Debates of June 5th, 2026

Business of the House

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.

Build Canada Homes Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the member to reverse the Conservative policy of just getting out of the way, recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play in housing. Would he not agree?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to capsulize Bill C-20, I would say it is more bureaucracy, it is more regulation and it is more cost to the taxpayer, but it is great for Liberal insiders and friends. We are probably going to find out more and more as time goes on.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-20 on Build Canada Homes or, as it was originally mistranslated in French, “Bâtir Maisons Canada”.

It is not in the Bloc's nature to agree to the creation of federal Crown corporations that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I would remind all members that housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. However, there is always context, and the current situation is extremely serious.

The housing crisis that has been raging for some time is appalling. There is crippling inflation, which means people are struggling to find housing and often, or even regularly, have to cut back on other expenses. This is a serious crisis. That is the first factor. The second factor is that the federal government has finally, in the end, reached an agreement with the Quebec government. That is one of the factors that may lead the Bloc Québécois to accept such measures.

The agreement very clearly states that Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities and legislative framework will be respected, along with the Build Canada Homes investment policy framework.

An agreement has been reached, an urgent need exists and funds are available. We are talking about $1 billion, after all. We cannot, in good conscience, say that we are rejecting the money in accordance with a general policy. The context here allows us to approve this bill, as we did at second reading.

At second reading, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan gave an interesting quote. I really like quoting this man. He is brilliant, intelligent and humble at the same time. My colleague commended the government and the minister for trying to speed up efforts to address the affordable housing issue, and I share his sentiment.

We therefore applaud the effort and the investment, and we will support this bill because something needs to be done about housing, especially affordable housing. That said, we have some concerns. Affordable housing is not social housing. Build Canada Homes is focusing strongly on affordable housing. The government is creating a structure that will inevitably encroach on areas outside federal jurisdiction and giving it very broad powers. Among other things, Build Canada Homes will have the power to become a shareholder or partner of private companies operating in the area of affordable housing. We have concerns about that, and I must express them in the House. What does that mean in the long term? It is a bit like the current agreement with Quebec. It exists, but how long will it last? Will it be renewed and will it still respect Quebec's jurisdiction?

Unfortunately, Canadian history has taught us that the federal government generally has a hard time respecting Quebec's jurisdiction. That is why we are on alert. All of this background information is intended to highlight this fact.

Something has to be done about housing. There is no getting around that. The billion dollars that will be sent to Quebec will, I hope, provide some general relief, as long as this structure is effective.

Speaking of effectiveness and structures, I would now like to talk about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already exists. Its mandate includes funding, program creation, support, and planning and validating this type of housing project.

Why create a new structure? We have raised that question before and I am raising it again today because we never really got an answer. The Liberals talk about agility, or perhaps they just wanted to create something new. Governments love to say that they are responsible for creating one structure or another. Often, they create things and put the word “Canada” on it three or four times so that it sounds good when they say it.

In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. My argument about adding “Canada” to the names of things does not apply here because the “C” in CMHC already stands for Canada. CMHC stands for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so this is not about adding Canada to the name. Why then, do the Liberals want to create a new structure that operates in the same areas?

More importantly, the CMHC is at risk of losing a lot of its funding and programs. The government is telling us that it will maintain the current funding levels and any initiatives that have already been announced. I honestly have to commend the government for that, because at least it is not cutting programs mid-stream. However, that means that these programs will disappear when the funding runs out, and that raises concerns. I am thinking, in particular, about the rapid housing initiative, which is working well. People had better take full advantage of it while it is still around, because it is not every day that a member of the Bloc Québécois says that a program is working well. If I am saying it, then it must be true. In that case, why sunset that program? We are concerned about all of these things.

This new structure is causing concern not only among Bloc Québécois MPs, but also among community organizations like FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a housing rights organization.

Build Canada Homes is allowed to become a shareholder or partner in housing projects, and that is causing concern among FRAPRU's members. They said, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing with Build Canada Homes, the government's new strategy...is starting to become clear. Build Canada Homes is an investment bank, plain and simple.” These comments were reported by my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. That sums up the situation well.

