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)

16 statements

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

Liberal
“I agree that this bill will help people build more homes faster. I want the member to say more about how it does that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to hear the member opposite say something to the effect of Bill C-20 inspiring Canadians and helping them build more homes faster. I agree that there is that inspiration within Bill C-20. Could the member expand on that particular point? Through Bill C-20, we want to be able to encourage and see that support realized.

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“Private builders do fine in smaller towns, but they struggle to build middle-income homes in big cities. How would the member get them to build there without a government housing agency?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member from Nanaimo knows a lot of the issues that are particular to the island. Market housing works really well in places like Nanaimo, and can probably be the solution that she is expressing would be valid there, but urban markets with the missing middle are a challenging place. Regardless of the red tape and other things, it is very hard for builders and developers to develop there. How does the member consider developers should be incentivized to build in those areas without a Build Canada Homes-like approach?

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

Liberal
“We want to work together with cities, provinces, and Indigenous peoples. Does the member agree that working together is the best way to solve this problem?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the response to that question, in the sense that, if we look at it, we have seen a great deal of emphasis on collaboration. We want to work collaboratively with municipalities, provinces, indigenous people and so forth. Does the member not agree that working collaboratively is the best way to deal with the issue that is before us?

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It turns Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation so it has the money and independence to build more affordable homes faster.”
  • A repeated line

    “The growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since June 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in support of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. The challenge before us is significant. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford, and too many communities are facing housing shortages that continue to drive up costs. That is why our government launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025 with a clear mandate to build affordable homes, support builders with financing and encourage innovative construction methods using Canadian technology, workers and lumber. In just a few short months, Build Canada Homes has already begun advancing projects and establishing partnerships across the country. Bill C-20 would build on that early progress by establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, providing it with the operational autonomy and dedicated governance needed to scale up efforts to address Canada’s housing crisis. By transitioning Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency to a Crown corporation, the legislation would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate at scale while maintaining accountability to Parliament and to Canadians. All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action, which means that this is about more than creating a new institution. It is about giving Build Canada Homes the tools it needs to build more homes more quickly. As we consider the legislation before us today, it is worth revisiting exactly what Build Canada Homes was designed to achieve. Build Canada Homes was created to build and finance affordable housing at scale while helping to catalyze a more productive and innovative homebuilding industry. It makes it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground, attracting public, private and philanthropic investment. thus maximizing impact. Build Canada Homes does more than fund individual projects. It is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with governments, builders, non-profits and investors to identify and scale high-impact housing solutions. It is also helping modernize Canada’s homebuilding sector by supporting innovative approaches, including modern methods of construction. Build Canada Homes is helping create the conditions needed to build more homes more quickly and more efficiently. This is particularly important at a time in Canada when Canada needs to significantly increase its housing supply. Build Canada Homes is helping build the capacity needed to meet that challenge. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. It would work alongside non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government to help move projects from concept to construction and to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing. It would also work in close partnership with developers, investors, manufacturers and housing providers focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers or organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships would create homes that are affordable to a range of households across the income spectrum. These partnerships are about building capacity, supporting innovation and creating the conditions for more homes to be built across Canada, which is what makes the legislation before us today so important. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, Bill C-20 would provide the agency with the operational autonomy and governance structure needed to pursue its mission more effectively. It would also provide Build Canada Homes with the flexibility needed to hold assets, make investments and make long-term decisions that support the delivery of affordable housing. Together, these tools would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate and build more homes for Canadians. These are exactly the kinds of tools needed to increase housing supply and accelerate construction across the country. Partnerships with provinces and territories are central to the success of Build Canada Homes. Whether through land financing, housing expertise or construction-ready projects, provinces and territories play a critical role in increasing housing supply and helping more homes get built. Allow me to use my home province of British Columbia as an example. Build Canada Homes and BC Housing have partnered to deliver at least 1,100 homes, including supportive, transitional and affordable rental housing. This partnership will make use of standardized designs, Canadian-made prefabricated components and modern methods of construction to reduce costs, improve quality, shorten construction timelines and help increase housing construction at scale. These approaches demonstrate how innovation can play a critical role in addressing Canada’s housing shortage. This is only the first phase of a broader commitment between Canada and British Columbia. By aligning federal investment with construction-ready projects, Build Canada Homes is helping move projects from plans to shovels in the ground, while laying the foundation for thousands more homes in future phases. This is exactly the type of collaboration Build Canada Homes was created to support. It demonstrates how governments can work together to increase housing supply while helping to modernize the homebuilding sector. Importantly, it also demonstrates the potential of Build Canada Homes as a national institution. In just a few short months, it has advanced projects and partnerships representing thousands of homes across the country. Bill C‑20 is about turning that early momentum into sustained long-term results. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, we would be strengthening its ability to support more projects, deepen partnerships and help deliver more homes for Canadians. However, that is not all. In addition to helping build more houses, Build Canada Homes is also helping build a stronger Canadian economy. By prioritizing projects and partnerships that invest in sustainable Canadian materials, strengthen Canadian supply chains and create good jobs through the homebuilding process, Build Canada Homes is helping advance the federal government’s buy Canadian strategy. This means Canadian lumber, Canadian building materials, Canadian manufacturing and Canadian construction expertise. Across the board, Build Canada Homes is helping ensure that public investments create economic benefits here at home. In a changing global economy, strengthening domestic capacity matters. Build Canada Homes is helping increase housing supply while supporting Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian innovation. The partnerships and projects already under way demonstrate what Build Canada Homes can achieve. Bill C‑20 is about scaling up what is already working. It is about building the partnerships, capacity and innovative construction approaches needed to deliver more homes for Canadians in the years ahead. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, the legislation would provide the governance, flexibility and financial capacity needed to build on that progress and to deliver on its mandate at a greater scale. It would allow Build Canada Homes to hold assets, make investments, deploy innovative financial tools and pursue long-term opportunities more effectively, while maintaining a clear accountability framework to Parliament and Canadians. At a time when Canadians need more homes built more quickly and more affordably, Bill C‑20 would help ensure that Build Canada Homes has the tools it needs to deliver. I urge all members opposite to support it.

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“We need this new Crown corporation. It can take government land and use its money and power to build homes faster.”
  • 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 think this is a Crown corporation that would take a lot of federal lands, provincial lands and municipal lands and build quickly and efficiently. It would actually hold, in a lot of cases, those assets in the Crown corporation, and the revenue from that would hopefully help build more homes going forward. It would also help expedite a lot of the process. I think it is much needed. Canada has tried many other things, and I think this is a time when more homes are needed more quickly. We need an agency like this that has the agility, the financial firepower and the power behind it to build these homes much more quickly.

Louis Villeneuve, Brome—Missisquoi

Liberal
“Cities and local groups need help to build affordable housing. How will this new government corporation give them that help?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, municipalities and community organizations are asking us for more tools to help them build affordable housing. Can my colleague explain how to create this new Crown corporation to meet those needs?

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“This bill gives the new Crown corporation 13 billion dollars and strong powers to build homes faster. It can use pre-approved building designs and factory-made parts to try new ways of building that private companies will not.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I apologize for not being able to answer in French. I think it gives, first, the financial tools. There is $13 billion seeded in it, so it has a lot of financial capability. It has the necessary vehicles, whether that is using CMHC or its own funding, the new building code with pre-approved designs, and encouraging modular design and working with modular providers. These are the types of tools that give it the assets and capabilities to move much more quickly and much more efficiently, and also to innovate in the industry in a time when sometimes the private sector is a little hesitant to do that. That is the ability it has, and as a Crown corporation, it would have more power than a special body.

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“Housing is considered affordable if it costs 30 percent or less of a family's income before taxes. Most Canadians are paying much more than that. Our goal is to build homes so people do not have to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.”
  • 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 great question. The affordability measurement is, I think, 30% of pre-tax income of a household, as a means of affordability. That is the test case, so it varies, obviously. In areas where perhaps housing costs are lower, there might be less of a need for Build Canada Homes, but I think that in most cases, Canadians are feeling the pinch in having to pay a lot more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing. The goal is to build the type of housing for which people do not have to pay more than 30% of their household income.

Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State (International Development)

Liberal
“I disagree. The new housing agency plans for all kinds of homes, like accessible units and places with one, two, or three bedrooms to fit different families. If we need to change how this works, I welcome ideas from the Conservatives in committee.”
  • 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 would disagree with that. When Build Canada Homes makes its judgments, including for the 1,100 homes that are being built in British Columbia, it uses a varied metric of all types of housing, such as three-bedroom units in these buildings, two-bedroom, one-bedroom and accessible units. It is designed and built for a mosaic of the families that need them. If that needs to be adjusted, I would welcome the Conservatives’ comments at committee to make sure that Build Canada Homes does that.

Serge Cormier, Acadie—Bathurst

Liberal
“The housing accelerator fund helped towns build homes. News reports say the Conservative leader told his MPs not to help their local towns get this money. Since the member was once a mayor, I want to know if he was told not to support housing projects for his own community.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he was a mayor before being an MP. There was a program that was very helpful for municipalities. It was the housing accelerator fund, just like the Build Canada Homes program. This is what their leader was telling them. This article says, “Conservative MPs frustrated after [their leader] bars them from promoting housing fund”. The Conservative leader “instructed Conservative MPs to stop advocating on behalf of municipalities in their ridings who want to obtain funds [for housing].” The member said that he was a mayor. Was he one of the members who were told not to send a letter of support for a housing project in his municipality?

Caroline Desrochers, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure

Liberal
“Experts and builders told our committee that this new housing agency is needed. They said it will build affordable homes faster than our current housing agency can. I do not understand why the member is ignoring what those witnesses said.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on Bill C‑20 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He asked good questions. We really felt that he truly wanted to understand. After listening to him today, however, I have to wonder whether we were on the same committee or heard from the same witnesses. I find the premise of the member’s speech a bit disingenuous. We heard the committee witnesses, including promoters and developers, talk about how BCH would help, because increasing the number of affordable homes would ease the pressure on the market. We heard, including from the head of CMHC, about how BCH and CMHC are collaborating and how their work is complementary. Most important, the CMHC CEO said that while CMHC does have the legislative mandate to do some of the work that BCH will be doing, it is not set up for it. It would take it quite some time to ramp up to get to that point. I am just wondering if my colleague can really stand here today and say that none of these things were heard at committee.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Beaches—East York

Liberal
“This is my farewell speech. I am proud of what I helped achieve over the last ten years, including reducing poverty, building housing, and protecting animals. I urge politicians to think independently, be honest, and work together on big ideas instead of just following party orders.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, giving a farewell speech in Parliament feels a little like delivering a eulogy at one’s own funeral, so if I leave members with anything, let it be my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve and to make a difference, and the unending importance of doing politics differently. Politics is like pushing a boulder up a hill. All of us feel that at times, I think. It is rewarding and frustrating. It is meaningful progress in one moment and unfinished work at the same time. There are three things that I think matter as we are pushing that boulder uphill. Sometimes it rolls back down on us, obviously, and sometimes we get it to the top or think we have gotten it to the top. We need ambition, and I do not mean ambition in personal title; I mean ambition in ideas. We also need a team. No one accomplishes anything alone, and I would not have accomplished anything over the years without my team. There is a quote I am reminded of. It says that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, and “Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” I think that in politics, one needs almost unreasonable persistence at times. It does sometimes pay off. I have been lucky to be a part of efforts to deliver progress at times. There has been stronger climate action and accountability, for my kids and hopefully for our economy, and action to reduce poverty. There have been, with the Canada child benefit, hundreds of kids lifted out of poverty. The guaranteed income supplement is incredibly important for seniors. The Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit, has increased in a significant way, and tens of thousands of workers have been lifted out of poverty. I am lucky to have been part of that advocacy. There is also a new disability benefit that needs to be improved and strengthened, of course. When I look back over 10 years, this is part of the work we have been able to do together. If we have the courage to reform old age security, we could actually end seniors’ poverty without spending a single dollar. I hope future Parliaments get that done. There has been action to defend competition and protect consumers. Of the many things I have been proud of, one is that CEOs of oligopolies do not like to come to committee when I am there, whether they are CEOs from Rogers, Bell, Stellantis, Facebook, Apple, Google or grocery oligopolies. There is a story here, because it is incredibly important to work together, where we can, across party lines at committee. I am turning 42 years old next week, but on my birthday a number of years ago, I was so incredibly furious because grocery store CEOs had all been communicating with one another to cut pandemic hero pay at the same time for low-income workers. I tapped out a motion on my phone. We brought the industry committee together, brought the grocery store CEOs to that committee and worked across party lines to deliver recommendations that the government acted on to make sure we criminalized wage-fixing so that what took place cannot take place again. We have built more housing. I have been part of those efforts and part of advocating. We have gotten to a place where, across party lines, we all understand the need to end restrictive zoning and to get out of the way so the private market can deliver. I think more work still needs to be done to deliver non-market housing and to really and truly treat housing as a home first. There has been action to protect animals: to end the captivity of whales and dolphins; to ban shark finning and testing on animals, especially cosmetic testing; and to strengthen the Criminal Code against animal abuse. If someone had told me before I was elected that I would be at a press conference beside Jane Goodall and Murray Sinclair, advocating for treating animals humanely, I would not have believed them. We are treating addiction as a health issue and Canadians as responsible adults. For example, we have legalized cannabis. No, the sky did not fall, and now I am no longer a criminal. Overwhelmingly, we still need to follow through on following the evidence to save lives and truly treat substance use as the health issue that it is, the same way we treat eating disorders, gambling addictions or alcohol addictions. I have been there for my community. All of us who have served through and since the pandemic have had the frustration and the exhaustion, but also the good fortune, to be there for our communities, delivering for thousands of people and making sure that they are able to access benefits and supports in the most critical time and moments of their life. I have also been there for my community in probably its most difficult time over 10 years: I was there with the Danforth families, including the Fallon family in the wake of the Danforth shooting. Then I was part of efforts supporting those same families and advocating for sensible gun control. I can point to my standing up for constituents. I consider myself a pretty good advocate, but an expert in nothing. Constituents who are experts in something or have lived experience have come to me with ideas. I can point to a range of examples, but I would hold up childhood cancer survivor Helena Kirk. I worked hand in hand with her and other advocates, and we were able to deliver tens of millions of dollars for pediatric cancer research and support. We have been defending human rights and civil liberties, and dying with dignity, of course. Being elected, we were dealing with that issue for the very first time. One of the first moments when I disagreed with the government was to say that I did not think this law was constitutional and that we should fix it. On the Emergencies Act, there was calling out its invocation in an overbroad manner. There was fixing overbroad anti-terrorism legislation from a past Conservative government, and defending international human rights in, hopefully, a consistent way and with a sense of conscience for Rohingya refugees, Uyghurs, Hong Kong democracy activists, Palestinians and others. To make politics about ideas, in the pandemic, we transitioned from hosting regular town halls to hosting a podcast. I have been lucky to have many colleagues in this place join me for conversations across the aisle to really make politics about ideas. When I think back, it was a promise I made when I was running in the nomination in 2013 and 2014. I leave with, yes, a sense of accomplishment in some ways but also a sense of unfinished business. I do hope that future Parliaments will take wealth inequality and generational fairness more seriously. I hope they take action to ensure that, in a wealthy country like ours, people will not live in poverty, and all people will live with a core sense of dignity. I hope there is transformational action to deliver competition. We are a country of oligopolies, but we should not be. I hope that we do see a wartime effort to build housing, transit and clean energy infrastructure, and that we take international peace assistance and co-operation more seriously. We could use more Pearson in this moment. We all know that this is a job that comes with little job description. It is what we put into it. It is what we make it. I have had some roles, not an unending number, over the years. On the anti-poverty caucus, I had the co-chair role alongside Senator Pate where we advocated for basic income supports and strengthening the social safety net. There was the animal welfare caucus, which I helped found with other Liberal colleagues. I was the 416 caucus chair, and we helped deliver transit and housing for our city. I was chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the team on the Canadian side. I was also minister of housing, where I was lucky to deliver, for colleagues on all sides of the aisle, housing and building housing faster. It was one of the busiest times of my life, and my wife can attest to this. It was four months, although I will say that I did serve under two prime ministers. The role I have lived the most, the one I have worked hardest to make a reality, is simply to be a principled voice in Parliament, one who takes ideas seriously, is willing to work across the aisle, acts with integrity, and more than anything, is honest, which is the most important value in this place. I wrote this a while back, and I believe it to be true. I think we can all agree that no political party represents our views perfectly. We find the party that best represents our views and values, and we engage, debate, and organize to bring our party and country closer to those goals. We push, and in my case, I have seen my role as being to push the government to be the best version of itself. Yes, we disagreed at times but made that disagreement about ideas, and more often than not, with the benefit of time and persistence, there was change. I will comment on the importance of independence. I was just telling my wife this. In the leadership race in 2023 for the Ontario Liberal leadership, I was in Norfolk County at an event. A woman rolled up in front of the café that I was about to go into for the event. She had all the “F Trudeau” stickers one can imagine. Her pickup truck was decked out. I went in to the event and saw that she had a thick binder of articles about me. I was not really sure how it would end. I gave my speech, including the ideas I cared about but also the approach to politics I cared about. Afterwards, as I was working table to table, I came to her table. She quickly shut the binder and said, “You know what? I really appreciate what you said about independence. We need more of that in politics.” It strikes me that, when we take a step back, not only do we agree on more than we disagree on, but overwhelmingly across the aisle, we do care about the same approach to politics when we step outside of this place. When I was first running in the nomination, a 29-year-old who had no idea what I was doing, a friend of mine from law school gave me a book entitled Tragedy in the Commons. I do not know if members have read it, but it is a series of exit interviews from former parliamentarians. They all basically say the same thing. It is a series of laments. They said things such as that when they came to Ottawa, they wanted to make the biggest difference they could on behalf of their community, but when they arrived, they read the canned talking points they were given to read, delivered the prewritten speeches given to them by staffers to deliver and voted how they were told to vote. They did not make the difference they had set out to make. When I was elected, I was determined to not give an exit interview like that. In the back of my mind, I always kept this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: “We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be.” I actually happen to think it is doubly true in politics. This is my last speech, but when I go back to my first speech, and to judge at the end, one might want to go back to the start, I said at the time that I would stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness and the importance of reasonable disagreement. If I leave members with anything, it is this message: We should all act how we want this place to be. We need more ideas, more independent thinking and more honesty. Honesty is central to trust, and trust is at the heart of our representative democracy. Amidst the centralization, the pressure and the whips, we should act how we want the House to be. Yes, I can hear the common reply to this: “But isn’t politics a team sport?” First, I would say that we are first and foremost trustees in the public interest, even if it means, yes, the occasional visit to the whip’s office. We all win elections as a team, but we should remember why we win elections. We win elections to serve ideas. We do not come up with ideas to serve elections. The second thing to say is that we are also voices for our home communities, and those home communities are our team too. When I go back to my local grocery store and I see a friend from high school, they are my team. When I go back home and I see the volunteer who knocked doors with me in the snow in 2015, they are my team too. I just want to say, yes, I have been a very proud member of the Liberal caucus since 2015. I have been more proud to be the representative for Beaches—East York. I want to thank Beaches—East York and everyone back home. I want to thank supporters for everything. I mostly just want to thank Amy and my family, mostly for putting up with me but also for standing beside me.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I want to thank the member for Beaches—East York as he leaves Parliament. He worked hard on big issues like business competition, technology, and animal welfare. I wish him well in the future.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about my colleague from Beaches—East York. I come to this place as a relatively new MP, but I had the privilege of collaborating with the member in my former life, leading a think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University. I greatly appreciated that we had the chance to engage on a number of the ideas he mentioned in his speech, particularly competition policy and responsible technology. What I especially appreciate about our departing colleague is his ability and commitment to attach thoughtful policy to committed politics. Our colleague is a person of ideas and he is deeply committed to the underlying change that can happen with more attention to those issues. We collaborated for a brief time on the industry committee. In fact, we had an exchange at the industry committee yesterday with a representative of one of those mega-platforms, which I think summoned the spirit of our departing member for Beaches—East York. In that time, I had the chance to understand his commitment to deep engagement on the issues and why and how it matters to get the details right, to get deep into the weeds of an issue, to call those involved in that issue to account and to be responsible, and to engage more broadly in how these big systems that are so removed from people, on the face of them, actually touch our constituents in all kinds of ways. These issues include affordability, protection online or those precious creatures that do not have their own voices in this place. I deeply appreciate my colleague’s commitment to bringing those system-level issues and questions and bringing them down to our constituents, not only in his riding but on behalf of those who care about similar issues across Canada. Our colleague represented an area east of the Don River. I represent an area west of the Don River. In the Toronto caucus and in some of the political engagements we had, I learned a lot about the way we can have committed politics and attach them to thoughtful policy. With that, I wish my colleague the best in his new venture and new adventures. I know this place and our country have been stronger because of his service.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Beaches—East York

