Government Orders

Bill C-20, Build Canada Homes Act · Third reading · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to develop affordable housing and promote efficient construction techniques. It sets out the corporation's powers and governance, and authorizes federal money to fund its operations. The federal cabinet can also transfer property and obligations from other Crown corporations to Build Canada Homes, and issue directives related to reorganizing Canada Lands Company Limited.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

19 statements

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“This bill aims to help build homes faster and better. That goal is very important because families in my area and across Canada are struggling to find housing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and promote innovative and efficient building techniques for the housing sector. The goal matters deeply in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith. As I said at the beginning of my original speech, I am splitting my time today. Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“We need to build homes faster and use new methods. Businesses in my riding already build safe modular homes and parts. If this housing bill passes, the government must work with and support these local builders.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, among other things that I am continuing in my speech from the other day, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing sector. That goal matters deeply in communities such as Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home, seniors are looking for options that allow them to downsize while staying close to family and workers are struggling to live near the jobs that keep our communities running. We agree that we cannot meet that challenge with old thinking alone. We need to build differently, build faster and make use of better and new methods and Canadian standards, as well as local business that are already doing the work. The mid-island did not wait for legislation. We know we cannot rely on the government to solve our problems for us. Local innovators have already risen to the occasion to make the mid-island an emerging hub for modular and innovative construction. I recently toured Cueva Homes, which is headquartered in Nanaimo. There, I saw exactly the kind of practical innovation this country needs. Cueva Homes is focused on modular homes, backyard suites, ADUs and smaller housing options that can help communities add supply without changing the character of every neighbourhood. The folks at Cueva Homes are ready to go. These are real homes designed for real lots, and they are built with the kind of efficiency that could help address the housing shortage. They are especially well suited for communities like ours, where many families need options for aging parents, adult children, renters and first-time buyers. Cueva Homes’ work also shows why standards matter. When homes are CSA-compliant, even if they are fabricated abroad with a significant proportion of local materials exported from the island for that purpose, communities can have confidence that innovation is not coming at the expense of safety, quality or code compliance. That should be central to the purpose of Bill C-20. I also want to recognize Wescon Doors, another Vancouver Island business contributing to this same housing ecosystem. Wescon manufactures doors built for our climate and to meet applicable Canadian standards. Businesses like Wescon Doors remind us that housing innovation is not only about the finished home, but also about the local supply chain, components, skilled workers and manufacturers that make faster, better building possible. If Bill C-20 is truly about supporting innovative and efficient building techniques, then the government must recognize communities such as ours. We already have businesses working in modular housing, prefabricated systems with high-quality components and climate-appropriate construction. The opportunity now is to connect federal policy with local capacity. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is ready to be part of that solution

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“I worry this new housing agency will just be more bureaucracy. I want the government to support local builders and solutions that already work, instead of running everything from Ottawa.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for his benefit, I would like to share with the member opposite what I am hearing on the ground. We are also concerned about the fact that there are multiple bureaucracies already in place. We are very concerned about Build Canada Homes and making sure that it does not become another Ottawa-driven program that overlooks the builders and manufacturers already solving problems on the ground in communities such as mine. We would like a commitment from the government that it will help and support practical, CSA-compliant, scalable solutions such as those found in our communities.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“A budget report says the government is taking money away from poor people to pay for new government offices. That will barely build any new homes. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report commenting that the government was stripping away services to the vulnerable via housing benefits and social housing in order to fund another bureaucracy. I wonder what the member thinks about the government taking money away from the most vulnerable to fund another bureaucracy that is going to produce, as the PBO says, only “a modest amount” of new housing.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“Cities and provinces are struggling in this economy. My community needs all kinds of housing, including sober housing. If the government spends money on housing, it needs to do more to help places like mine.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question, because just last night in my community, our local city council was holding a special meeting about the need for sober housing specifically. All kinds of housing in our communities came up. The provinces, especially provinces like mine, are really struggling in the context of this economy. Of course, this means that municipalities are struggling as well. If the government is going to allocate funds toward housing, it really needs to work harder to address those issues in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith and beyond.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“The housing market is not working in my community. We do not have enough regular housing, middle-class housing, or supportive housing. At the same time, people on our streets are suffering from addiction.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes market housing is working well in Nanaimo, he really does not understand British Columbia. We are the missing middle. We have the missing market housing and the missing supportive housing. We are in the throes of an addictions crisis. Last night, we heard testimony about how hard it is for someone to resist the lures of addiction when they are down, homeless and sleeping on the street. That question was an insult to my communities.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“The other member does not understand what is happening in British Columbia or my community. My community needs more affordable housing, not just regular market housing.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member from the other side goes back to the question before and suggests that I was being insulting, when someone was trying to tell me that my community does not need mid-market housing and below, and that we are just fine with market housing. I am sorry, but that is another member who does not understand what is going on in British Columbia or in my riding.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“Why do we need a third government agency to build housing? The two agencies we already have should do this work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, could the member who just delivered his speech explain to me and to the House why we need a third federal Crown corporation to do what he described it would do? Why can CMHC or Canada Lands Company not do these things?

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“Canada needs bigger homes with three or more bedrooms. Why is the government helping to build small homes instead of what people actually need?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Mike Moffatt, who is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the housing crisis. He comments on the program, saying, “Canada has a substantial shortage of three-bedroom and larger homes, and the need for our cities to densify, [but this program’s] prioritization of small, low-rise homes is a peculiar choice.” Why is the government making a peculiar choice to help build the wrong type of houses, not what Canadians are looking for?

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“I do not want this bill to pass. We need fewer rules and fees to build homes, not another expensive government agency that will slow builders down.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. As we are here to discuss third reading of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, I have been sort of reflecting a bit. Of course, I have spoken on this issue a few times. I have spoken on housing many times in the House of Commons, in committee and certainly around the country. I guess it is no secret that I spent most of my adult life in local government, in municipal politics. I have sat in municipal council chambers and planning committee meetings, and I have also worked with a lot of local builders and understand the process they have to go through to get things approved. During my time as a mayor, I devoted an awful lot of time trying to speed up processes, and when things got stalled about 10 years ago, I was part of the charge at our district council to cut development charges by 50%. We were thinking ahead back then. Now, of course, here we are still talking about the development charges in this country. I guess if there is one thing I would regret from my time there, it is that I did not change the systems well enough. I worked within them to keep things moving, but after I left, things slowed down again a bit, I think. It would have been good if I had done things to change the process. If we fast-forward, we are now here in this place. I thought that, in a time of crisis, this place might work in such a way that we would see what the problems that created the crisis were and that we would work together to find a way to clear the bottlenecks that make it harder and more expensive to build homes. However, if we look at Bill C-20 today, I have to say I find my patience is a little worn. We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is actively compounding. It is getting worse every single month for young families and young professionals. Interestingly enough, I think it is also getting worse for seniors. We probably do not talk enough about seniors and how the housing crisis affects them. If people cannot afford to buy, that means they cannot afford to get into the market, which means the market is not healthy. This means, for the people who were planning to use the equity built up in their home to help fund their retirement, if they cannot afford to sell, they are kind of trapped there. We need movement in this system. This is something that affects all generations, not just young people, but that is mostly who we talk about. After all the debates and the discussion in this place, it is really frustrating that the government’s response to this crisis of bureaucracy, pace, process and fees is the creation of a brand new, multi-billion-dollar federal bureaucracy called the Build Canada Homes corporation. For the record, I just want to make sure all Canadians know that I am not talking about a new agency. I am talking about the fourth federal housing agency. We are all familiar with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the work it does. It was created right after the Second World War, and it did miraculous things by getting things out of the way and just getting things built. We solved that housing crisis then in about 10 years. We also have, of course, the Canada Lands Company, which was created and actually does development. It uses federal lands to develop. I hear the members opposite talking about how this Build Canada Homes agency is going to build on federal lands, even though there already is one doing that. We are at a point of real crisis in our country on the housing file. I think people maybe thought that, when they elected this new Prime Minister, there was going to be some kind of shift from the past. They were promised this technocratic competence, a sort of practical delivery. We were told that we were going to get this economic mastermind. He has been the governor of a couple of banks, such as the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We thought we were going to get this leader who would move past the superficial politics of the past and bring this cold, hard managerial excellence to federal operations. Instead, though, it has actually been a bit of a disappointment, a bit of an illusion, I would say. What we see now is the style over substance that we had with the previous government. I can give examples. The first one would be that, like clockwork, on Monday mornings, the Prime Minister puts on a nice, new, clean hard hat, puts on a fancy, brand new, high-visibility vest, and he goes out into the suburbs of Ottawa and stands in front of a housing construction project for a nice photo op. I have to say that the Prime Minister looks like he is straight out of central casting. He looks really good in that get-up. It looks really exciting, because the image says that the Liberals are getting things done, that they are building. The staging is really immaculate. If members have not seen it, I encourage them to take a look. It is really good stuff. He holds these press conferences, but the interesting thing about press conferences, photo ops, talking points and bureaucracy is that they do not get homes built. They do not pour concrete. As it turns out, posing with a