“That company gave big bonuses to its executives even though it did not build any train tracks. I am asking my colleague how interest rates and the value of our money affect homebuilding, and what the government is doing about them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well. I want to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the interest rate and the value of our money, how that affects homebuilding, and what the government is doing to affect those things.”

“The government is spending too much, which increases our deficit, drives down our dollar, and makes life more expensive. Also, building homes will cost more because dozens of lumber mills have closed and the government has failed to get a softwood lumber deal with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know that the value of the Canadian dollar has gone down. Actually, it has just gone down again over the last couple of days, so our dollar is not going as far as it did in years prior. When it comes to interest rates, what has happened to the Canadian dollar and our purchasing power is that the more the government spends, the greater the deficits are. The PBO just said that the deficit is actually going to be $50 billion higher than first projected only a couple of months ago. When the government continues to have a reckless spending problem, it leaves Canadians with less money in their pockets, and inflation goes up. Government members talk about procuring wood to build homes in Canada, but having 36 mill closures over the last couple of years in B.C. and Quebec is also going to make homebuilding less affordable. They cannot get a softwood tariff deal done with the United States, which they promised to do.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The federal government should not choose who builds homes. Provinces and cities know best who needs housing. The federal government can help pay for it, but the money should go directly to local builders.”

“Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague’s comments go to the heart of my argument. The federal government should not be picking winners and losers. The provincial government and municipalities can put programs forward to make sure that the people who most need homes can get them. The government can supply some of the funding, but the people on the ground doing the building should be able to get that money and help build those homes. I was proud to be part of the Saskatchewan government that brought forward the Saskatchewan assured income for disability program. We have to look after the most vulnerable people in our society.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It spends billions of dollars to create more government bureaucracy instead of actually building the homes Canadians need. To make housing affordable, the government needs to cut taxes, fees, and rules that make building too expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the current Parliament started, I had the opportunity to meet in the middle of the floor with the new housing minister to talk about what his new portfolio would entail. At that point in time, I told him very clearly that he should just throw out what he had and start over anew, because all the advice he had been given, and what I have seen over the last six years since I have been in the House, has been a bunch of garbage and a bunch of non-results from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The entire bureaucracy that he is in charge of at this point in time has just layered on more and more spending but has accomplished nothing. That is a preamble to my speech about where we need to go in this country. Since 2019, the federal government has introduced or expanded roughly a dozen major housing programs and initiatives, layer upon layer on top of its existing strategies. Today we have a system with overlapping funds, loan programs and agencies, and now there is a brand new Crown corporation added to the mix. All of this sits within a $100‑billion‑plus national housing strategy that was designed not as a single focused solution but as a collection of complementary programs. The problem is not a lack of federal activity. It is that this growing web of programs is not translating into the number of homes Canadians actually need, but instead of focusing on why that is happening, the proposed bill would take us in the wrong direction. Bill C‑20 is not really about building homes. It is about building another federal bureaucracy. We have to be honest about what is driving housing costs in this country. The number one factor is not a lack of ideas or a lack of programs. It is the cost of building, and that cost is increasingly driven by government: taxes, fees, regulations and constant changes to the rules of the game. We heard this across the country when I was chairing the economic growth council. Every time the government changes a building code, adds a requirement or delays a permit, it adds costs, and those costs do not disappear. They get passed on directly to the homebuyer or the renter. We have seen what happens when governments overreact with broad, top-down policies. In Ontario, there are now entire segments of the housing market dominated by 500‑square‑foot condo units. They were being built not because families were demanding them but because policy decisions pushed the market in that direction. That is what happens when government tries to centrally shape outcomes instead of enabling the market to respond to real demand, and we are seeing a similar lesson play out in my hometown of Calgary. Over the last four years, the municipal government in