Dan Muys

“The Prime Minister keeps introducing bills that give ministers too much power without enough details. I want the member to comment on this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can comment on the fact that the pattern under the Prime Minister has been to introduce bills, not just Bill C-39, that have sweeping powers for ministers. There is not a lot of detail in this bill, and it is undermining many things.”

“Other countries build natural gas facilities in four to six months, but Canada cannot. The government refused to sell our natural gas to Japan and Germany. I want the government to explain why we cannot build these projects as fast as other countries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months. Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—”

“Under the last Conservative government, companies built mines and energy projects that employed thousands of Canadians. Today, the current government is not building things like that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to compare the situation we saw in Canada 12, 15, 18 years ago under the Conservative government when energy companies were building infrastructure, mining companies were building mines and we were employing thousands of Canadians, to now, which is building at speeds, of course, not seen in generations, but apparently not the case.”

In response to a question from Melissa Lantsman

“I do not want this bill. It spends 1.7 billion dollars, but no one can say how many homes it will build. Instead of writing blank cheques, the government should cut the taxes and fees that make homes expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that. In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period. We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening. We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“More government spending does not build homes. We need a strong economy and confident builders so young people can afford houses.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s point is valid. It is not the spending, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and we have debated that, that is resulting in the construction of homes. We need builders to have confidence. We need an economy that is, as it was 11 years ago, the strongest-performing economy in the G7, the strongest-performing economy in the OECD, not the only economy in the G20 that is in recession. That is what is going to help build homes and ensure that they are affordable for young Canadians to actually enter the market.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“People are still waiting for this housing program to work, and no one knows how the rebate will work. Housing was affordable 11 years ago, but now government taxes and red tape make up one-third of the cost to build a home.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about reality in his question to the previous speaker. Let me get to that in a moment, but the Province of Ontario, the government itself, home builders and buyers are waiting to see this program actually be implemented. They do not understand how this rebate is going to actually happen. That is one thing. Here is the reality faced by Ontarians, Canadians and young Canadians in particular. Before these Liberals, 11 years ago, because of the taxes and bureaucracy they support, the average monthly mortgage payment in this country was $1,432. The average rent was $943. People could afford to buy a home. Now, a third of the cost of building a home is government, and this is symptomatic of the problem of the current government.”

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“I do not support this bill. It gives the finance minister $1.7 billion without a clear plan or proof that any homes will actually be built.”

“Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father’s Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father’s Day to Dad. Let me get back to the matter at hand, which is Bill C-26, the so-called improving housing supply act. Before discussing the details of this legislation, it is important to recognize why housing remains one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians. For generations, home ownership was part of the Canadian promise. If someone worked hard, saved responsibly and played by the rules, they could reasonably expect to purchase a home, raise a family and build a future in the community they loved. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions. They are postponing marriage, postponing starting a family and postponing putting down roots in their communities because the cost of housing continues to rise faster than their ability to save. According to the OECD, approximately 35% of low-income Canadian households are cost-overburdened, meaning they spend more than 40% of their disposable income just on housing. Renters are watching an ever-larger share of their income disappear each month, making it even more difficult to save for a down payment. The average rent on a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in Canada rose 5.1% to $1,550 per month in 2025, and that is if one is lucky. In my home community of Hamilton, the 2025 average rent was over $1,600 per month. Under the Harper Conservative government in 2015, the national average was just $942 per month. Increasingly, it has become a question of whether future generations will enjoy the same opportunities that previous generations of Canadians took somewhat for granted. That is why all members of this House should be focused on one goal: building more homes. Unfortunately, while there is broad agreement on the problem, there is far less agreement on how to solve it. Bill C-26 is presented as a measure to improve housing supply. The legislation itself is relatively short. It is only two paragraphs. In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results. At first glance, that sounds like a big number and maybe that would achieve something. Canadians do want more homes built. The Conservatives certainly want more homes built. The question is whether the legislation would actually accomplish that objective. That is where concerns begin to emerge. When Parliament is asked to approve $1.7 billion in spending authority, Canadians certainly have the right to expect a clear plan. They have the right to expect measurable objectives. They have the right to expect accountability. Yet, when members examine Bill C-26, they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively? What reporting requirements would exist to ensure that taxpayers could evaluate the results? This legislation provides few answers. Instead, Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial amount of public spending while placing considerable discretion in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If a municipality came before taxpayers asking for $1.7 billion, citizens would expect a plan. If a private company sought $1.7 billion from investors, shareholders would expect measurable outcomes. Surely Canadians deserve no less when it comes to federal spending. Let me be clear. Conservatives support working with the provinces to increase housing supply. We support reducing the tax burden on new homes. We support measures that make it easier to build. The partnership with the Province of Ontario promises funding over a 10-year period to boost housing supply. However, in the announcement, there are no clear benchmarks on how many houses would be built. In fact, buyers, home builders and even the Government of Ontario are still unclear as to how this rebate would be implemented. In question period today, the Liberal government gave no clear answer to the question from our shadow minister of housing about when the rebate would be implemented. Time and again, Canadians hear announcements. Time and again, Canadians hear promises. Time and again, Canadians are told that relief is just around the corner, yet housing affordability continues to worsen. The reality is that after Liberal housing programs over the past number of years, with billions of dollars spent and countless announcements, Canadians are still asking a simple question: Where are the homes? The CMHC cautions that Canada needs 430,000 to 480,000 new homes per year through 2035 to restore affordability to pre-COVID levels. The government frequently talks about ambition, but Canadians are looking for results. The government frequently talks about investments, but Canadians are looking for homes. The government frequently announces new programs, but Canadians are asking why housing remains less affordable today than it was a decade ago. One of the most notable aspects of Bill C-26 is the government’s agreement with Ontario regarding the decision to remove the HST from eligible new homes. Conservatives have long argued that taxes imposed on home construction ultimately make housing more expensive. That is why we support lowering taxes on housing. However, we also believe that Canadians deserve something better than temporary measures and complicated rebate programs. Our position has been consistent: We would permanently remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million. That would be permanent, not a one-year fix. The Canadian Home Builders’ Association agrees with our vision. It too would like relief on taxes to be made permanent. A permanent GST cut would provide certainty for homebuyers, builders and the housing market. It would reduce costs while encouraging the construction of additional housing supply. That is the difference between a measure designed to generate headlines and a measure designed to generate the building of homes. Another concern is the government’s continued focus on creating programs and bureaucracies instead of a focus on outcomes. Canadians do not measure success by the number of announcements issued by governments. They measure success by whether they can afford a home, whether housing starts are increasing and whether their children have a realistic path to home ownership. Those are the metrics that matter. Canadians understand that housing affordability will not improve because government creates another program, fund or bureaucracy. After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Conservatives believe that federal funding should be tied to those outcomes, and that is what we have proposed. Municipalities that increase housing construction should be rewarded. Municipalities that continue to block growth should expect that taxpayers will not subsidize that failure. The objective should be simple: more homes built every year, not more paperwork, bureaucracy or announcements but more homes. Canada already has the workers, materials, expertise and entrepreneurial spirit needed to address the housing crisis. What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged. Conservatives continue to advocate for policies to get homes built. We continue to push for lower taxes on housing. We continue fighting to remove barriers to construction. We will continue standing up for young Canadians, families and workers who simply want the opportunity to own a home and build a future in this country. Canadians deserve those results, they deserve accountability for $1.7 billion, and most importantly, they deserve a government focused on building homes instead of building bureaucracy.”

“The high-speed rail project already has 13 vice-presidents getting bonuses before any track is built. How many vice-presidents will this new housing agency have, and will they also get bonuses?”

“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Alto high‑speed rail project, which will be completed toward the end of the next decade, 2040, already has 13 vice‑presidents at that agency who are already receiving bonuses, with not an inch of track being laid. The hon. member described Build Canada Homes as an arm’s-length federal agency. How many vice‑presidents will there be, and are they going to be receiving bonuses already?”

“Canada had the richest middle class in the world 12 years ago. Now, after 11 years under the Liberals, middle-class Canadians are suffering and owe record amounts of debt. I want to know how the government let this happen in a country with so many resources.”

“Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, the front page of The New York Times declared Canada as having the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world. Eleven years after the Liberals took office, as my colleague mentioned in his speech, there is record household debt and delinquency, and the middle class is suffering. How is this possible in a country that is so blessed with the resources that Canada has?”

“The Canada Infrastructure Bank is not open about how it works, and it gives good deals to Liberal friends. Are we going to see the same problem with the new fund?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the transport and infrastructure committee for his excellent speech. As we have mentioned in committee, and as he has mentioned many times in committee, we are pointing out the lack of transparency with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the many connections to Liberal insiders that seem to be at play and, of course, the very favourable terms that are given to projects of those insiders. Does he worry that, with the sovereign debt fund, we are going down that exact same road? Can he elaborate more on that?”