“The housing agencies are disorganized. Build Canada Homes is taking longer than 30 days to reply, and people are being sent back and forth between it and CMHC. I want to know who is in charge and when people will get useful answers.”

“Mr. Speaker, as things stand, conversations about housing are, naturally, conversations about Build Canada Homes. However, for the past year, Build Canada Homes has been having a lot of trouble getting its programs up and running. We have been told a number of times that the CMHC no longer exists and that people have to contact Build Canada Homes instead. Build Canada Homes’ own standards dictate that it must provide responses within 30 days. However, Build Canada Homes is not meeting that deadline. I think this is a very serious problem. Now, people are being told to contact the CMHC, which is no longer supposed to have any files. Can someone set the record straight? Who is in charge now? Is it the CMHC or is it Build Canada Homes? When can we expect useful answers?”

“The government housing agency promised to answer groups within 30 days, but it does not have enough staff to do that. It is sending them to another agency that is not taking applications. Will the government make sure these groups get answers within 30 days?”

“Mr. Speaker, on February 17, a technical briefing was held about Build Canada Homes. During that meeting, it was stated that Build Canada Homes would provide a response to the organizations within 30 days so that they would know what to expect. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today, several months later, is that Build Canada Homes is unable to meet these deadlines because it does not have the necessary staff. Worse still, it is referring organizations to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is no longer supposed to be accepting applications. Will the parliamentary secretary commit to ensuring this 30-day deadline is met and to following up with her minister?”

“Housing is the provinces' job. Would it not be better to give them this housing money with no strings attached? That would cut red tape, save money, and build more homes faster.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his thoroughness. He has the ability to keep things in perspective, which is nice to see in this Parliament, especially after the two very partisan speeches given by the parliamentary secretaries. I enjoyed hearing my colleague’s ideas on how to improve accountability. I would like him to expand on that. How does he propose that we cut more costs, especially in relation to housing? Housing falls under provincial jurisdiction. Would transferring money to the provinces with no strings attached not be the best way to cut down on paperwork and red tape, cut costs, increase housing construction and improve access to housing for those who need it most?”

“The Liberal government is cutting spending on housing programs, including supports for affordable and social housing. Their budget plans to cut housing spending by 56 percent in a few years. Housing is clearly not a priority for them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-26 is a good time to take stock of what the new Liberal government has accomplished after a year in office, even though the Liberals have been in power for 10 years, as we all know. When it comes to housing, there has been talk of cutting spending and eliminating immediate affordability supports, such as the Canada housing benefit, and supports for existing social housing. Budget 2025 also indicates that spending will drop to just $4.3 billion in 2028-29, a 56% drop compared to the funding allocated for 2025-26. If housing were really a priority for the Liberal government, would it be making such drastic and predictable cuts over the coming years?”

“I support this bill because it sends housing money directly to Quebec with no conditions. Quebec knows its own housing needs best and should manage the money itself.”

“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday. I would like to tell him that I am very proud to be his father and offer him my sincerest congratulations, especially since he made a name for himself in Quebec with his performance at the Quebec Games last summer, where he won two gold medals in swimming, for the breaststroke. I also want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Let us start by saying something important about Bill C-26: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill simply because it is necessary to transfer funds quickly and without delay to help Quebec build and set its housing priorities. It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone. This system is renowned and has proven its worth. Transferring the money directly to Quebec will allow Quebec to manage its affairs as it sees fit and in accordance with its own reality. That is precisely what Bill C‑26 does. It transfers the funds earmarked for affordable housing to the authority that has jurisdiction in this area. As a result, Quebec will be able to ensure that it develops strategies based on its priorities and aligned with the realities of the various communities within its territory. It will be in a position to develop its own strategy for social and affordable housing. Another advantage is that it reduces administrative costs, because the province already reports on its own expenditure through its own budget. Instead of duplicating costs, the government sends the money directly, cutting red tape and eliminating duplication, which means that everyone wins. Since the money comes without conditions, Quebec will be able to use a variety of means to influence the rental supply, whether that means building housing-related infrastructure, such as sewers and water systems, introducing tax relief or building social and affordable housing. In short, Quebec will have the tools it needs to take effective action using the various levers at its disposal. Transferring this $1.7 billion allows the provinces to take immediate action, and that reduces wait times. It differs from the strategy of Build Canada Homes, which is just another Crown corporation that creates more duplication, more management costs, more public servant hiring and so on. Transferring the money to the provinces reduces the size of government and gives responsibility to the governments that are actually responsible for housing. Quebec and the provinces each have their individual realities. Quebec’s reality differs from the reality in British Columbia. Yukon’s reality is completely different from New Brunswick’s reality. If every province takes charge of its responsibilities based on its own reality, we will end up with more tailored, more flexible programs. Over the past few months, at meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have personally questioned various departments about their definitions of urban, rural and remote regions. As the member for a region that could be described as rural and remote, this question concerns me tremendously. What we observe is that the federal government has a distorted view of rural regions. To the Government of Canada, any census area with a population of 100,000 or less is a rural region. Geographic factors apparently do not matter. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is located six or seven hours from urban areas, depending on the destination. That makes it impossible to compete with cities located in the suburbs. The reality is that transferring the funds to Quebec ensures that realities like mine are respected. Another issue is all the regulatory requirements in federal programs that do not apply to Quebec because it has the Civil Code. Basically, this creates new obligations for Quebec stakeholders, resulting in additional delays and costs to meet a requirement that does not even apply in Quebec. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynda Perreault, a member of my team who works in my office and helps organizations navigate the complexities of organizations such as CMHC and Build Canada Homes. To date, Build Canada Homes still cannot meet its own 30-day deadline for responding to proposals. It made that commitment during a technical briefing on February 17. The truth is, Build Canada Homes does not have enough staff to review the applications. As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season. Unfortunately, our summers are shorter than elsewhere. We lose years to administrative delays. Mortgage costs are often passed on to the organizations that wanted to balance their budgets without taking out a mortgage. Winter construction in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is not t really an option. Our winters are very long, so we have no choice but to be more efficient during the summer. Delays result in additional costs for many non-profit organizations that are just trying to create social and affordable housing for vulnerable populations. They end up with extra costs, forcing them to cut back on their operations, which means they end up helping fewer people. A lot of construction is happening in Abitibi–Témiscamingue right now. However, it is private development. While that is a good thing, it means that families and lower-income individuals are unable to afford these new properties. Furthermore, several developers were told that their applications would be transferred to Build Canada Homes. The reality is that this has not happened. They have to start all over again and resubmit their projects. This means even more hours of work lost for non-profit organizations. If the money had been transferred to Quebec, this sort of problem would not be happening. The solution is so simple. That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion’s share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years. The result was an agreement under which Quebec received only $1 billion of the program’s $6-billion budget, or 16.6%, which is far less than its share of the population. This is also what is known as a fiscal imbalance. Quebec should have received $1.3 billion to match the figures calculated using the needs identified by the Union des municipalités du Québec, yet we received $300 million less. The Liberal members from Quebec do not boast too much about that. If we add the inflation of the past two years, we must acknowledge that that money will not go as far today as it could have. It is important to remember that Quebec municipalities are currently experiencing one of the most serious housing crises ever, while a lot of the infrastructure is aging and no longer suitable to today’s reality. It is time for Ottawa to do what it must do, which is to unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces as soon as possible. This would be a win-win situation for everyone. I want to give some examples. In 2016, funding for major housing-related infrastructure was also announced, and that funding was immediately allocated to Ontario. It is interesting because the programs in Ottawa are designed with Ontario’s reality in mind. It took over three years to reach an agreement with Quebec. I have to talk about inflation again. Then came COVID-19. Then came the skyrocketing cost of housing. Because of this, we were not able to build as many housing units. The amount of housing built was much less in Quebec because of all these constraints. If Quebec’s reality had been respected and this money had been transferred with no strings attached, the housing shortage that we have been seeing across Quebec, and particularly in Abitibi-Témiscamingue for the past 20 years, would not be as significant now. That is not without consequences. I can give a wide range of examples that show that federal programs do not work in Quebec and in rural and northern regions like mine. Energy efficiency requirements are problematic. Ottawa wants to tell us how we should manage energy efficiency, but Quebec City’s criteria are different. This means we have to send an inspector on site. That results in additional costs and delays. All of this means we cannot meet deadlines. We cannot finish construction on time, and we lose years of construction time. It is entirely Ottawa’s fault. Ottawa should mind its own business and do what Bill C-26 thankfully calls for, namely, respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and transferring the funds unconditionally.”

“Federal housing money takes too long to reach Quebec, and it loses value. The government focuses on Toronto and its suburbs instead of rural areas. Small towns in Quebec do not have the staff or resources to use these programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years’ delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes. When will we see a program that is truly adapted to the regions of Quebec? When will the government stop focusing solely on Toronto and its suburbs? When will the government take an interest in the true rural regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada? Not all of Canada’s regions are within 200 kilometres of the U.S. border. Unfortunately, such programs do not exist because they are designed for towns with a population of 100,000 or less. We do not have those resources or that expertise in our municipalities.”

“I am open to this bill because it sends money to Quebec without conditions. Usually, Quebec pays 22.5% into these programs but only gets 16.6% back. That means people in Quebec are paying for housing elsewhere instead of fixing our own housing needs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre, whom I hold in particularly high regard. As I said, this is one of the few bills that involves an unconditional transfer. In effect, this means that Quebec’s money will be returned to Quebeckers. For that reason, we are somewhat open to it. We generally find that, with programs such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund, Quebeckers pay their full share, namely 22.5%, corresponding to their share of the population. However, they receive only 16.6% of the funding, meaning that Quebeckers are paying to create housing elsewhere rather than at home, even though Quebec has significant housing needs.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to know if there is anything about this bill my colleague has not talked about yet.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is anything my colleague has not mentioned. This evening, we are considering Bill C-26. Is there any aspect of Bill C-26 that has not been mentioned that my colleague would like to address?”

“I want First Nations to run their own housing programs. The federal government promises money for Indigenous communities, but its rules are too strict and its deadlines are too tight. When communities cannot meet them, the government takes the money back, and living conditions get worse.”

“Mr. Speaker, one issue that is very important to me, particularly as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is access to housing for first nations. I would like to see a program created by and for first nations. I am thinking in particular of the Yänonhchia’ program, which aims to develop indigenous expertise but is not necessarily reaching the communities because of the way federal programs are designed. In every budget, the federal government allocates billions of dollars for indigenous infrastructure, and it presents that as though it is something really wonderful. Even today, $4.5 billion is being set aside for access to clean drinking water. In reality, however, expertise is not being developed within first nations. So many unattainable standards and requirements are imposed on the communities that, one year later, because the deadlines are extremely tight, Ottawa takes its money back and puts it back in the coffers. It then pats itself on the back for properly managing the money, since, in the end, it spent less than expected. At the end of the day, the needs remain unchanged and the quality of life for first nations is getting worse.”

“I will vote for this bill because it sends housing money directly to the provinces without federal rules. The government wasted two months hiding the details, but sending this money straight to Quebec is the right choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer. What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following: The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply. This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so. The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance. The second subclause provides the following: Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate. The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later. Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa. This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d’Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers. We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction. We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March. We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said. The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.” The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real. Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec’s share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population. The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it. We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun. Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister’s refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season. Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual. There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec’s demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%. The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed. I do not understand the government’s position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.”

“I will not answer the question. Half of Manitoba spoke French when it joined Canada, but less than 3% do today because the province banned French in schools. The Canadian system made the member opposite lose his French language.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does during question period. I am going to deflect the question and not answer it. My colleague across the way forgets one thing. I imagine he knows his history. In 1870, when Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation, 50% of its population was francophone. Today, the francophone population is about 2.5% to 2.7%. Why is that? It is because, for years, Manitoba laws prohibited French instruction in public schools. My colleague opposite has a French last name. I will not name him, since I am not allowed to. Today, however, he does not speak French. Do members know why he does not speak French? It is because learning French in school was prohibited. It is because of the Canadian Confederation that the member opposite now speaks English rather than French.”

“Canada forced French speakers to assimilate just like other countries force their minorities to assimilate. The member across from me should not be proud that his family lost their French because of past bans.”

“Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin. While I was there, I met the prime minister of Tibet in exile, who told me that day schools and residential schools currently exist in China where Tibetans are prohibited from learning Tibetan. He told me that it was like what we lived through in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario. The prime minister in exile of the Parliament of Tibet used Canada as an example of mass, coercive francophone assimilation. The member opposite is proud of that. He is proud that he lost his language. His family lost its language because of a ban on learning French in his birth province. It is incredible.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 92 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He is proud that he lost his language”.

  See full analysis →

“Manitoba now recognizes Louis Riel as its first premier. I want my colleague to remind us what the federal government did to him. It is relevant to this bill about sending money to the provinces.”

“Mr. Speaker, here we are discussing a bill that concerns unconditional transfers to the provinces and the topic of Manitoba comes up. I find that interesting. I had the opportunity to visit its legislative assembly in late summer. Interestingly, Louis Riel has finally been recognized as Manitoba’s first premier. I am drawing a blank. I would like my colleague to remind us what the federal government did to Louis Riel. I think the matter is relevant to a study of this bill.”

“Members opposite should not celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald. He hanged Louis Riel for defending his people and his language.”

“Mr. Speaker, what happened was that he was hanged. I am not kidding. Louis Riel was hanged because he was fighting for his people. There are statues standing today. Liberal hero Sir John A. Macdonald had Louis Riel hanged. Today, some members opposite rise in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is unbelievable. A member for Manitoba is applauding Sir John A. Macdonald, who hanged a man who was fighting for his people and for his language.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Please tell the Liberals in the lobby to be quiet.”

“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, it seems there is some sort of party going on in the Liberal lobby. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask them to quiet down, please.”