Calgary took a blanket rezoning approach, promoted as a solution to affordability. What actually happened? A recent assessment showed that the primary beneficiaries were not homebuyers. They were land speculators and developers who captured the increased value. Communities suffered, while affordability did not materially improve, and Calgarians took notice. That is why there was a political reset at the municipal level. Politicians were thrown out for their false start and what they said they were trying to do versus what they were actually accomplishing. People understand that simply changing zoning everywhere without addressing costs and implementation does not automatically result in affordable homes. This brings us to Bill C‑20. Instead of addressing the structural cost drivers in the system, the government would be expanding its footprint. Build Canada Homes would have sweeping powers in financing, land acquisition and development authority, and it would come with a significant price tag: another $13 billion over five years. However, the question Canadians should be asking is simple: What would we be getting for that money? The evidence suggests that it would not be very much. Even government-backed analysis shows that the program would deliver only a fraction of the homes that are promised: 5,200 projected homes per year. At the same time, we would be expanding the size of government, with more administrators, more overhead and more layers. That cost does not build homes. It builds bureaucracies. We must also consider the cost per unit. When the government steps in as a developer, costs tend to rise, not fall. Projects take longer, risk increases, accountability becomes less clear, and ultimately, taxpayers are left carrying that burden. We would, effectively, be asking Canadians, who are already dealing with high housing costs, to also fund an expanded federal structure that has no clear targets for delivery. Experts have already warned about this. They told the committee that Build Canada Homes lacks clear goals, lacks targets and lacks accountability. We would not only be expanding government; we would be doing so without a clear measure of success. It is clear that the cost of housing is too high in Canada, but it is also important to be clear about the causes. Those are the taxes, fees and regulations that drive up construction costs. Every new regulation, every delay, every change to the National Building Code creates additional costs, and those costs are paid for by Canadians. Bill C‑20 does not resolve those issues. On the contrary, it expands the size of government and creates more bureaucracy. As the experts said in committee, there is neither a clear target nor an accountability mechanism. What we need is not more bureaucracy. We need an environment where builders can build faster and at a lower cost. How do we stop the cost escalation? We bring discipline and stability to building codes, reduce delays and uncertainty in approvals, limit the growth of government structures that add costs without adding supply, and ensure that public money actually delivers measurable results. Canadians are already under significant financial pressure. There are rising debt levels, and more households are stretched to their limit. Canadians cannot afford policies that increase costs, whether directly through housing prices or indirectly through higher government spending. At the end of the day, this is all about outcomes. Would we be building more homes? Would we be lowering costs? Would we be improving affordability? On all three counts, the bill would fall short. Bill C-20 would expand government, increase spending and avoid the real work of addressing the cost drivers that are holding back supply. I will continue to support solutions that focus on what actually matters: lowering the cost of building homes Canadians need and making home ownership achievable again for Canadians, including the people of Calgary and across Alberta. There are many ways we can get involved in this from the federal perspective, but as I told the minister when he first took the housing portfolio, the main thing he can do is second-guess the people who have been giving the government advice for the last 11 years, because all they have done is added cost to the system, cost to the building of homes and cost for Canadians, including more debt. A ridiculous amount of money is continuing to be spent in the sector for housing. People need housing. It is the number one expense for all Canadians now across the board. We cannot continue to add more cost to the basic needs of shelter in our society, not to mention what is happening with food inflation in this country. Housing inflation is definitely something we have to get under control. The bill would do nothing of the sort. It would add costs, and those costs would be borne by Canadians. Let us think about the cost of debt per household in society. The cost of paying for debt is about $3,400 per household. The average rent in Calgary for a two-bedroom house is $1,700 per month, so every Canadian family in Calgary is actually paying two months’ worth of rent to cover the interest being paid on the federal debt right now. This is an atrocious amount of money that adds to the cost of everything we have to pay in society at this point in time. It continues. This is just the federal level. Of course, there is provincial debt, municipal debt and corporate debt. There is also personal debt. The bill would do nothing to reduce the debt level that Canadians are facing. It would make things less affordable. It would make things worse for Canadians. We oppose it strongly.”