Liberal
“I am reflecting on my time in Parliament. I have always tried to be an independent reformer, working with others to change laws on privacy, drug policy, and benefits for workers. I encourage party leaders to stay true to their principles and take this work seriously.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I should not have used that line at the outset. I felt like I was speaking at my own funeral, but now I have just heard other people speak at it. Where do I start? My wife is a chef, so that is why it is such a lovely kitchen. I do not mind the label “maverick”. I am a shameless politician who likes getting elected, and that does not hurt, but I have actually always seen myself as being more of a reformer. I am not alone, standing here and giving this speech. I think about the different issues I have raised over the years. When I first raised privacy issues, we worked collaboratively at committee. It was largely unanimous in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but privacy was not on the government’s agenda. It then became government legislation on the government’s agenda, like the digital government the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park just spoke about. We were early speaking about it, and now it is more firmly part of the government’s agenda, recognizing that we live our lives online and we need laws to respect and realize that reality. When we look at the working income tax benefit that became the Canada workers benefit, it was a caucus resolution that I put forward, which then became government policy. I do not want to tell tales out of school, but the former prime minister called me shortly after my second son was born in December 2019. I said, “Prime Minister, thank you so much for the call. I have to be honest. You are not going to love this, but I just won the private member’s bill lottery again and I am going to do something on drug policy.” There was a pause on the phone. I said, “We can collaborate. I could go alone and do drug decriminalization, but give me an adviser from your office, an adviser from Health and an adviser from Justice, and we will find consensus and get something done.” We did that and we changed the law, and now we treat substance use more as a health issue than we otherwise did. I think persistence is right. I think patience is right. I think working collaboratively while maintaining a sense of principled independence is also an important part of the picture. It has been great working with the members. I look forward to swimming in that pool. They can let me know when it is ready and I will be in Vancouver. This is the last thing. Everyone has been offering advice. I would tell the leader of the NDP, who is new, to stick to his principles. I would tell the Prime Minister to stick to his values. I would tell the Conservative leader to find his sincere and serious side, and the picture might improve. Otherwise, I thank everyone.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to create a new agency that builds affordable homes. The federal government has a role to play in housing, and cities need our help to build more homes. The Conservatives are wrong to say Ottawa should do nothing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my very best to my friend and colleague in his future endeavours, whatever they might be, and I want to acknowledge his family, staff and friends, who I am sure are very sorry to see him go. Others will get a bit more time with a loved one. Having said that, I want to get right into the discussions and talk about some of the things I heard coming from the Conservative Party today. I often talk about how the Conservatives like to mislead Canadians. Today, again, we are getting a good sample of that. I believe the Conservative critic for housing is a former mayor. He can correct me if I am wrong. He stood in his place and said, in essence, that municipalities do not require, need or want any sort of assistance in dealing with bureaucracy and reducing the cost of planning. The individual should go and visit some municipalities, and I would really encourage members opposite to do likewise. Some of them have. I can recall a letter campaign that went around among a number of the Conservative MPs, in which they were asking for financial support. If we take a look at it, the city of Winnipeg has benefited immensely from national policies dealing with housing. I am thinking about the accelerator fund. If we talk to the mayor and the city councillors, we will find that there was wide support for that program, and as a direct result, hundreds of homes have been built. To say, as the Conservative Party consistently does, that the national government should just get out of the way and it does not have a role to play in housing, is misguided at best. Ultimately, it is potentially threatening, if we think about how the Conservatives might ever again take the reins of power, especially the far-right Conservatives we see day in and day out here on the floor of the House of Commons. Today’s Conservative Party would never have supported things like the CMHC, which has been around for generations, provided stability within our mortgage regime and enabled millions of Canadians to acquire the finances that are necessary in order to be a homeowner. I question where the Conservative right and its policies are today. Its members have made it very clear that they do not support Bill C‑20. Imagine my shock. I am not shocked. I can tell the House that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party is once again making a mistake by not realizing the difference between, let us say, the CMHC and Canada Lands and what we are proposing within the Build Canada Homes legislation. Arnold Viersen: We know the difference. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, they do not really know the difference. At least, they have not demonstrated that they do, because they constantly stand up and ask what the difference is. They do not understand it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand it, but the Conservative Party does not understand it. At least, the candidates who have stood up obviously do not understand it, because if they did, they would see the value in having this legislation passed. Build Canada Homes has the potential to do a wide variety of things, which the Conservative Party should recognize, given the time. The fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue is that we, the vast majority of Canadians and all provinces and territories, because they participate in the federal programs, recognize that the national government has a role to play in housing. This should be indisputable. We would think the Conservatives would understand and appreciate it. I am not surprised, because if we take a look at it, when the Leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, he built six houses. I do not know where they are, but apparently he built six homes; not him personally, but apparently, his department. Is that any shock? I do not think so, given what the Conservatives are saying today. If they were to listen to what their communities are saying and wanted to add value to the housing stock, or if they were to take a look at what this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, said as a part of our election platform to deal with the issues of affordability, which includes housing, they would see results. One year later, housing and rental prices have gone down. We have a government that is aggressively pushing the expansion of our housing market. Meanwhile, we see the Conservatives saying, “Get out of the way.” I do not understand how they believe that affordable housing is going to appear out of nowhere. An hon. member: That is a solution. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not a solution; it is a dumb idea being promoted by Conservative members. At the end of the day, a vast majority of Canadians recognize—

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

Liberal
“I want this bill to pass. It creates a government corporation to help build more affordable housing and support non-profit homes. The Conservatives want to do nothing, and they will vote against it.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that, while the Conservatives say how much they love freedom and do not want censorship, the member is trying to say that I cannot say the Conservative Party has dumb ideas. When one really stops and thinks about it, their solution for the housing crisis in Canada is to stand back and do nothing. There are provinces, municipalities, non-profit organizations and stakeholders out there saying that the federal government should do something, which is what Bill C-20 would do. Through Bill C-20, we would develop a corporation that would support the expansion of Canada’s housing industry and our housing stock. For example, we are talking about promoting modular homes; increasing housing co-ops and other forms of non-profit housing; and working with municipalities and provinces to add value and to increase the amount of affordable housing. That is what Bill C-20 is all about. The Conservatives say, “No, we do not want that.” Why is that? I do not understand it for the life of me. They say that they understand the needs of Canadians, but they do not. They are going to vote against Bill C-20, just like they vote against any idea that comes out of the government to be affordable for Canadians—

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