Build Canada Homes Act

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)

45 statements

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“Homes cost too much for young Canadians to buy. The government is wasting time setting up new agencies instead of getting more homes built.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 16 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
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Clarity 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague probably has a much better grasp on the numbers than I do. I would simply say this. I am a mom of four adult children who have recently bought homes, trying to get into home ownership, and the cost to do that is incredible. We know it is still the dream of young Canadians to one day own a home, and we know the government is losing valuable time by creating bureaucracies instead of actually doing something different and addressing the issue to get more homes built for our young people.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“We have a housing crisis, but this bill steps into areas that belong to Quebec and the provinces. I want to know if it would be better to just give the money to the provinces so they can handle their own housing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Build Canada Homes bill is not a bad bill because we are in the midst of a housing crisis and any attempt to correct the situation is more than welcome. However, the way the bill is worded, the federal government is encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, which always makes me feel a bit uneasy. Quebec and Ottawa made an agreement on a number of things, which should help close loopholes. I would like my colleague to tell me this. In her view, would it not have been better to simply transfer money to the provinces by proposing that they look after housing in each province and in Quebec, according to the priorities and problems that each Canadian province is facing?

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“All levels of government need to work together on housing. Our goal should be to cut costs and delays so more homes can get built.”
  • 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, there is no doubt that partnerships between municipalities, provinces and the federal government are important when addressing this issue. Conservatives believe the goal for these partnerships where housing is concerned should be to reduce the costs and delays that prevent housing from getting built, and to be doing that in partnership with other orders of government.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“The government moves too slowly on both housing and the forestry crisis. This bill does not require builders to use Canadian wood, and the government is doing nothing to protect our forestry companies from American tariffs. If those companies close, we will not even have the wood to build these homes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I will be sharing my time with the ever-energetic member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I want to talk about a recurring pattern with this government, one that I have observed since the beginning of this Parliament. There are two crises that are affecting us. I will focus on two major crises, although there may be more. The first is the housing crisis, and the second is the tariff crisis. In a previous life, when I was studying philosophy, we were given a definition of “crisis” that was quite simple. It is when a body goes through a period that puts it on the brink of life or death. Responding to a crisis means ensuring the survival of a body. If nothing is done, then that body will die. That was a definition that I had in my philosophy courses. What does that imply? Why do I raise this? It is because during a crisis, what is needed is prompt action that produces results. The best example is perhaps a heart attack. If someone has a heart attack, they would not be satisfied with me telling them not to worry and to keep breathing because it will eventually pass. They would want prompt action. They would want medical care to stay alive. What I am seeing today from the government is precisely a lack of prompt action. Now we have Build Canada Homes, and I will give an example. Loge m’entraide, an organization in my riding that received funding from the Société d’habitation du Québec, or SHQ, to build social housing, was supposed to receive money from the affordable housing fund, or AHF, which was administered by CMHC. That was at the beginning, in 2024. This organization received its SHQ funding. CMHC officials said that if SHQ funding was secured, then AHF funding would be coming. Several months passed. The affordable housing fund disappeared. The government said that it would reach a new agreement with the provinces and that it would then follow up to see whether SHQ projects would qualify. Now, after 18 months, Loge m’entraide is still waiting for federal funding. The government scrapped the AHF, which was supposed to be refinanced by the government in the budget. However, what we learned from the budget is that there would be a new program instead. This new program was going to solve all the problems. This new program is called Build Canada Homes, but in the meantime, no social housing is being built in my riding because the federal government is unable to respond to the crisis. Another point that strikes me as essential is that, throughout the election campaign and even afterward, I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources say that there is one sector that has been particularly affected by tariffs since 2017, and that is the forestry sector. We were already dealing with U.S. tariffs even before the tariff crisis. These two people told us that they knew that the lumber sector was particularly affected, but that they were going to resolve this issue through a major initiative. The Prime Minister said that during the election campaign. The Minister of Natural Resources repeated it ad nauseam. They said they were going to resolve it through a major initiative that would allow homes to be built using Canadian lumber. I am a guy who is all about co-operation. I thought to myself that we have been asking for this since I arrived here in 2019 and that this government may have understood that it had to support the forestry industry. However, where do we stand today? If I look at the Build Canada Homes bill, is there anything that clearly states that Canadian wood has to be used? I do not know whether anyone else has seen that, but I have not. Apart from the Liberal Party’s lip service, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that construction will be done with wood. This brings us to another major crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, which mainly affects Quebec, but also Ontario to some extent as well as British Columbia. However, there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest that the federal government wants to prioritize wood as a material, apart from the statements that have been made. I say that because it is very important; I remember that in 2025, for the first time, a federal government said in response to the softwood lumber crisis that it would provide liquidity. In August 2025, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that there would be a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector who are going through one of the worst crises they have ever experienced. Eight or nine months later, people in my riding have contacted me to express interest in accessing the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, program, but it is still vague and the rules are so hard to understand that no one I know can access it. Eight or nine months on, we are in a crisis, as I said earlier. If a person has a heart attack, they want an immediate response. Eight or nine months later, absolutely nothing has been done to support the forestry sector. Then, the federal government announces that it is going to launch a broad strategy to use wood in building construction. How is it going to use wood in building construction when the majority of businesses, whether small sawmills or lumber producers, are shutting down? How can the same momentum be recreated when companies in the forestry sector are being left to die? We sat down and came up with proposals. We are in collaboration mode. It is true that we sometimes criticize the government’s measures in the House. However, we gave the government a suggestion. The first thing that we did was to go and see people in the forestry sector to tell them that there will be business opportunities. The government wants to launch a major construction project, and so we asked business owners in the industry what they have to offer. These people told us that, before they can offer anything, they have to keep their companies afloat and get through the tariff crisis with the United States, and that the best way to do that would be for the government to cover some of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the end of each month. Today, more than $13 billion is being held captive, in trust, at the border by the Americans. That amount belongs to the forestry sector. If we could inject that $13 billion into this sector, everybody would be thrilled. However, this $13 billion is being held captive. People in the forestry sector are accommodating. They do not want to get that money back right away. They want to exhaust all available recourse with the international trade tribunals. In the meantime, they are asking the government to take care of 50% of these countervailing and anti-dumping duties and tariffs at the end of each month. A 10% tariff brings the total tariff amount to 45%. Furthermore, this is not a subsidy, because this problem will eventually be resolved. The forestry industry is asking the government to adopt this proposal so that it can keep its ecosystem alive. When construction starts up again, forestry companies will be there and they will not have all disappeared. The government rejected this proposal. The government was given another proposal to maintain the ecosystem and the value chain that allows us to use wood in construction. The proposal was for the government to provide the equivalent of a wage subsidy, which would be an easy thing for the government to do. The government also rejected this proposal. Last week, the government announced with great fanfare what the task force strategy entailed. It is very interesting. The government talked about $10 billion over 10 years. Will this amount actually be distributed? I do not know, but it was announced with great fanfare. Are there any conclusive solutions and results today that will allow the forestry sector to respond to what will be a vast construction site for the Build Canada Homes projects? There is absolutely nothing. In closing, Build Canada Homes is a great strategy but, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is being done. This government likes to talk about what it wants to do but is very slow to take action. That is what is disappointing. I look forward to hearing my colleagues’ questions on this matter. I also look forward to seeing their record so far.

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

Liberal
“The government is supporting Canada's forest industry. This bill helps the federal government work with other governments to build housing, just as we did with Quebec. Does the member agree it is important to pass this bill and work together?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are very serious concerns and issues surrounding our forest industry in Canada. The government, through its buy Canada policy and other initiatives, is doing what it can to support it. The question I have for the member is in regard to the legislation itself. The Build Canada Homes act would allow the Government of Canada, at an arm’s-length distance, to work collaboratively with the different governments. It has been very successful with the Government of Quebec, with the agreement. I wonder if the member could just provide his perspective on why it is important to have the legislation go through and to work collaboratively with the different stakeholders.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“The government cares more about the western oil industry than the forestry industry. The latest financial update mentions oil 130 times, but it only mentions forestry nine times. The forestry industry has no power with this government.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 3 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am in collaboration mode, but I am not seeing any results. I sometimes wonder about the government’s interest in the forestry industry. What struck me the most about the “Canada Strong for All” fiscal update is that the words “forest” and “forestry” appear only nine times. However, a search for the words “oil” or “oil company” shows that they appear 130 times. “Canada for all” seems to be Canada focused on western Canada’s energy sector. It is not Canada focused on the forestry sector. As we know, politics is a balance of power, and unfortunately, when it comes down to the forestry industry, right now our balance of power is non‑existent.

Costas Menegakis, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Conservative
“I want to know if the Bloc will support this housing bill. It does not bring real results for Canadians or help the forestry industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Will the Bloc be supporting this bill? If so, how can it justify supporting a bill that would not deliver tangible results for Canadians or real support for the forestry industry? Can the member outline the position his party is taking in terms of whether it will be supporting the bill?

