“This bill adds more red tape and slows down housing. In my riding, social housing projects have funding from Quebec, but they are waiting on the federal government. The old system worked to fund them, but now they are stuck waiting for this new agency. Is the member seeing this same delay in his riding?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in the same vein. Earlier in my speech, I said that the government was adding a layer of bureaucracy. In the past, there used to be programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. In my riding, I see a lot of social housing development projects that are unfortunately not being funded. They have funding from Quebec through the Société d’habitation du Québec, or SHQ, but they have not received federal funding for several months because they have been asked to wait for Build Canada Homes. CMHC used to be able to provide funding, however. Does my colleague agree that there is an added layer of complexity here? Perhaps he is seeing the same type of problem in his own riding, where projects are ready to move forward but are being held up by the slow federal government.”

“Quebec knows its own housing needs best. Creating this new housing corporation will only add more rules and slow things down.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, as with anything, the simplest solution is usually to entrust these matters to the levels of government that are in the best position to meet the needs. Yes, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement for housing, but Quebec knows its own housing needs best. That includes social housing and other types of housing. Unfortunately, Build Canada Homes will add another layer of bureaucracy. That is neither efficient nor effective. It will slow down the entire process. My colleague is a member of Parliament from Ontario. I wonder if the same applies in his province.”

“The government makes housing announcements, but it is too slow to deliver. A group in my riding was told to wait for this new housing agency instead of getting promised funds. These federal delays mean social housing projects take up to 18 months longer to build.”

“Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come up a lot this evening is the fact that, unfortunately, the government makes many announcements, but it is neither effective nor efficient. I gave the example of an organization in my riding, Loge m’entraide, which was supposed to receive its funding through CMHC. Unfortunately, it was told to wait and see whether that CMHC program would be funded again. Now the organization has been told to wait for Build Canada Homes to take over. The federal government is now delaying the construction of social housing in my riding. I wonder if my colleague is experiencing the same thing, because right now, the delays mean that social housing projects may have to wait up to 18 months to see the light of day.”

“I want to know what the government has actually done to fix the housing crisis, other than listening to our concerns about high immigration.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. My question will be brief. The bill we are currently studying seeks to create Build Canada Homes. Personally, I am sad that we are in a housing crisis. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that his government is working to resolve the crisis. What has the government done that is so special to ease the housing crisis lately, besides finally listening to our criticisms about there being too much immigration?”

“This housing bill leaves too many questions unanswered. It is not clear who counts as needing affordable housing, or how it will help rural towns, seniors, and women. The federal government should just give the housing money directly to Quebec and the provinces, because they know their communities' needs better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. We heard that Quebec, through the Société d’habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty. Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities’ housing needs?”

“The government keeps using bad French translations, from the name of this housing agency to the Prime Minister's website and speeches. I have a question about this pattern.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question. We are all familiar with the Build Canada Homes program, which was previously called “Bâtir Maisons Canada” in French. This sparked a lot of reactions, particularly because some people felt the name was a clunky word-for-word translation. This led the government to change the the name of the program. This brings to mind other situations we have seen, including the discovery in January 2025 that the website of the Liberal leader, who has since become Prime Minister, was riddled with errors and appeared to have been translated with Google Translate. Then there is the campaign slogan “Elbows up”, which was translated into French as “On lève le coude”. Unfortunately, that phrase actually means raising a glass, as in having a drink. All of this led us to March 25, 2026, when we found out that there were no francophones on the team that wrote Mark Carney’s speech. When I—”

“The federal government makes its policies in English and does not care about Quebec or the French language.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is new, as my colleague on the other side of the House was saying. Sometimes, we still say his name out of habit. All these problems show—my colleague on the other side of the House might acknowledge this— that government policies and decisions, as well as their implementation, are carried out in English. Quebec comes second. French is an afterthought. Ottawa clearly could not care less about our reality.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 10 of 100

  Only 10% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know the rules about using a member's name. Earlier, I said the Prime Minister's name while reading a news headline. I want to know if that is allowed.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you can clarify something for me. In my speech earlier, I mentioned the Prime Minister by name because I was simply reading the headline of an article. I would like to know whether, based on precedent, it is permissible to include the name of a member of the House when reading the headline of an article.”

“This new housing agency is stalling local building projects. Women who face violence have lost safe housing because the government stopped sending money to Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. I would like to know if she is aware of the impact that this new administrative structure, the so-called Build Canada Homes, has had in places like Laurentides—Labelle, where projects have not been allowed to move forward, leaving women who are victims of violence without the safe havens they need. Construction has been put on hold while people figure out where the funding is, and I am not sure it will ever be completed. Is my colleague aware that, if transfers to Quebec had not been suspended, women who are victims of violence would not have been left out in the cold?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 42 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →