”

What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real.

Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec's share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population.

The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it.

We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun.

Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister's refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season.

Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual.

There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%.

The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed.

I do not understand the government's position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the last point, we just introduced the bill, on Thursday, for some debate time. The first Conservative member to speak to it spoke for two hours and 45 minutes, which was a good sign, given that the Conservatives oppose the legislation. They have no intention of passing the legislation. If we had not brought in this process, we would never be able to pass the legislation. The member opposite says that he supports the legislation, and he is criticizing us for not passing it soon enough.

The roots of my family tree, my ancestry, go back to the beautiful province of Quebec, a province of which I am very proud. I want Quebec to succeed in a wonderful Canadian federation where we have collaboration, whether the federal government is working with the Quebec government or the City of Montreal, on building homes and building projects.

I wonder if the member could provide—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does during question period. I am going to deflect the question and not answer it.

My colleague across the way forgets one thing. I imagine he knows his history. In 1870, when Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation, 50% of its population was francophone. Today, the francophone population is about 2.5% to 2.7%. Why is that? It is because, for years, Manitoba laws prohibited French instruction in public schools.

My colleague opposite has a French last name. I will not name him, since I am not allowed to. Today, however, he does not speak French. Do members know why he does not speak French? It is because learning French in school was prohibited.

It is because of the Canadian Confederation that the member opposite now speaks English rather than French.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not recognize is that since the Province of Quebec changed the law, there are more people speaking French today.

We can go into schools in areas that I represent, like Meadows West and Sisler High, and we will find members of Filipino and Punjabi heritage being able to speak multiple languages. There is a great sense of pride in Manitoba today. My family goes from the province of Quebec to St-Pierre-Jolys in Manitoba. St-Pierre-Jolys is very French. Members can go to St. Boniface, which is a French community. Signs are there.

Never before in the history of Canada has French been spoken more in Quebec. Does the member see that as a good thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law.

I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin. While I was there, I met the prime minister of Tibet in exile, who told me that day schools and residential schools currently exist in China where Tibetans are prohibited from learning Tibetan. He told me that it was like what we lived through in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario.

The prime minister in exile of the Parliament of Tibet used Canada as an example of mass, coercive francophone assimilation. The member opposite is proud of that. He is proud that he lost his language. His family lost its language because of a ban on learning French in his birth province. It is incredible.