It goes without saying that we will be on our guard and will carry out our role as a constructive opposition by monitoring the work of this entity and ensuring that it does not start to disregard Quebec's jurisdiction or cast its net too wide. This federal government has a tendency to overreach and it has far too much money relative to its responsibilities, yet it still manages to run up record deficits and accumulate stratospheric debts. We must keep a close eye on it because it will meddle in whatever areas it can.

Again, housing is the responsibility of the Quebec government. I would like to quote Quebec premier Daniel Johnson. This is not a recent quote. He said this in 1967, a short time before I was born.

Quebec considers the following areas to fall within its exclusive jurisdiction: culture, adult education, university research, trade training programs, industry-cooperative training programs, and training programs for the unemployed; urban development and housing; municipal structure; municipal powers; and land use planning.

That pretty much sums up what I just said, and as I mentioned, this is not a new issue. I was not even born yet, and I am not exactly young anymore. I am not old, but I am not that young either.

There would be a role for the federal government if everyone here made an effort to respect the Constitution, which is rather ironic. I hear a member telling me he agrees. He might disagree with the rest of my statement, but it will be fun. We are pretty much the only ones here who want to the Constitution to be upheld. It is funny because we are the only ones who did not sign it. We all remember that it was done behind our backs in the middle of the night. It is still a pretty scandalous affair. I think I have managed to get one of my colleagues thinking. I am quite proud of myself.

Originally, the federal government's role was to transfer money to these jurisdictions, because it had a monopoly on taxation powers. Over time, attempts were made to balance the situation, but they never offset the shortfall. This is the crux of the problem with Canada's federal structure, which is a federation, not a confederation. That was another historical rip-off. The government has too much power and more money than its responsibilities require, so it tends to take advantage of the situation to shine in the public eye. Its members love making announcements from a sun-drenched balcony, hair blowing in the wind. I use that sentence a lot, but the image speaks for itself. The government wants to tell Canadians that it is generous and that it is going to hand out billions of dollars. That way, it gets credit and hopes that votes will follow. I am guessing that is the reasoning.

However, it would be nice if the contract that was signed behind our backs was respected. The Bloc Québécois has enough class to say that we are are stuck with that, and that we are going to play by the rules until the day comes that everyone knows about already. It should surprise no one that our goal is not to stay here. Our goal is for the Government of Quebec to assume its full powers and manage its responsibilities.

I will use the example of Build Canada Homes. We are saying today that, yes, we will take the billion dollars. We need it, because the crisis is urgent. Ottawa has an agreement with the Quebec government stipulating that decisions will be made by the Government of Quebec based on its jurisdictions and priorities. We agree.

However, if we take a step back, $1 billion out of $6 billion represents 16.6% of the amount Canada allocated through Build Canada Homes, even though Quebeckers represent around 22% of the population. That means that while Quebeckers are paying 22%, they will receive only 16.6%. I know that I am going to get questions from government members, who will tell me that we are being ungrateful and that we should be happy and stop whining. I would like them to think about those numbers.

I am sure that the thousands of people who are watching us at home agree that this does not make any sense. If Quebec had control over all of its economic levers, then we would have a lot more money to put into housing. We would also do things more effectively because we are more in touch with the people.

When we say that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, it is because the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec are closer to the people and they are in a better position to provide services. The municipalities are even closer to the people. This should be done in partnership with municipal governments. Who knows the needs of a community better than its municipal officials? That is true as long as they are doing their job properly and they are in touch with people in their community. When the federal government comes in with its heavy-handed approach and imposes its priorities, we always have to insist that it respect our jurisdictions. That is why we are always raising concerns. I hope that people are listening. I think that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very pleased because I know that he will likely go and tell his caucus that what the guy from Berthier—Maskinongé said made a lot of sense and that his government should be vigilant. At least that is my hope, because I am sure Manitoba must also have regional priorities.

All that the federal government would have do is simply transfer the money, but because it would not get enough credit, it creates structures instead. Having an agreement with Quebec is important. However, it is appalling that every time we talk about housing—and the same holds for many other sectors, but housing in particular—the timelines grow longer. I remember that my former colleague, Denis Trudel, who I can call by name today because he is sadly no longer with us, long criticized this situation in his role as housing critic. I believe that it took four years the last time to reach an agreement with Quebec, even though the other provinces had already received the money. I could be wrong about the number of years, but it is around that many.

It took nearly two years for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. The general funds have been released, but agreements still need to be reached. It is frustrating, exhausting and discouraging to see the federal government make announcements and reach agreements after a few months with other provinces, but not with Quebec. Why? It is because the federal government wants to stick its nose into everything and that does not bother Canadians in other provinces. For them, the government is the federal government. This does not bother the provincial governments, because they have far fewer responsibilities than the Quebec government. I invite people from other provinces who might be listening to take a look at Quebec's administrative structure and its social and economic fabric. They will see that the country of Quebec already exists. I often say this, and people sometimes think I am joking, but I really mean it. Regional county municipalities, or RCMs, do not exist anywhere else. They are groupings of municipalities meant to foster greater regional cohesion.

I will give an anecdotal example regarding electoral redistribution. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé already had three RCMs and one city. I explained to the commissioner that I really wanted to properly represent the people of Saint-Sulpice, whom I salute by the way and whom I am very pleased to represent, but that, for the sake of territorial cohesion, it might be better to give me a larger area of land, such as Matawinie, which I already shared with my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. When I explained that to the commissioner, he said it made sense. When I asked him if he had any questions, he said no, that everything was very clear, that I had made a good point and that he would look into it. When I received the card a month later, I realized that he had not listened to me. It is no big deal, because Saint-Sulpice is a beautiful part of the country. I have come to know a lot of people there, and I am very proud to represent them. However, this just goes to show that Canada could not care less about RCMs. They are not in its DNA, whereas they are a reality in Quebec.

When it comes to supporting businesses, we are trying to explain to people in the other provinces that Quebec's economic fabric is different from the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we have a very high concentration of small and medium-sized businesses that need more targeted support, including the infamous wage subsidy.

The wage subsidy is like OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74. We will not give up on this. I know that some people are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this, but we will not stop, because we stand up for such worthy causes. Wage subsidies are intended to maintain the employment relationship between businesses and employees. As for the old age pension for people aged 65 to 74, it is intended to ensure fairness among seniors so that different categories based on age do not exist. That is age-based discrimination.

It is an election promise and a housing measure. We want to work together, but we are putting the government on notice. We are asking the government to honour its commitments. I do not want to have to go on the attack again in three years when the agreement expires because Build Canada Homes might want to extend its reach into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. Two years to reach an agreement is a long time. We do not want any further delays. Some people sometimes think we are here to block everything or to show that nothing works. However, we often simply point out that things rarely work.

The next time federal funds are released, I would like to see less red tape, a quicker response to Quebec's specific requests and no attempt to impose federal conditions on Quebec's economy, society and politics.

I am extending this olive branch to the parliamentary secretary. I assume he will accept it warmly and that he hears the message I am sending today. I am very keen to see what sort of question he will ask me.

That said, we are separatists. I know some people do not like it when I talk about that, but I do because it is my job. I mentioned earlier that we are going to take the billion dollars injected into Build Canada Homes because we want to make constructive progress here while awaiting Quebec's independence. I pointed out to members that this figure represents 16.6% of the total amount Canada has invested in Build Canada Homes. Quebec accounts for approximately 22% of the population. Once again, we are not receiving the full amount that should be coming to us. We will gladly take it and try to make it work, but there is still some missing.

My separatist argument stands. We would not have had to wait two years for a policy to be implemented if we had not had to negotiate with a federal government that does not understand Quebec's reality and that wants to impose its own rules and its own way of doing things.

That is the essence of my speech today. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I impatiently await their questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I look at the federation as working in a collaborative way. When we think in terms of the important issues Canadians have, housing is one of them. When I think in terms of issues like housing co-ops, Quebec has a lot of housing co-ops, as Manitoba has housing co-ops. I think of organizations like Habitat for Humanity. Again, throughout our great nation, there is a presence, a footprint of Habitat for Humanity. These are organizations that I believe want to be able to see the federal government continue to work collaboratively, to continue to provide programs that are going to encourage growth and support non-profit housing. Ultimately, I believe the federal government does have a leadership role to play on the national scene. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but the principle of government support for housing is something I think we can both agree on.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, for once, the parliamentary secretary anticipated my response quite well. We can both agree on that, but we will also have to agree to disagree.

That said, as I mentioned in my speech, we are here to salvage something from the wreckage. We are defending Quebec and trying to get as much as we can for our people. That is what we are doing today. We will take that billion dollars.

My colleague mentioned programs that work and working together. I gave an example of such a program in my speech. I hope he appreciated that. The rapid housing initiative is working. It has worked in the past and it is still working. Why get rid of it? Why replace it with an unknown quantity? When a program is working, we should invest in it and leave well enough alone.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was unable to hear my colleague's entire speech, but he said certain things that deserve to be acknowledged.

First, he spoke about Daniel Johnson, leader of the Union Nationale and premier of Quebec from 1966 to 1968, who passed away on the day the magnificent Manic‑5 generating station was due to be inaugurated.

I would like to point out that today marks exactly 60 years since Mr. Johnson was elected. Some will recall that this 1966 election was particularly notable because there was an incredible discrepancy between the percentage of votes and the percentage of MNAs elected. There was the famous question posed by Pierre Nadeau to Daniel Johnson on election night. Mr. Nadeau asked him whether he was aware that Premier Lesage did not recognize the victory. Mr. Johnson replied that, although Jean Lesage might not recognize the victory, he himself recognized that he had won.

My colleague also spoke of the Constitution. I agree with his remarks. The Constitution must be respected. The Constitution quite clearly defines federal and provincial jurisdictions. When it is followed, things go well. To support this claim, I would remind the House that, during the 1981 constitutional debate, Conservative Party leader Mr. Clark allowed the provinces to join the debate. Speaking of Mr. Clark, I want to mention that today is his 87th birthday.

Does my colleague know that, although Quebec never signed the Constitution, which is extremely unfortunate for all of Quebec, it nevertheless managed to take full control over its affairs? I have to say that I would not have signed either. That said, let us hope that jurisdictions will be respected, which has not been the case over the past 11 years.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was very long but very interesting. It is always interesting to dialogue with colleagues who are cultured and give historical dates. It is wonderful. It is quite a coincidence that I am talking about Mr. Johnson when it is the 60th anniversary of when he was first elected and, at the same time it is also Mr. Clark's 87th birthday. I had not made the connection. This is wonderful.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said that Quebec has been able to thrive. Fortunately, Quebec developed its own autonomy by introducing the single tax return, among other things. My colleague will be happy to hear me mention Maurice Duplessis, who established that. People often talk about Mr. Duplessis in a negative light, but he also had a very positive side, which in no way detracts from his darker side. He did, after all, get some things done, and Quebec has developed gradually. We have been developing on our own.

My colleague says we can grow to our full potential, but in this case, we will be growing at 16.6% instead of 22%. We manage to get things done because we are very smart and very strong. The day we become independent and have full control of our finances, people will be very impressed by everything we manage to achieve and by how quickly we manage to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague, the Bloc Québécois whip.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about the diversity of social housing in Quebec. There are housing co-operatives and non-profit organizations that manage social housing buildings for people with disabilities or seniors. There is also social housing or low-income housing for seniors. I understand that other provinces do not have as much diversity. This diversity is Quebec's strength.

I would like my colleague to tell us about one of Quebec's demands. Quebec would like to see funds set aside to allow alternative housing networks to flourish. When I think of Build Canada Homes, I tend to think that we are talking about housing in partnership with private entities, which might exclude community organizations, for example.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my “original whip”. Today is the first time I have called her by her nickname in public. I want to thank her for her thoughtful question and the wise counsel that she kindly gives me on a regular basis. She is right to talk about Quebec's uniqueness, its specificity and the diversity of its models. We would like to see more respect for those things. We do not understand why it takes two or four years to reach an agreement. That is the problem.

The federal government needs to understand that. We need flexibility. I am going to make a constructive proposal to the government, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is taking notes. The difference between the 22% and the 16.6% could be transferred to Quebec. That way, we could take care of our diversity, as my colleague explained so well.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members are great at defending the provinces in the House. I think I heard my colleague say that he thinks the federal government's only role in housing should be to transfer money to the provinces. If that is the case, then what would he do with existing federal agencies, like CMHC? Does he think that the federal government should get out of the housing business altogether?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec, but my colleague is gradually becoming my favourite Conservative. Not only is her French exemplary, but she is also very receptive. I would like other members of the House to take a lesson from her. She has only been here for a short time, but she is already doing extraordinary work.

I commend her and I appreciate the fact that she understood the gist of my message. Her question is very relevant and very intelligent. She can rest assured that we are very resourceful. We are going to turn things around quickly and manage our own affairs. As I was telling my other colleague earlier, we are capable of doing things well, faster and better if we have all the means at our disposal. I think the people in her province would certainly benefit from the same flexibility.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live?

What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges. Behind the hype and the Prime Minister's rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government's direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector.

As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes.

The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29.

Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire.

Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain.

What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent? Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long?

This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well.

The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home.

At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable.

At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability. They do not really want Canadians to know the facts.

Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again.

There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone?

The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing. Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1.

That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government's approach.

The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets. We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities.

This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow.

However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need. If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people.

Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing?

The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach. If we are serious about solving the crisis, we must be serious about addressing inequality. This is not just about opposing development. We need to build, but we need to build the right kind of housing. We need to build housing that is affordable, accessible and secure. We need to build housing that is protected from speculation.

Housing is not just about supply. It is about dignity. It is about stability. It is about a basic human right. That is why the government needs to take action in a serious way. That is why there need to be accountability measures in this bill and we need to address the housing crisis for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize, within the legislation and the commitment of the government, the issue, in one word, of collaboration. It is not going to be the federal government itself that resolves the housing crisis. We have to work with many different stakeholders: provinces, indigenous communities, territories, municipalities, housing co-ops and others. Habitat for Humanity is one of the non-profits I constantly bring up. That is what this government has committed to do: increase the housing stock.

The member made reference to two things that I would like her to provide a bit of further comment on. She said to build one million public homes. How would she define public homes? Would the government build them in their entirety and then provide an ongoing subsidy of 30%, as the member said? Today, there are non-profit government-run houses where there is a percentage based on income. Is that what she is proposing for the one million homes?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been a strong advocate of the federal government's getting back to building social housing and co-op housing like it used to, before the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program prior to 1993. That is what I want to see in place.

The build Canada homes act fails in its blueprint and the details on how it would actually deliver affordability, social housing and co-op housing for Canadians. By the way, my amendment called for accountability, to set baselines, to set targets and to set reported measures of what the government actually achieves. The Liberals voted against it, because they do not want Canadians to know the truth. They want to hide it from Canadians. There would be no accountability measures under the act.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East anticipated my question, because I was just asking where the accountability measures are in the bill. I wonder if she has noticed, as I have, that the responsible minister is not actually listed. The bill just says they may be “designated by the Governor in Council”. Where is the accountability?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no accountability in the bill. It does not even name the minister responsible for ensuring the deliverability. It does not actually say what the government is trying to do. How many units will it build and in which provinces? What are the targets the government will set? The bill does not even ensure that the government delivers on letting Canadians know what the outcomes are, and there is no affordability measure. It is just like, “oh well, whatever”. If we have a plan like that, how is the housing crisis going to be solved? History has shown that what the government has done over the last 30 years is rely on just the private sector, and that has failed.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that my colleague has taken the time to talk about the importance of having targets, measures and accountability in bills, and also about how important it is to have different kinds of housing.

I know that the member comes from Vancouver East, which is, like my riding, suffering very much from the addictions crisis. I am wondering if the member could talk about the importance of having sober housing in this environment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a great need for a full range of housing, and that includes supportive housing. The truth of the matter is that building housing in and of itself is insufficient. We have to have the supports in place as well for a certain segment of the community, for example, those who are faced with multiple health issues, including addictions issues, mental health issues and so on. Supportive housing is what helps ensure people are successful in that housing, and that is what we need as well. We do not have enough supports from the federal government in that regard.

By the way, the spring economic update did not renew mental health support funding, and that is going to create greater problems for communities like Nanaimo and mine, and across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I confess that I have been struggling as to whether I vote for or against the bill.

Of course, building homes for Canadians is a great goal. I would vote for that. I kept trying to figure out why it is that I am having trouble figuring out whether I would vote for it or against it. I guess it is because, when I really study the bill and think it through, it does absolutely nothing, even if fully implemented. That is troubling.

I am just going to get to the bare bones. To Canadians who may be watching, what does Bill C-20 do? It is called an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. That is a familiar-sounding announcement because it was made on September 14, 2025, when the government created Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency.

That is something it has done a couple of times since the new government came in. Special operating agencies operate under the Treasury Board in an opaque environment where nothing is particularly visible or transparent or included in legislation. We already created Build Canada Homes on September 14 of last year. We are creating Build Canada Homes but not as a special operating agency. The bill deals with that. It would now be a Crown corporation. The bill would set up a Crown corporation. That is what it would do. It does not talk about the housing crisis. It does not give tools to address the housing crisis. It sets no targets. It has no timelines. It does not talk about the housing crisis. The purpose is:

...to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada.

The rest of the bill is devoted to how many people are on the board of directors, what it can borrow and what it can lend. My favourite part of the bill, which, again, is a bill about setting up a corporation, is that this new corporation, Build Canada Homes, can actually take money from the federal government and give it to the federal government. It is lacking, shall we say, in ambition.

The bill misses the point. If it is going to take us through the process of passing legislation in this place, it ought to have accountability. As the member for Vancouver East just pointed out, there is no minister of housing named in the bill as responsible. The minister shall be appointed by someone in the Privy Council at any given time, who will say, of the people around the cabinet table, this week it will be Joe. That is the kind of accountability we have here. That worries me.

We also have the fundamental reality that since the end of the Second World War, since 1945, we have had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. Was there something wrong with CMHC? It has been massively cut. It is not being scrapped. We will still have CMHC. The Minister of Housing is responsible for CMHC. That is an entity we understand. Are there endless delays? Are there things that should be done better at CMHC? Yes, but for a government that wants to, as we always hear from the Prime Minister, move fast, why not use, fit for purpose, the institution we have already? It has in it fewer people who know what they are doing, but it still has a goal and a principle and a practice that understands that housing is a human right.

We have two kinds of housing crises in Canada right now. I want to make sure that this is explicit in the rest of my remarks. We have a crisis of affordability in market housing. People earning good incomes cannot afford a good home. A lot of that is due to industry speculation, things like real estate investment trusts, corporations owning housing and making money out of speculation. That hurts, and so does the supply of housing not being adequate to our population.

The first housing crisis, I will underscore, is a market housing supply problem for affordable housing in rental and ownership. The second housing crisis we have is acute, cruel, grinding homelessness and it is on the rise. What do we do about that?

I want to share an inspiring example. I was so honoured to tour a little place called 12 Neighbours outside Fredericton. It was a few years ago now. I met Marcel LeBrun of Fredericton, a young man. He would maybe not think he is so young now. He is a multi-millionaire because of his own entrepreneurial instincts and because he got involved in an Internet company he built up and then sold. At a sermon in a Baptist church one day, he was called upon to do more.

He made a big donation to a local homelessness group. Then he thought that was not quite enough and the homelessness problem was growing in Fredericton. Long story short, this is what Marcel LeBrun decided to do. He realized that one of the critical obstacles for building affordable homes and social, non-market housing was the cost of land, so he bought a bunch of land. Then he said, “I'm going to build 99 tiny homes on this land, 240-square-foot homes. This will give a person dignity, a home of their own. They can lock the door. It will be their home.”

He applied to CMHC for funding. He was prepared to pay one-third of the cost of this project out of his own pocket. He was putting $12 million of his own money into it. CMHC told him it would take about two weeks to process. He built 35 homes before he heard from CMHC that his project was approved, because it took CMHC about a year and a half. He got it done. Not only did he get it done, but then he saw that these problems were acute. We cannot take someone who has been homeless, living in a tent or in an encampment in the woods, put them in their own home, and magically everything is good for them, because they lack community and they lack social skills. They are still wondering how they are going to make a living.

He created a whole network of social enterprise around the housing development he built himself, for the people in his community, things like a local restaurant that people could come to, where the people who lived in his tiny homes could learn how to work in that restaurant. There is a trade shop, so people can learn how to use a Skilsaw. What Marcel LeBrun has done goes on and on. With supports for mental health and addiction, he did not just build homes. He built a community with love, care and compassion. That can be done in every community if we mandate CMHC to see if it can follow the model of what Marcel LeBrun did on his own to create sustainable long-term housing with strong mental health supports and built-in dignity and community. That is what we should be building.

This Build Canada Homes bill is not about building homes. I am not being mean about it. If colleagues read it, they will see that the Build Canada Homes act is about setting up a Crown corporation, full stop. Build Canada Homes, Bill C-20, is about replacing a special operating agency set up last year with a Crown corporation this year. There are no goals, no timelines, no accountability, no listening to the briefs that the government got from the Assembly of First Nations about engaging indigenous people and no listening to the brief that it got from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where the rubber really hits the road at the municipal housing level. That is where people have to figure out what we are going to do.

The government is not listening to the co-operatives in this country. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada gave a great brief to the committee that studied this bill. Since the bill does not include timelines or goals, I think that, if we were to actually put meaning into this bill, the clerk of the committee would have said it was outside the scope of the bill, because the scope of the bill is to set up a Crown corporation. After that, well, I wish the current Minister of Housing a great deal of luck. I hope he becomes the designated minister. Maybe he can make something out of this, but this does nothing more than set up a Crown corporation.

We need to do so much more. There will be money thrown at this Crown corporation, for sure. There will be chief executive officers and board members and it will function as a Crown corporation, but will it do more than what Marcel LeBrun did for the people of Fredericton?

The first social housing ever built in this country was in the early part of the 1900s, after the Halifax explosion, when that devastating collision in Halifax Harbour wiped out homes for thousands of people and the government had to build housing for people. The government did it, and did it fast. Nobody froze that winter. Everybody was gotten into housing fast.

We need to act like this is an emergency, because it is an emergency. Women my age in my riding are living in their cars. This is driving me to distraction. Why can we not find the housing, build the housing? There are so many delays. They are unintentional in many cases, but they show a lack of political will, which has to come from the top down. Yes, there are multiple levels of government involved, but the federal government, in Build Canada Homes, should set the standard and set some goals.

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

Madam Speaker. I understand the member has not decided how she is going to be voting on the bill. I think it is important to recognize, as she has, the purpose of the bill. The bill is there, in a way, to clearly demonstrate that working collaboratively with provinces, indigenous peoples, territories and the many other stakeholders is the best way for us to address the multitude of issues facing Canada's housing situation.

The federal government is stepping up. Here we are talking about legislation, but we have also made serious dollar commitments through the budget to support Build Canada Homes. I think we have to take a holistic approach to dealing with it.

Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is to work collaboratively with others? This, at least, helps set that stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I know I cannot ask the member a question in response, but if he could show me the sections of the bill that talk about partnership, collaboration, working together and the things he just posed to me in the question, I would be fascinated to know where they are, because it is not that long a bill and they are not in here.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that this bill is not going to do anything. What is scary in this whole process is this: Is the government losing direction? Is it losing focus? The focus has to be on building more homes for Canadians to fix the problem. Is the government only interested in building bureaucracies? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, for my friend from Edmonton Manning, I want to be clear. The act would not do anything. I am not saying the government will not do anything. The act is kind of pointless, because the Liberals created a special operating agency. I would agree that there is a titch more transparency when we shift from an agency operating under the Treasury Board to a Crown corporation, but not much.

I would demand that the government act and respond to the housing crisis with non-market housing and market housing. The bill does not do it by itself. It does not do anything.