golden shovel does not get a roof over a family’s head. The hard truth is that, while the Prime Minister is out there modelling safety gear for his communications team, actual housing starts in this country, which we are studying at the human resources committee, are declining. They are declining at a time when the first federal housing Crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does more research than anybody else on housing in this country, has reported that Canada needs to build between 430,000 and 480,000 homes per year just to reach affordability for all homes. We cannot even build 250,000 homes a year, and starts are declining. It is getting worse. This is what I find so incredibly frustrating. I think Canadians find it incredibly frustrating as well. At committee we looked at the actual structural design of this bill and this agency. We asked housing experts to come and tell us what they thought, and they exposed the reality. Do not get me wrong. We brought in some of the sharpest minds on this. There were builders and experts. Dr. Mike Moffatt was mentioned, who is a well-known expert on this file. Of course, everyone is very polite at committee, because that is what we do. We are polite. However, when we strip away all the polite language and the niceties at committee, their collective verdict was actually kind of devastating. Maybe the Liberal members did not hear this, but I heard over and again that if it were up to them, they would never have created this fourth federal housing agency. As it turns out, Canada does not suffer from a shortage of housing agencies. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have the Canada Lands Company, which develops on federal land. At the very time that Canada needs less government bureaucracy, costs, processes and painful work to get permission to build a house in this country, the government has responded with more bureaucracy. We saw the limits of this approach even with the launch of this thing. Everyone remembers, I am sure, when the Liberals proudly announcing the first six projects that were going to be done under the Build Canada Homes banner on federal lands. It was very exciting. It was evidence that they were hitting the ground running. Even before they turned it into a Crown corporation, it was an agency of the government. There were six new projects. It was so exciting. There was great fanfare. As it turns out, there were really good photo ops and staging. I will tell members that they really looked good. However, the truth is that those six projects they announced were already well under way by the second federal Crown corporation called the Canada Lands Company. It already had the land. It had already done a lot of the planning. Some of the units had already been built on some of these sites. They were presented as this proof that Build Canada Homes was going to develop faster on federal lands. Build Canada Homes did none of those things. What it did was adopt projects that were already years in the making and already well under way. If the Liberals slap a new corporate logo on the side of a train that has left a station and is moving down the track and then claim they built the engine, that is ridiculous. It is rebranding. They have rebranded the Canada Lands Company projects and called them Build Canada Homes projects. We are supposed to celebrate that because apparently it is building more homes, when really all they have done is slapped a new logo on it. If the Prime Minister really wanted to accelerate federal land development, he could expand the existing mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is an agency that has broad legislative authority. In 2017, it was handed the bulk of the government’s national housing strategy to deliver programs. It was not really used to delivering direct programs anymore, but it scaled up and got things going, and for years delivered on these various different programs. However, instead of expanding the mandate or giving new directions to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which is already actively doing development, the Prime Minister has created a whole new parallel executive suite with new corporate rules. It has been a year. The Liberal government has built no homes, yet here we are celebrating. Not only have we created a new agency, but now we are going to jam through a piece of legislation that turns that new agency into a federal Crown corporation, as I pointed out, the third federal Crown corporation. I still do not know why we are celebrating that. The truth is the failure goes even deeper than just the administrative burden of this new thing. Experts like Mike Moffatt told the HUMA committee that they would not have done this either. At the same time, one of the problems with what the government has created is that there is a staggering lack of any concrete targets, clear definitions or binding timelines. Everybody should think about this for a second. This is a brand new fourth federal housing agency, the third new federal Crown corporation for housing. It has been given $13 billion and there are zero targets for how many units it is supposed to get done. The government says it is going to focus on non-market housing. I asked CMHC about this just the other day. It is the leading researcher on housing. CMHC told us how many units we need to get built in this country. It pointed out that 95% of housing in this country is market housing and 5% is non-market housing. I asked CMHC about this. It is interesting. It does not seem to have any targets. I asked whether the government had had a conversation with CMHC or its research department about maybe what their targets should be. The president and CEO of CMHC said they had not had those discussions. I asked if CMHC had done any research to send the government some targets. I realize it has taken employees from CMHC, so now maybe CMHC does different things, but it still does research. Maybe it could advise on how many non-market housing units the country actually needs. It has not done that. Of course, I asked the minister here, just moments ago, whether he had talked to CMHC and its research department about whether it had done any analysis of just how many units needed to be built. Interestingly enough, the CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a comment about how he did not know what their target would be, but that they had a certain amount of money. I said, “Wait a second, this is just based on how much money they have. Shouldn’t this be based on the need for non-market housing?” Colleagues may be surprised, but I did not really get an answer to that question because, of course, it is Build Canada Homes. It is the Prime Minister’s baby. Everyone is very excited about it and we do not ask too many questions, even though we have a situation today where a housing crisis has been getting worse. The government’s response is to create a fourth federal housing agency and give it $13 billion. The minister stood here and said the goal is to get as many homes built as possible. Well, I do not find that very promising for Canadians, who are desperately hoping that one day maybe they might own a house. I look at all these pages down here. They are nice, bright, young people who may want to own a house one day. I worry about that. All we get from the government is more platitudes and more billions of dollars, with no targets. How do we measure success if the government has no goals and sets no targets? It is classic. There is that vast research department there that has advised every agency, the industry, the banks and the government on housing data. The government does not want to talk to CMHC. It is not interested in that. It is not interested in setting targets. In fact, the minister referred to a target for the Build Canada Homes corporation. He said it was just a random number. He did not like that. We got nothing. Obviously, he does not respect the work of CMHC and the research it does. I was talking about using those experts, who have done more analysis on the housing market in Canada than anybody, to help them come up with a number. Right now, we have this new agency. We are rushing through this bill because it needs to be a Crown corporation, because somehow that is going to make it better. I have talked to private and non-profit builders across Canada who already have applications in to this Build Canada Homes apparatus. Interestingly enough, with CMHC, when they had this program, there was an apparatus where builders could follow their application online and see how they were doing. They could reach out to get information about the status of their application. Curiously, there is no such thing with Build Canada Homes, so builders are sitting there waiting and wondering what the status of their file is. They do not know, really, what criteria will be used to adjudicate their file. They do not really know when a decision will be made. There is no way to track the progress. I have to say, as a former mayor who has dealt with this on the front lines, that this uncertainty, this lack of transparency, is a killer. It is a killer of housing development. That investment requires some level of certainty. When a builder does not know where their application stands in the process, capital sits idle. Land loans accumulate interest, because one has to borrow money for the land. Subcontractors cannot be booked. By building an agency with no timelines, no targets and no tracking framework, the government has not just created yet another bureaucracy at a time when we need to reduce bureaucracy; it has actually fixed in place this paralysis by process. It has institutionalized the bureaucracy, and we just do not know when this process is going to be done. Homes are built by builders, not by boards and certainly not by prime ministers and photo ops. The housing experts who came to our HUMA committee made it very clear that they would not have built this agency. The tools were there. They existed, and yet here we are. We have wasted an entire year, as the crisis gets worse, adding a fourth federal layer of bureaucracy and administration. It does not solve a crisis that is rooted in regulatory delays. If we do not fix time, we do not fix costs. Bill C‑20 does not fix time. It simply creates an unaccountable gatekeeper and makes builders wait in the dark. I call it the illusion of competence. We do not need a government that acts like a public relations firm. We need a government that focuses on the quiet, very unglamorous work of clearing the path, eliminating regulatory friction and restoring basic administrative competence. We need to get out of the way of builders and stop subsidizing the bureaucracy. If we stopped subsidizing and creating new agencies and new bureaucracies with billions of dollars, maybe then we would have the resources left over to invest in those important social and supportive housing needs that exist in our country. Maybe if we spent some time talking to the researchers, to get real data on what is needed in this country in terms of the number of social, supportive and non-market housing units, we could create some targets. We could have given the CMHC the tools it needed to make sure that this was happening. Instead, we spent one year creating another bureaucracy, and here we are. The crisis is worse than ever, and the minister has the gall to stand in the House and say that the goal is to get as many built as possible. Liberals say not to worry and to just trust them, because it has only been 11 years and they have created strategies. They have another strategy they want to create for housing for young people specifically. Canadians cannot live on strategies and proclamations and photo ops alone. They need homes. They need governments to stop getting in the way and to reduce the bureaucracy, the cost, the fees and the taxes. This was an opportunity for the government. I thought that maybe this was a Prime Minister who understood the file and understood the issue, that we need to use federal dollars and leverage federal infrastructure investment to get results at the local level, working with provinces and working with cities to get the job done, and to get out of the way. There is absolutely none of that. All we have now is a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with $13 billion, and anyone’s guess is as good as mine as to how many units are going to get built. It is a huge disappointment. It is the illusion of action, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“Conservatives want to use federal money to force cities to build homes. The government's housing fund helped some small towns, but it gave billions to big cities based on promises alone. Those big cities are where the crisis is worst, and the government's plan has failed to build homes there.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference between that member and me is that I recognize the importance of getting things done. Conservatives have proposed all along that we use federal dollars as leverage to make sure that municipalities are getting the job done. I will acknowledge that, in reality, the housing accelerator fund has been useful in some small and rural communities that are already doing really good things. However, in larger centres, where the epicentre of the crisis is, like the GTA and Toronto or the Lower Mainland and Vancouver, in those areas, they have used that money and they have given billions of dollars to cities on promises that they will be better. It has been a failure. It has been another classic Liberal situation where they give a whole bunch of money to cities, have a photo op and pretend that homes get built. It did not work.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“The Liberals caused this housing crisis. Instead of fixing it, they are just creating more government agencies and giving away money. For example, Toronto got 471 million dollars for housing and then quickly raised its building fees by 40 percent. That makes homes even more expensive. Giving out money and creating more bureaucracy is not working.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is a crisis, in many ways created by the current government. It has been building for years, I grant the Liberals that, but their solutions are, in fact, what the member said: They are building new bureaucracies, creating new agencies, and they give money out based on promises from cities that they will be better. As a case in point, the City of Toronto got the most money of anyone in the housing accelerator fund, $471 million. The Liberals gave it the money and made the deal, and then the City of Toronto, immediately after the ink was dry on that deal, raised its development charges by 40%. Do the Liberals not understand that rising costs make it less affordable and harder to buy a home? They did not get it, and they still do not get it. They are creating more bureaucracy. They are handing money with photo ops, and it is not getting the job done. They are completely ignoring that they are now a big part of the problem.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“The Liberals promised to cut city building fees in half, but they have not done it. A new report shows these high fees make it much harder to build homes. I want my colleague to speak about this broken promise.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”. CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“The current government plan to cut city building fees fails because cities can just choose not to join. The Conservative plan would push cities to lower these fees and help pay for infrastructure only when they actually build homes.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always has incredibly insightful questions. That is a very good point. In fact, what has happened with respect to development charges is that the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges, but not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program. A local municipality can say, “Yes, we are good; we like our development charges at $100,000 a lot”, and that means nothing happens. Those development charges stay high and no results happen. It is all based on whether the municipality agrees to reduce its development charges. Conversely, the Conservative plan would be to leverage municipalities to reduce their fees, and to assist them, absolutely, with the costs of housing-enabling infrastructure, but it would be based on results, not on hopes of things getting better.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“We do not need another federal housing agency. Home builders said they would not have created this new agency if it were up to them. The government already has a housing agency that could do this work instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 85 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear”.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am a big fan of that member. We have done some great work together. However, I think she has been afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear. There is no question that builders and developers said they would use Build Canada Homes and work with it, that they have to work with the cards they are dealt by this federal government and they are going to work with them. They also said they would not have created this agency if it were up to them. They did say those words. The fact is that all the member heard was that they love Build Canada Homes, they want to work with it and they want to do these things. I also heard the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do. The interesting thing about this is that, in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy, the CMHC was not set up to deliver that either, but it scaled up and did it. This is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan. They gave the housing project to CMHC in 2017, which scaled up, but now all of a sudden it is incapable of scaling up to deliver this stuff. I do not know why we have a fourth federal housing bureaucracy.

