House of Commons Hansard #132 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affordable.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Conservative members move to split Bill C-22 into two parts to address government surveillance concerns effectively. Conservatives argue that splitting the bill would allow expedited passage of part 1 while providing necessary time to debate contentious provisions in part 2. Liberal members criticize the delay, characterizing Conservative tactics as an attempt to impede tougher crime measures and hinder law enforcement access to modern investigative tools. 4400 words, 1 hour.

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion for Bill C-20, which establishes "Build Canada Homes." Minister Gregor Robertson defends the new Crown corporation as essential for the housing crisis. Conservative MPs criticize creating a redundant housing agency without clear targets, while the Bloc Québécois requests flexibility for regions facing unique costs. The House then moves to a recorded vote. 4500 words, 30 minutes.

Build Canada Homes Act Third reading of Bill C-20. The bill proposes establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to accelerate affordable housing delivery. Liberal members argue this necessary Crown corporation provides the autonomy and tools needed to increase housing supply. Conversely, Conservative MPs contend the legislation creates a fourth federal housing agency, arguing it imposes unnecessary bureaucracy without clear, measurable targets. Opposition members further claim the focus should remain on lowering construction costs rather than expanding federal administrative structures. 42100 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives condemn the government for causing a recession and failing the steel industry amid trade uncertainty. They highlight rising consumer bankruptcies and high rail project costs. Additionally, they call for limiting foreign workers to help unemployed youth and deporting IRGC-linked terrorists to protect the Persian community.
The Liberals highlight Canada’s economic growth, citing 88,000 new jobs and falling youth unemployment. They tout investments in high-speed rail and support for the steel industry against tariffs. They also emphasize affordability measures, cybersecurity legislation, the inadmissibility of IRGC officials, and funding for 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations.
The Bloc condemns the government for sacrificing Quebec culture and francophone identity to digital giants. They denounce selling out to foreign interests, oppose pro-oil stances and new pipelines, and urge passage of forced labour legislation.
The Greens condemn pesticide regulation rollbacks in Bill C-30, emphasizing threats to health and the environment.

Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, concluding that the dispute over economic data interpretations does not constitute a prima facie case of intentionally misleading the House. 600 words.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-232. The bill mandates that dangerous offenders and multi-murderers remain in maximum-security institutions. Conservative members argue these serious criminal offenders require strict confinement to ensure public safety and respect victims, whereas Liberals and the Bloc Québécois contend such policies undermine rehabilitation efforts and favor punitive measures over evidence-based correctional practices. 7600 words, 1 hour.

Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill, titled "the protecting victims act" (/debates/2026/6/9/anthony-housefather-2/), aims to update the Criminal Code to address modern crimes, including coercive control and online child exploitation. While the government argues the legislation strengthens protections for children and victims of gender-based violence, the Conservative opposition has criticized the inclusion of a "safety valve" provision (clause 63, /debates/2026/6/9/larry-brock-3/) that allows judges to bypass mandatory minimum penalties, arguing it undermines accountability for serious offenses. 25500 words, 3 hours.

Adjournment Debate - Marine Transportation Gord Johns criticizes the inequitable federal funding for BC Ferries compared to Atlantic Canada, arguing for a new support model. Caroline Desrochers defends the current arrangements, emphasizing the federal government's existing indexed contributions and reaffirming that ferry operations remain, by agreement, a primary responsibility of the British Columbia provincial government. 1400 words, 10 minutes.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

International TradeOral Questions

June 9th, 2026 / 3:10 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, Canada has some of the most vigorous and rigorous forced labour laws in the world, and it has been clear that we condemn forced labour everywhere and anywhere it exists. Every good that comes into this country is subject to rigorous import controls and screening. After a decade of neglect, we are rebuilding the CBSA to ensure we have enforcement. We will continue to do that work. We will protect Canada's interests this day and tomorrow.

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, division 8 of Bill C-30, with only three hours of debate in this place before time allocation, represents the single largest rollback of health and environmental protection in the regulation of pesticides in the history of this country.

I ask the government, I ask the Prime Minister, where did the pressure come from for this rollback? I am reliably informed that even industry did not ask for it. Why is the government doing this to our environment and our health?

HealthOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Papineau Québec

Liberal

Marjorie Michel LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the priority of the Canadian government and the Department of Health is to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

However, I repeat, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We are also dealing with the agricultural sector, with which we are working closely.

That said, we will always take steps to protect the health of Canadians as we develop our economy and food sovereignty.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Michael Tibollo, Associate Attorney General of the Province of Ontario.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna is rising on a point of order.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a moment of time. I am not bringing this up for any other reason than that I am concerned about this place and one of your rulings. I have seen on a number of occasions now that you have cancelled one of the leader of the official opposition's questions because he did not put a question in it.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

It is question period. There are supposed to be questions.