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“We will vote for this housing bill because we want more homes built. But the government is too slow to help the forestry industry. If the government does not support forestry now, small regions like mine will suffer.”
  • 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, our position is quite simple: We want more housing construction, and we want support for the forestry industry. Our criticisms concern the government’s slow response. If it does not take immediate action to support forestry, this industry will lose its lifeblood. Small regions like mine, whether in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi or the north shore, are being hollowed out and will pay the price. The government is turning a deaf ear and is unwilling to listen to the industry’s legitimate demands. It is still making announcements rather than responding to the crisis. We are still going to vote in favour of this initiative. If it comes to fruition and is good for everyone, then we will not vote against it. The goal is not to oppose for the sake of opposing. That is not what we do.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“We need wood to build houses. The government barely mentions wood in its budget and ignores questions about the forestry industry. I want my colleague to explain why the government will not support this industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech, which was as engaging and passionate as he is. I must say that I was surprised as I listened to him speak. In my view, building a house starts with wood. Ask any six-year-old kid in school what is needed to build a house, and the first thing the child would say is wood. My colleague tells us that in the budget, wood is mentioned only nine times in I do not know how many pages. One might think that this was an oversight, except I understand that my colleague from Jonquière has frequently asked government members about what they are doing for the forestry industry. Unfortunately, it seems that they have turned a deaf ear. Can my colleague explain the government’s apparent insensitivity or closed-mindedness regarding the forestry industry?

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The federal government refuses to stand up to the United States to protect our softwood lumber industry. It also denies federal aid to this sector. This neglect has hurt our forestry industry and forced companies to merge.”
  • 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 an excellent question. The answer is quite simple: The federal government has never been willing to fight for softwood lumber. We are at the mercy of the Americans. Not only that, but we also have an economic sector that is currently unable to access federal assistance, because it is constantly being referred to Global Affairs Canada and told no. What the federal government has been doing for the past few years is unconscionable. It has allowed the situation to deteriorate, and now we are facing deeply troubling consolidations in the forestry sector.