Brad Redekopp, Saskatoon West

Conservative
“Instead of creating a new agency that wastes money, the government should lower the cost of housing by fixing its building codes. Recent building codes could add $115,000 to the cost of an average home.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned taxes and costs from the government. The member has already spoken about that. The government has other tools. Instead of setting up a bureaucracy to spend and waste money, the government could be doing other things. One of the things that I would like the member’s comments on is building codes. It has been estimated that the latest round of building codes created by the government agencies will potentially add $115,000 to the cost of an average house in Canada. I wonder if maybe changing the building codes or keeping in mind the cost of things that are happening in the building codes might be an even easier, simpler way to reduce the cost of housing in our country.

Scott Aitchison, Parry Sound—Muskoka

Conservative
“The federal building code process makes homes too expensive. The people writing the rules sell building products instead of working in the trades, and they do not care about costs. Changes to the building codes over the last 10 years have added over $100,000 to the price of a home.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is another incredibly insightful question from my colleague. He happens to be a builder, and he knows what he is talking about. He has actually built homes, and he understands these changes and what they have done. The real problem with the building codes process federally is, of course, the process itself. There is a whole process that they go through where they make recommendations to make changes to the code. Then provinces may or may not adopt that. The interesting thing about these code review bodies is that they are populated, mostly, not by electricians or plumbers or carpenters, but by lobbyists and salespeople for the people who manufacture these products. In fact, they do not ever consider what the cost implications are of the changes they are making. The Canadian Home Builders’ Association reports that over the last 10 years, changes made to the building codes have added over $100,000 to the cost of a home. Not all of those things are common-sense, energy efficiency-type things. They have just added more cost, and there has been no consideration by the national building codes or the National Research Council of what that means for the cost of a new home.

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“I am honouring my colleague as he leaves Parliament. He worked hard for the people who elected him, even when it meant challenging his own party. I thank him for his courage and for working with others to get things done.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in tribute to my colleague, I will share with folks a couple of lessons I have learned in my time. The first is that the power and responsibility granted to a member of Parliament from the centre of a political party are never greater than the power and responsibility granted by our constituents, and the first and foremost role of an MP is to hold the government to account. On that point, I have watched our colleague do that even while sitting in the governing party’s caucus, and that takes a spine. Our colleague has introduced bold private member’s legislation that started national conversations and that pushed his party in Parliament to take clear positions on critical issues. Parliament works only when each of us remembers who sent us here. In that, Parliament needs much more envelope pushing and much less quiet complacency. My hope, as our colleague takes his leave of the House, is that the spirit he demonstrated over his decade of service here takes root, with a caveat. Here is one other lesson I have learned in Parliament. In order to get anything done for our constituents, we have to build consensus. Oftentimes in Parliament, lesson number one and lesson number two are in direct conflict with each other. How do we advance a policy on behalf of our constituency if our party does not want to embrace it, and how do we convince colleagues that our solution or our leadership is in their best interest? The answer to all these questions is humility, patience, persistence and self-discipline. Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague. I know that my colleague has always had his heart with the people who elected him, and as he leaves the House, colleague to colleague, I wish him this blessing: continuing the journey to find balance with those lessons, which admittedly is something I have to remind myself to fixate on every day. I also want to thank him for taking risks, pushing himself and earning the right to say that he has walked that path, which frankly few people in this place actually do. In his future endeavours, may he be known as a consensus-building maverick. For that matter, for the sake of our nation, I wish that for all of us.

Brad Redekopp, Saskatoon West

Conservative
“The member used an unacceptable word to describe Conservatives and our ideas. I want him to take it back.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. I believe the member was referring to Conservatives and our ideas and he called us a bad word, an unparliamentary word. I would like him to retract that word.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 132

  1. Government Orders Build Canada Homes Act 34 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Orders 39 statements
  3. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 7 statements
  5. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  12. Oral Questions Diversity and Inclusion 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 9 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Employment 8 statements
  19. Government Orders Build Canada Homes Act 45 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release Act 7 statements
  21. Government Orders Build Canada Homes Act 59 statements
  22. Government Orders Protecting Victims Act 106 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements