Debates of June 16th, 2026

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the Bloc supports Bill C-26. The key thing is that the bill would give the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantee of results, targets or accountability to build homes.

With those concerns, why does the Bloc support the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I explained that in what my colleague referred to as my wonderful speech. I explained that, when we were looking at the estimates, I asked the Minister of Finance a question, and he answered it. I asked him whether he had negotiated with Quebec and whether he was committed to ensuring that Quebec would receive its share of funding with no strings attached. What we understood from the minister's answer and from our interactions with the department is that the government was taking into account the unique nature of Quebec's housing construction ecosystem this time and for this particular bill.

The Bloc Québécois always asks the government to send Quebec transfers with no strings attached, and we make a huge fuss when the government refuses to do so. However, when the government decides to transfer the money with no strings attached, when it recognizes that the matter falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and that Quebec is better at managing it, then we support the government. Then, the other nine provinces and territories can figure out the rest on their own.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.

He mentioned the sovereign wealth fund, which the government refers to as the Canada Strong fund. We do not seem to hear anything about this fund anymore. That lasted two or three days. When the Liberals announced this fund with great fanfare, they immediately compared it to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps my colleague can do a better job of explaining it than I can, but I think that the government misled the population by comparing the fund that it put in place to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia.

Could my colleague briefly explain why those funds are different?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a complicated question. There are all sorts of sovereign wealth funds. Every country has them. Norway's fund is used to accumulate oil revenues to benefit future generations, but above all to invest the money abroad in order to avoid Dutch disease. The same goes for Saudi Arabia. Also, China has funds that are used to influence geopolitics. However, all the funds that actually work share one characteristic, and that is that they contain money.

In our case, under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, natural resources are the exclusive property of the provinces. If there were sovereign wealth funds, they would be held by the provinces. This whole thing was just another excuse to make an announcement and slap “Canada strong” on something. In the end, it serves no economic purpose. That is why it was very poorly received by economists, commentators and people who will not benefit from it directly. The government looked a bit foolish because of it.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I rise today in the chamber in support of Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

At its heart, this bill is intended to make it easier for Canada to build more homes and the kinds of communities where people can truly live. For many Canadians, housing is not an abstract policy issue. When we think about housing, we must consider it as the starting place for the way Canadians imagine their future, where workers can live close to their jobs; seniors can remain close to their communities and age in place; and young people can rent, own or raise a family. This is an issue that even my preteen son is thinking about, wondering how he can remain in the city he loves.

It comes as no surprise that global economic pressures have reshaped the housing market. Rising construction costs, labour shortages and wages that have not kept pace with inflation have all contributed to the challenges we face today. We know that without secure housing, it is impossible to plan for the future, to build stability or to fully participate in Canada's economy. I see this clearly in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront.

Spadina—Harbourfront is one of the densest communities in this country. It is a riding of high-rises, condominiums, co-operatives, rental buildings, shelters, supportive housing, student housing and seniors housing. This is a place where people live vertically. They share public space, rely on transit, walk to work, gather in parks, hang out at STACKT market, the Waterworks Food Hall, One Love market, Sugar Beach or The Island Cafe, and build community in ways that are deeply urban and deeply Canadian.

In my riding, I see the beauty and possibility of density every day. Density can mean a senior is better able to live closer to health care, groceries and neighbours who can check in. It can mean that a young person can walk to school or work. It can also mean that families can share playgrounds, libraries, community centres and waterfront spaces.

Just last weekend, the waterfront was vibrating with excitement as we welcomed the world for the FIFA World Cup, with thousands cheering for Canada right from their condo balconies and watching the crowds gather in the streets.

We could live in communities with less sprawl, stronger transit and more vibrant main streets. Vertical living can work when we plan for people instead of units. We see examples of this across our community. Harbour Square, for example, has long shown how vertical communities can include shared services, including shuttle services that help residents move through the city and remain connected.

Across the riding, we see buildings where neighbours organize, support one another, share amenities and create a real sense of belonging. This is the kind of city building we should be learning from.

We also know the best housing solutions do not come from government alone. They come from housing co-operatives that show us that affordability, stability and community ownership go hand in hand. They can also come from organizations like Eva's Initiatives, which supports young people experiencing homelessness and reminds us that housing is not only about a roof, but about safety, connection, trust and the chance to rebuild a life.

The best housing solutions also come from thoughtful public planning, like the work of Waterfront Toronto, which has shown that the when we build with intention, we can create communities that include housing, transit, parks, public space, climate resilience and access to water. This is the vision that we need more of in Canada: not just buildings, but more homes where people feel they have complete communities.

The housing crisis has also placed enormous pressure on the construction sector. In the greater Toronto area, new home sales fell to just over 5,300 units in 2025, which is the lowest level in more than 45 years. That slowdown has already led to job losses in the skilled trades and construction sector. These are the very workers Canada needs if we are going to build the houses people are counting on.

Approximately 80,000 people are leaving the GTA because of affordability pressures. A study by Altus Group for the Building Industry and Land Development Association found that without urgent action, nearly half of all residential construction jobs in the region could be at risk and housing starts could fall by more than 60% compared to 2024 levels. We must act in order to protect housing supply and keep skilled workers on the job. We must make it easier to build, to build quickly and to build well.

Through Bill C-26, our government is proposing to provide $1.7 billion to provinces and territories immediately so they can implement measures to increase Canada's housing supply. This funding is designed to help remove the barriers slowing down homebuilding, including by lowering development charges, fees, levies or sales taxes on new homes. It would also support efforts to harmonize rules, improve internal trade and increase productivity in the residential construction sector.

At a time when the housing market is under real pressure, this bill would keep projects moving, maintain construction activity, protect skilled jobs and unlock the homes Canadians urgently need.

Fixing Canada's housing issues will require a wide range of solutions and, above all, close collaboration. No single order of government can solve the housing crisis alone. The strongest housing systems are built when public, private, non-profit and community partners are all at the table.

We are already seeing what that collaboration can look like. In March, the federal government and the Province of Ontario signed a historic partnership agreement to build homes, transit and communities, backed by $8.8 billion in joint funding over 10 years. This agreement supports housing-enabling infrastructure and helps reduce the cost of building new homes. It includes support for municipalities that reduce and maintain low development charges. This includes an HST rebate to incentivize new home construction and support for major transit projects to connect people to jobs and services. Ontario's removal of the full 13% HST for eligible buyers of new homes valued up to $1 million, for one year from April 2026 to March 2027, is one example of what this kind of partnership can make possible. Through Bill C-26, our government has agreed to cover the 5% federal portion of that HST relief. This is a practical measure because it supports near-term construction activity while longer-term work continues to lower the cost of building homes. Since that announcement, new home sales in the GTA have begun to recover. In April alone, approximately 1,100 new homes were sold, nearly triple the number sold during the same period last year.

In Toronto, housing and infrastructure must be planned together. This is why investments like the waterfront east transit project are so important. This project will connect communities such as East Bayfront, the Port Lands and Ookwemin Minising. It is not only a transit investment, but a housing strategy. Good transit helps unlock new neighbourhoods and connects people to work, school, child care and community. It supports the construction of thousands of new homes in places where people can live with dignity and connection.

We are also moving forward with Build Canada Homes, an ambitious initiative to accelerate homebuilding across the country, including transitional, supportive and deeply affordable housing. This program includes a $13-billion initial investment, the development of federal lands, support for factory-built housing and measures to preserve long-term affordability. It is already supporting thousands of new units and has the potential to deliver tens of thousands more. The legislation before us would give these efforts the flexibility and tools they need to accelerate delivery, take on risk responsibly and build the housing Canadians are counting on.

In a city like Toronto, where affordability remains one of our greatest challenges, this kind of relief can make a meaningful difference. It helps more buyers enter the market and supports the construction of the homes we so urgently need. This why this bill is so important. It is a measure that has been called for by housing advocates, including organizations like BILD, and it represents a clear win for builders, workers and residents in my riding.

Canada's housing market is going through a period of adjustment, but that does not change the reality that we are facing a structural housing supply shortage. Our government has been clear: We will build more homes faster and more boldly. Bill C-26's purpose is to support housing supply, protect Canadian jobs and maintain capacity in the construction sector. By acting now, we can keep construction activity moving, retain skilled workers and ensure that builders can continue to plan and launch new projects at a time when that continuity is critical.

The housing crisis did not happen overnight and it will not be solved overnight, but the choices we make today will shape the future of housing in this country for generations to come. Our government is here today working to provide Canadians with the tools they need to build that stability. Bill C-26 is one important step toward that goal. We are taking meaningful action to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today. We are working closely with provinces, territories and municipalities, because we know that collaboration is essential in a moment like this.

In Spadina—Harbourfront, I see every day that density can be beautiful, that vertical living can be full of community and that good planning can help people build real lives in the heart of a city. This is the future we should be building toward. For that reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-26.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 gives the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees of results, targets or accountability to build homes. In fact, the word “housing” is in this bill only twice.

My hon. colleague mentioned the rebate program, the program that was signed with the Province of Ontario, yet there is no specific program put in place through regulation on how that rebate will work. That is my understanding. I have had developers call me as late as last week. They cannot find out from the Ontario government how the rebate works. When they are told by the province to go to the CRA, the CRA is telling them it does not know how this program works. Perhaps the member can tell us how this rebate program will work.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a really important opportunity to show that kind of collaboration between the provincial government and the federal government, and to get the communications and clarity around the policy decisions that we need. We have set targets for our housing pieces. I know that last year in Toronto we actually took back some of the funding because the city was not meeting some of the targets around multiplexes, and in Vaughan as well. There are mechanisms, and we are making sure that the housing we are investing in gives us the returns we are looking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto.

In rural regions like mine, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, it is virtually impossible to access any federal programs that operate in rural areas. Ask any member who represents a rural area more than 200 kilometres from the U.S. border, and they will say that they struggle to access any federal housing programs that actually work.

That said, I would be curious to put the question to my colleague from Spadina—Harbourfront. Before entering politics, she was an activist for democracy in her professional life, particularly regarding the role of women in democracy. Did she get into politics to vote to shut down the debate one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or nearly ten times?

I would like to hear her comments on that, because this bill will also be passed under time allocation.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about rurality and the need for housing, we know that this is a challenge not just in downtown Toronto or in downtown Vancouver; it is a challenge across our country. However, one of the things that I have learned about, in terms of the new investments that we have been making, is an initiative in Nunavut where we will be building modular housing and building that in the north. It is a step in the right direction, and it is a step in the work of building the infrastructure we need to make Canada strong. Those efforts are really critical for this time, and I know that this is a huge part of the work that we all want to be doing as Canadians.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous question was about what the rush is in terms of passing this legislation. I want to ask my hon. colleague this: When you are out in the community, the amazing Spadina—Harbourfront, are you hearing from people that this is a housing crisis and an emergency, and that they want us to move quickly during construction season? Let us answer this: What is the rush in the House to pass this legislation?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Just before I recognize the next member, that member was using “you” to the Speaker. I have not been to Spadina—Harbourfront recently, but I will ask the member for Spadina—Harbourfront to respond.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague here for her excellent leadership. I know I have learned a lot from her in our time together in Parliament, from the deep expertise she brings as a city councillor and her understanding of some of the mechanisms around some of this work.

It is true that there is real urgency, and in terms of this funding, I know the builders and some of the developers have signalled that the pause and the challenge of the instability mean that they are looking for our government to take on some of the risks, in order for us to be able to move forward. Part of this investment in Ontario, and I spoke in particular about the waterfront east transit project in Toronto, is for housing-enabling infrastructure, including transit. This is the kind of work that I think is really going to set the country up for success.

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

Mr. Speaker, coming out of the last election, the Prime Minister and the government made it very clear that housing was going to be a priority of this government, the issue of housing affordability, and we have seen that demonstrated in budgets and legislation. Once again, we have before us a very important piece of legislation that would give literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians the opportunity to have a more affordable home. To me, that is what this is all about.

There are two aspects that, I believe, would be profoundly and positively impacted by this particular piece of legislation. The most obvious is those who would have the opportunity, through this substantial break in terms of costs, to purchase and acquire a home. Another aspect that I would suggest we need to take into consideration and that would really benefit is our construction industry as a whole.

I would like to provide comments on both of those issues, but first I will provide a quick comment, because I know members have raised the issue, on timing and concerns in regard to how quickly the government is trying to get this legislation through before the summer break. It is absolutely critical that we are there to deliver for Canadians in a very real and tangible way, which is exactly what Bill C‑26 would do.

One thing that members need to recognize is that we brought the legislation into the House just last Thursday. The very first speaker on the legislation took two hours and 45 minutes of speaking time before he decided to let other members within the Conservative caucus speak. There should be no surprise coming from the Conservative benches that the government is concerned in regard to why, once again, we are seeing a Conservative opposition that tends to not want to see legislation pass, and then starts to criticize the government for not passing legislation. We have found, just like Stephen Harper, that at times the government needs to have a programming of legislation in order to be able to get the legislation passed. That has become very clear here in the House of Commons over the last number of months. The Prime Minister and every Liberal MP understand how important it is that we get the monies in that are so critically important.

This is one aspect. It was not long ago that we were debating legislation for Build Canada Homes, which had a focus on affordable homes and has already been having tangible results because we had co-operation, independence and opportunities to expand through collaboration in that area. We are talking about thousands of homes in the making as a direct result of that piece of legislation. That is exactly what we are going to see here.

We now have a Minister of Housing who has already had the discussions necessary with a province we should all be concerned about. The province of Ontario has some serious issues with housing starts. I am from Manitoba, but I understand the importance of trying to push those housing starts in the province of Ontario and other jurisdictions. I was very pleased to see the collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, and it was to the degree that we now have an agreement where we will see the sales tax that would normally be applied to the construction of a new home dropped. That is going to save Ontarians tens of thousands of dollars. By presenting it in a fashion in which Ontario and Canada, in co-operation, are collaboratively working together, we are providing an incentive that will see many people in Ontario make the decision to build.

That is the purpose of providing this incentive. It makes it more affordable, and we will see more homes being built this year in the province of Ontario as a direct result of two levels of government working together collaboratively, recognizing a problem and coming up with a direct action, a direct action that would complement other aspects of housing that the Government of Canada is working on.

It is not just provincial governments that we recognize. We also recognize municipalities, and how it is that municipalities can benefit from working with the different partners, whether it is the provincial government or the national government. I remember having a discussion with the mayor of Winnipeg and the mayor talked about the hundreds of homes that have been built directly because of the support that the city has received from the federal government. I say that because it is a different level of government, and it demonstrates clearly that Ottawa, our national government, does have, and should have, a role when it comes to housing in our nation.

I was pleased with the Bloc members who indicated that they would be supporting the bill. It is not too often that I say nice things about the Bloc, but this time, I will, because I see that members of the Bloc have recognized the value of a national government being able to support and work collaboratively with a provincial government. They recognize how residents of Quebec would actually benefit from it, as demonstrated by the Canada and Ontario benefit. I hope the Province of Manitoba will reach some sort of an agreement shortly. The sooner the better, I would suggest, so that the residents of Manitoba will likewise benefit under the program.

I believe that our new Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, made it very clear how important it is as a government to work collaboratively, where we can, with provinces to the benefit of Canadians. Housing is one of those areas where we have actually been somewhat successful.

We have already had buy-in on Build Canada Homes, first the agency and now the Crown corporation. There are different stakeholders and different industries getting involved, like modular homes, non-profits, housing co-ops and other forms of housing. Today, we are talking about that $1.7 billion. Injecting that into the housing industry will enable many Canadians to have the opportunity to save, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of our construction industry. It is the workers who have the skill sets, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the roofers and the pipefitters. These professions are so critically important for building Canada strong.

Putting in policies and bringing in legislation of this nature is going to provide jobs and opportunities in many different ways, whether it is for training facilities or for those who are currently employed in construction. It is also for those purchasing the homes, selling the homes and building the homes.

There are many winners, because we recognize how important it is for the federal government to continue to work with provinces in a collaborative fashion to enhance the number of homes in Canada's housing stock. We are committed to increasing that housing stock, dramatically, in the coming years.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 11 under Government Orders now before the House.

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #165

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #166

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Admissibility of Government Business No. 13

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the member for York—Durham.

What we have before us today is not just a programming motion, it is a dangerous precedent, an abuse of the procedural power of the majority. Government Business No. 13 introduces a retroactive deadline for amendments to be tabled in committee, which is, to my knowledge, unprecedented and highly inconsistent with the very spirit of our rules.

Let us be clear: A rule that sets a deadline that has already passed is not an organizational tool. It is a trap. When a government uses such a mechanism to close down debate, it is not managing the business of the House; it is taking it away.

The power to schedule work exists to allow for expedited consideration of bills in accordance with the Standing Orders, not to deprive members of their fundamental right to amend, discuss and improve a piece of legislation.

Some government members seem to have had the opportunity to table their amendments before the deadline, when the deadline was not known to all the other members. This is serious. That gave those members an unfair advantage over members of the opposition. This procedural imbalance is unacceptable. In a House where every member is supposed to have the same rights, I would say that is unacceptable.

Parliamentary procedure is not a weapon at the government's disposal; it is the framework that protects all members of Parliament, notably against the tyranny of the majority. This sort of manoeuvre does not constitute good parliamentary administration; it is an abuse of procedure.

Previous rulings by the Chair are relevant here because they highlight a fundamental point: The House cannot, on the pretext of efficiency, run roughshod over the legislative stages. The Chair must protect not only the form but also the integrity of the process. When a motion actually prevents members from carrying out their duties, the Chair must declare it inadmissible. Otherwise, we open the door to a precedent whereby the government will henceforth be able to set retroactive rules, reserve benefits for its own members and then close the door to any correction.

We cannot mince words here. This is not merely a procedural innovation; it is an abuse of process. It is an attempt to circumvent the normal parliamentary scrutiny of an important bill—very important, in fact. This is precisely the sort of situation that the Chair must prevent if it is to preserve the credibility of this institution.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member for sharing her point of view.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a point of order.