The hon. member can take a bit more time, but we have to go to a vote.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I care about this place, and I hope you do too and that you can listen to what I have to say. If you are going to be cutting someone off because they did not put an inflection at the end of a question or they did not deliver a question properly, if you do that to the leader of the official opposition, it could happen to any of us in this place on the opposition side.

When previous Speakers have not chosen to regulate the quality of answers from the Prime Minister and the government, why—

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The hon. member should know that the rules do not allow the Speaker to require an answer but that questions can sometimes be out of order.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

It being 3:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to extend the sitting hours of the House.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #143

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I declare the motion carried.

Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 1, 2026, by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk concerning remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry during Oral Questions on Friday, May 29, 2026.

The member contended that data released by Statistics Canada showed that the GDP had contracted for two consecutive quarters, which, in his view, met the generally accepted definition of a recession by economists. He further argued that, given his professional background in economics and finance, the parliamentary secretary knew his responses were incorrect. Finally, the context of the exchange led him to believe the parliamentary secretary intended to mislead the House. For these reasons, the member submitted that the three-part test required to establish that a matter constituted a prima facie case of privilege had been met.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House countered that at no time did his colleague mislead the House. According to him, there was a difference of opinion and the matter therefore constitutes a dispute as to the facts. Citing rulings by previous Speakers, he noted that it is not up to the Chair to pass judgment on the accuracy of statements made in the House for matters that involve interpretations of perspectives.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, in his submission, referred to the criteria to establish whether a member has intentionally misled the House. The three conditions are elaborated upon in section 3.16 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, namely that a statement was misleading, that the member making it knew it was incorrect and made it with the intention to mislead. It is important to remember that the threshold for establishing whether a member intended to mislead the House is very high.

To this end, Speaker Parent stated succinctly in a ruling on October 19, 2000, at page 9247 of the Debates of the House of Commons:

While members may disagree with the way in which others view a situation, at times disagree very strongly, that is a different matter than the serious charge that such an interpretation is knowingly and wilfully false. Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

As such, in these situations, the Chair is limited to considering only evidence before the House. In the matter before us, the Chair is being indirectly asked to determine that one interpretation of economic data is correct and that any other interpretation could only be made with the intention of misleading the House. The Chair will not get involved in this kind of debate.

While the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk may fundamentally disagree with the responses he received from the parliamentary secretary to his questions, the Chair does not feel the matter satisfies the criteria for intentionally misleading the House and can only conclude that this is a dispute as to the facts, that is, of interpretation.

Accordingly, I find the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

To conclude, allow me to quote from a ruling made by Speaker Milliken, on December 6, 2004, found at page 2319 of the Debates of the House of Commons. He said, “Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place.”

I thank all members for their attention.

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.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and share some thoughts on important issues that Canadians have to face, and hopefully give an explanation as to where I am coming from and why it is very important that the Government of Canada continues to push forward on building opportunities to see more people being able to afford homes and ultimately more homes being built here in Canada.

A number of years ago, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, my first responsibility was tied to being the critic for housing and the deputy party whip at the time. It was something that I appreciated being a part of, because it gave me a very good understanding of the housing industry back then. I have never lost interest, and in fact I have had many debates over the years on the issue of housing. When I came to Ottawa, I continued to have discussions and debates on the important issue of housing.

From the very beginning, I have always recognized that the national government does, and should, have a role to play in housing in Canada. This has been an issue for a period of time. The minister made reference earlier, in response to a heckle and comments that were coming from the opposition benches, to the fact that the issue we have before us today is not something that just came out of the blue. What we have is an issue that has been there and has taken more than a generation to get to this point.

There was a time, in the early 1990s, even going into the 1980s, when governments of different political persuasions and levels were talking about the national government withdrawing from housing responsibility. In part, we are realizing why the national government needs to not only be engaged but demonstrate leadership on this critically important file. When we think of housing, it affects all of our communities. Not only does it impact homeowners and future homeowners, but it affects the community. Whether it is about growth or, in some cases, infill housing projects, it could have a very negative impact if the national government is not directly involved.

I have seen that involvement in a very real and tangible way. Let us take a look, for example, at what Habitat for Humanity Canada does in our communities. I represent a riding that has likely benefited the most, or is one of the top five or 10 ridings that have benefited the most, through Habitat for Humanity making housing affordable. In Winnipeg North, I would estimate that well over 100 homes, which is 100 families, have benefited from one incredible non-profit organization, just focused in one federal riding. Everywhere, from the Point Douglas area to Shaughnessy Park, The Maples and into the suburbs, Habitat for Humanity has helped build homes that individuals living in them otherwise would not be able to afford. It has made homes affordable.

Today we have a government that recognizes that and supports Habitat for Humanity. I would hope that this support continues into the future. I think of revitalization programs from the past where governments were working together to establish a pool of money so they could refurbish housing stock, and in some situations, such as the promotion of housing co-ops, see co-ops being built.

Before I was a parliamentarian, I used to be involved in the Weston Residents Housing Cooperative, and we were able to build affordable housing. We very much needed the support of government. At that time, it was the provincial government that provided the support, but today we have not seen much in terms of the expansion of housing co-ops.

However, under this Prime Minister and this administration, the Build Canada Homes act would, once again, provide support for housing co-ops. Housing co-ops play a very important role. Again, looking at Winnipeg North, I think of Willow Park, arguably the oldest and most established housing co-op in Canada, possibly even in North America. That community has benefited because of direct government involvement.

Direct government involvement takes many different forms. I referred to housing co-ops. I can talk about infill housing, directly or indirectly, but I would also suggest non-profit housing built by government. Back in the day, maybe 25 years ago, I would see affordable government-built homes, and tenants living in those homes were paying less than 30% of their annual income, no matter what their annual income was. Affordable homes are built because there are many generational issues at times. Individuals find it difficult for a wide spectrum of reasons and are very dependent on government-built homes.

Many organizations in Winnipeg North, from the Ukrainian community, the German community or the Polish community, have built homes. When I say “homes”, I am referring to apartment blocks. The Canadian Polish Manor has a dozen-plus floors. It is the same with the Canadian German Society Manor that was established. The Ukrainian community has built a few of them. Even though they might not necessarily have the management of them today, or not in all cases, these homes were built, in part, with federal dollars. They provide homes for seniors. Seniors who live in the community and maybe have children who are grown up or a spouse who passed away often want to stay in the community. Often, these buildings that are built by communities and non-profits are there to support and provide that home so seniors can get out of a single detached home and into a different home environment.

There have been all sorts of programs over the years to support affordable housing. There were a number of years when that virtually came to an end because governments at different levels made the decision to withdraw. We saw it, I would argue, during the peak of the Harper era. That is why I referred to the leader of the Conservative Party, when he was minister of housing, and I reflected on the number of non-profit housing units that were actually built when he was responsible for housing. It was fewer than 10. Then we wonder why we have this issue today. It is not something that occurred overnight.

I like that the issue was elevated to the degree that, during the last national election, just over a year ago, Canada's Prime Minister made the decision to be more aggressive in supporting our communities and Canadians by making housing more affordable. That has taken different forms.

We know that the price of housing has actually gone down since the last election. We know that the cost of rentals has actually gone down. We also know that the Prime Minister and the government today have put in place specific actions to look at ways to increase housing, both the stock and, where we can, the housing conditions overall, through different types of programs.

When we take a look at Build Canada Homes, we think of it in the form of an arms-length corporation that is being funded to the tune of $13 billion, which has already been allocated in the 2025 budget. It is going to ensure that there is more affordable housing across our nation from coast to coast to coast. It is showing that the Government of Canada is working collaboratively with the different stakeholders and our provinces to ensure that we can maximize the benefit of housing.

I would be interested in hearing from the Conservative Party today. Is there anyone in the Conservative Party today who believes there is a role for the national government to play on housing? To date, I have heard that, no, there is no role. I would very much appreciate hearing from any Conservative who can stand up and say that, yes, there is a role for the national government.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Alto high‑speed rail project, which will be completed toward the end of the next decade, 2040, already has 13 vice‑presidents at that agency who are already receiving bonuses, with not an inch of track being laid.

The hon. member described Build Canada Homes as an arm's-length federal agency. How many vice‑presidents will there be, and are they going to be receiving bonuses already?

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the question, I guess, to a certain degree. It is completely off‑topic.

However, when we take a look at what is being proposed and what the government is pushing as a major project, working with the Province of Quebec in a collaborative fashion, this is a project that has received support from Progressive Conservatives. It has also received support from Conservatives.

The member will find that, in previous governments, under the Harper regime, there were members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus who actually supported the project and who were in opposition to what today's far-right Conservative Party is saying. The Conservatives are trying to portray something that is not the case. Hopefully, we will hear a lot more on this project in the days to come.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated the insights being provided. I think this is important legislation, and I personally believe the federal government has an important role to play when it comes to housing.

In Waterloo, constituents have really appreciated the federal government stepping up and returning to the housing scene and having different levels of government working together. We have received some substantial investments from the federal government when it comes to increasing the affordable housing supply, a supply that will remain in our community for generations to come, with some of the most historic kinds of projects that we have not been able to dabble in before.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts as to why the Conservatives are taking the approach that the federal government does not have a role to play. Why are they so concerned that the federal government will help Canadians and give them a hand?

In the region of Waterloo, I have been asked by constituents about Conservative members voting against the bill, our legislation and our budget, yet when it comes to housing projects, the Conservatives offer these hollow letters of support for those projects. We know that in the past Conservative members were reprimanded for asking the minister of housing for support for their communities.

Clearly, there are Conservative members who want to see the federal government support housing initiatives in their communities. I would like the member to build upon some of those comments. It is unfortunate that this is not the chorus that the whole Conservative Party is singing, but I am confident there are some Conservative members who are confident that the federal government has a role to play. What are the member's thoughts?

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would break it down into a couple of things. One is the House leadership of the Conservative Party today, which, I would suggest, very much has that get-out-of-the-way, far-right attitude. That is the group that was very critical of the more progressive Conservatives within the caucus. They are much smaller in number but are the ones who really see the value and are the ones who were actually writing letters to the government saying that they supported the project and wanted it.

They were reprimanded. They were told to stop writing support letters for their community. This came from the Conservative House leadership team, or the leadership team as a whole, and many of the members who, I would suggest, are on the far-right scale of thinking that the federal government has absolutely no role to play in regard to housing.

Contrast that with the beginning of the question that my friend from Waterloo posed. She highlighted how important housing is to the city of Waterloo, and she is a consistent advocate for Waterloo, not only on housing but on a wide spectrum of issues. She is advocating for Waterloo and sees the value of working collaboratively, and that is exactly what the federal government is doing, because we understand that the end goal is to increase Canada's housing stock, especially on the affordability front.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the affordability issue did not happen overnight. I actually agree with him, but the key thing is that the issue has expanded for the last 11 years. Yes, that is under the Trudeau Liberal government and now under the current Liberal government.

In my riding, which I am proud to represent, London—Fanshawe, I have gone door to door, connecting with constituents. The key thing is that I have talked to parents whose adult children still live in their house. They get misty-eyed and choked up because they want their children to excel, but the dilemma is that their children cannot afford a house.

The Liberals promised to deliver 500 new homes every year, but according to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 by 2028. What do I tell the parents who love their children but want them to move out? What do I tell them, when they know there are not enough houses being built?

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member can indicate the following very clearly, because the numbers and the facts clearly demonstrate it. Just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with incredible credentials on the economy and how it works. There have been positive results on the housing file. Houses have become more affordable; they have dropped in price. Rents overall have dropped in price. The government has been working collaboratively with the different jurisdictions, and the housing stock is in fact increasing. The affordability issue is also being addressed in different ways.

Within a year, our new government and the new Prime Minister have already made a positive difference, and I am optimistic about the future and being able to hit the targets that have been established.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the last exchange was interesting. We just received an example of a Conservative member's wanting more investment in housing and more affordable housing built, recognizing that his constituents need the federal government to play a role, yet rather than working with the government to ensure that we can have more successes for Canadians, the Conservatives would rather slow things down and have Canadians hurting.

I find it fascinating, and we experienced this at committee yesterday as well, that the Conservative Party is going out of its way to almost amplify the hurt of Canadians rather than being part of the solution. That is probably why the Conservative Party remains the professional opposition: It actually does not want to be part of the solution.

Could the parliamentary secretary please expand on the importance of the legislation, the federal government's role and how it would actually help the people like the ones the member for London—Fanshawe has just referred to?

I have to say that I am starting to miss the previous member for London—Fanshawe, because I do believe she would have at least fought hard to ensure that the constituents were fought for, rather than standing in the way and hoping that they hurt. I want Canadians to succeed. I will fight for the people of Waterloo. I would like to hear the member's comments.

Bill C-20 Build Canada Homes ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the residents of London—Fanshawe, much as I do for many different constituencies, I think about how Bill C-20 would make a positive difference. It is not an issue of just blindly following the Conservative leadership, even because they are so wrong on this issue. Build Canada Homes is about looking at different ways we can build, such as modular homes. There are ways we can look at how, by working with the stakeholders, we are going to have more homes being built.

There are the constituents for whom the member wants more homes to be built. The national government is showing compassion and moving in that direction. His very leader is saying to stop. In fact, the member for Waterloo might have gotten him in trouble by signalling that the member is someone who might be somewhat sympathetic to his constituents' needs.