Jessica Fancy, South Shore—St. Margarets

Liberal
“I support this bill. It creates a government company to build more affordable homes and pay for needed pipes and roads. My area needs more housing so workers, families, and seniors can afford to live there.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act. I do so as the proud member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets. Any day we get to rise on behalf of our constituents is always a great day. I want to talk today about our housing crisis and how it is not just theoretical. It is something that I hear about every single day from residents, businesses and my community leaders. Across our communities, all the way from Shag Harbour to Tantallon in my riding, there is a message that is clear. We need more housing, not someday, not eventually, but right now. In South Shore—St. Margarets, the challenge is not just affordability but also availability. Most of what we have talked about today is between those two things. I would like to talk about our responsiveness to both affordability and availability. We have employers that are looking to hire in South Shore—St. Margarets but are unable to attract workers because sometimes there is no place for them to live. We also need the infrastructure to support that. We have young families who want to stay in the community but cannot afford a home. We have seniors who want to age in place, in community, but have limited options. We have growing communities that are being held back, not by a lack of opportunities but by a lack of housing supply. This is not just a housing issue. It is an economic issue, a workforce issue and also a community sustainability issue. I do not want to sound like a negative Nelly. I would like to talk now about why Bill C‑20 matters. This legislation would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, as we have been discussing today in the House, giving it the independence, flexibility and tools needed to actually deliver housing at the scale required. This is about action. Build Canada Homes would not just fund projects one at a time. It would act as a builder, a partner and a catalyst, working alongside municipalities, provinces, indigenous communities, non-profit organizations, co-operatives and the private sector, an opportunity that is also backed by $13 billion in initial funding to get the work moving. I want to speak directly about what I have been hearing from the people in my riding. I have met with developers, builders, tradespeople and community housing organizations, and they are all aligned on one thing: They are ready to build, but they need the conditions to do it. They need access to land, in some cases. They need financing that works in today’s market. Perhaps most importantly, they need infrastructure to support growth. Without infrastructure, homes cannot be built. In South Shore—St. Margarets, we are already seeing the kind of collaboration that makes housing possible. A strong example of this partnership in my riding is between the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and the Town of Bridgewater. They have led a joint venture with their wastewater system, and this is exactly the kind of forward-looking investment we need. I was very proud to be one of the only members of Parliament right now to have one of those announcements in our larger announcements just a couple of months ago. When municipalities work together, they expand core infrastructure like water and wastewater systems, and they unlock the ability to build housing to scale. These are foundational investments, and for too long, there has been a bottleneck. We have seen this as a government, and our new government is here to respond. Build Canada Homes recognizes this. It understands that if we want homes built, we must also support those systems that make these homes possible. Another reason this legislation matters to people in my rural riding in Nova Scotia is that it recognizes the diversity in housing needs. Housing affordability in South Shore—St. Margarets does not look the same as in many other areas, in urban centres. This is why Build Canada Homes uses both a place-based and an income-based definition of affordability, ensuring that housing reflects the realities of local incomes. This matters because homes must actually be affordable to the people who live and work in our communities, not because they are on some type of abstract national average. I was also very impressed with, and helped host, one of our round tables with our minister last summer as he was going all over the nation listening and learning, and now, through this legislation, responding. I met with the developers and the whole spectrum of builders at these round tables who gave their concerns, the good, the bad and sometimes the ugly, in response to the minister having these consultations. Rural communities are often overlooked in national housing strategies, but we know that they are essential to Canada’s economy, culture and identity. From forestry, to fisheries, to tourism, to small business, rural regions like ours are vital. However, without housing how do we sustain that vitality? The recognition of rural needs through Bill C-20 includes support for infrastructure, transportation considerations and community revitalization. It is an important step forward. This legislation is also about partnership, and in South Shore—St. Margarets partnership is how we get things done. We are seeing municipalities collaborate. We are seeing non-profits and co-operatives step forward. I was recently at an announcement for shovels in the ground for an eight-unit co-operative shared housing unit in the small town of Liverpool. Although there are only eight units, that is huge in our small rural and coastal communities. We are also seeing leaders come together to think bigger and aggregate projects to create scale. That type of collaboration is exactly what Build Canada Homes is designed to support, because when communities align with federal resources and private sector capacity, we can move forward from ideas to construction and from plans to actual homes. We also want to highlight some of these economic opportunities in this approach. Build Canada Homes is more than just housing. It is about building Canadian capacity. It is about Canadian workers, Canadian materials and Canadian expertise. For South Shore—St. Margarets, that means opportunities for tradespeople. It means opportunities connected to our forestry sector and supply chains. Our colleagues have just talked about the lack of support for the forestry sector. I have met with multiple different lumber mills in my riding and some of our prefab manufacturers on how they are working specifically within our supply chain locally to get these homes built. It means good jobs that support families in our region. It is like having multi-generational families like Freeman Lumber in my riding working together with others like Lloyoll Prefabs, Walls and CLATTCO Construction in my riding on a common goal, which is to get roofs over people’s heads. At a time when global uncertainty is increasing, investing in Canadian industry is solving problems with respect to our housing shortage. This is the right approach. Innovation is key. I want to address directly the idea that this legislation creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Respectfully, I disagree. This legislation is about streamlining, not adding layers. Build Canada Homes brings expertise, financing tools and partnerships together under one organization with a clear goal. The housing crisis did not emerge overnight and will not be solved overnight. What Canadians expect of us is progress. They expect us to work together. They expect us to take bold, practical steps. Bill C-20 is one of those steps. For the young family in Bridgewater who is working and looking for their first home, for the nurse who is considering a job on the South Shore but is unable to find housing and for the senior in Lunenburg who wants to stay close to their community, this bill matters.

Costas Menegakis, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill

Conservative
“This bill would cost billions to build barely one percent of the homes we need each year. I want to know how anyone can support spending so much money for such tiny results.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer data indicates that, if enacted, this bill would produce barely 1% of the homes that are needed on an annual basis. How can a member justify spending billions of dollars on a massive Crown corporation when it would have such negligible impact on the housing crisis?

Jessica Fancy, South Shore—St. Margarets

Liberal
“Housing experts support this bill. They say having an independent government agency to build affordable homes is an important part of our national housing plan.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague from Ontario about Carolyn Whitzman. I was a member of HUMA, where we had this on our desk to study. I want to read something that she said about Build Canada Homes and how it needs the independence of a Crown corporation. She said that it had been clear from the start that it was merging the existing Canada Lands Company into it. The real question here was affordability, targets and what this kind of economic and social return was expected to generate, and how we needed these plans for a national housing strategy. She was a huge proponent of this. Therefore, I would like to remind my colleague that we have people who are doing the work and I would love to see the responsiveness of our minister in this.

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“The federal government is too slow to help with housing. Its new plan will take 10 years to work, and moving housing money to a new agency is delaying projects right now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it seems like it is always the same old story. The federal government is proposing strategies, like the Build Canada Homes program. It is also proposing to retool the forestry sector, but that will not happen in six months. It will take 10 years to see results. The federal government is not agile enough to act in a timely manner. That is why, in my speech earlier, I gave the example of the affordable housing fund, which has gone from CMHC to Build Canada Homes, meaning that, today, projects that would have received this funding 10 or so months ago are now stuck waiting. That is the problem with these initiatives. Perhaps my colleague is seeing the same thing in her own riding.

Jessica Fancy, South Shore—St. Margarets

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill so we can start building more homes. Our government has already made progress on building projects in my riding. I am working with the forestry sector and local builders to construct more private, non-profit, and co-op housing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have been experiencing similarities with our ridings. Although I am in a coastal community, we still have small-town pride. I would like to say to my colleague that we have been with our new government for only a year. We have been laying infrastructure. We are trying to pass this bill that would help unlock everything and get those shovels in the ground. In my own riding, I have had multiple announcements and multiple shovels in the ground. I have talked to the people in my forestry sector. My colleague wants to talk about lack of support in the forestry sector. I have talked with Derek Nighbor of the Forest Products Association of Canada regarding how I can work with my local mills and my local prefab people and build those partnerships together to get more shovels in the ground for private, non-market and co-operative housing.

Kristina Tesser Derksen, Milton East—Halton Hills South

Liberal
“I used to be a city councillor. Cities have a lot to manage, including housing. I want my colleague to explain what role cities will play and how this bill will help them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned municipalities in her speech. I am a former municipal councillor. Municipalities at any given time have a lot of balls in the air that they have to balance. One of the big ones is housing. I am wondering if my colleague could comment further on the role she sees municipalities playing and how this legislation would impact municipalities positively.

Jessica Fancy, South Shore—St. Margarets

Liberal
“Building housing takes groups and local governments working together, like in my riding. I want MPs who oppose this bill to talk to these local groups and help get homes built.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as a former municipal councillor, the example that I used in my speech today in regard to our municipality and district in Lunenburg and my town of Bridgewater is how people were trying to put together a larger supportive housing complex just outside of the town of Bridgewater, but they did not have the waste-water system. Therefore, they are working with the town. They are working with the municipality and collating a larger project that is going to help over 3,000 people in my riding, so these partnerships are key. I would ask members who are negating this legislation whether they have sat down with all the different key players and stakeholders. What are they doing, as their representative, to help make these plans to get these shovels in the ground?

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. Crown corporations do not build homes faster or better than private builders. This new government company has no clear goals, no targets, and no plan for how many homes it will build. It will waste billions of dollars paying bureaucrats and giving bonuses to executives instead of actually building homes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate on Bill C‑20, Build Canada Homes, which was a promise the Liberals made in the 2025 campaign. I cannot remember the name of the Liberal guy I ran against, but he was very excited about this, saying that he was going to get these homes built and that this was going to be a great policy. I remember thinking, from a Saskatchewan point of view, that we are home to many Crown corporations. I know how Crown corporations work. I have been in government in Saskatchewan. I cannot recall a lot of situations when Crown corporations were involved and became more streamlined or development happened faster and things got done more quickly. That was not really the case when Crown corporations get involved with development on a local scale. However, I do have a couple of points I want to make during this speech. I will read testimony from actual experts in homebuilding. Mike Moffatt, from the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “BCH lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents and prices will be, or over what time frame.” At HUMA, David Wilkes, Building Industry and Land Development Association, said, “To put that [housing] crisis into perspective, in 2025 just over 5,000 new homes were sold in the GTA, the lowest level since we began tracking in 1981. That is an 80% decline from the 10‑year average and follows similarly weak years in 2024 and 2023.” He also said, “It is important to note that 95% of the housing in Canada, both ownership and rental, is delivered through the private market.” At HUMA, Scott Andison, Ontario Home Builders’ Association, said, “When new home construction slows, the impact extends beyond the housing industry alone. Communities lose jobs, government loses revenue and fewer homes are being built for families to create memories.” He also said, “As the industry association representing home builders across Ontario, we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government.” I will be honoured to share my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre. That got me thinking back to when I was in government with the Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan. In 2011, we brought forward the Saskatchewan advantage housing plan. Most Liberals will not believe this, but we actually put numbers and targets in this housing plan so that people knew what we wanted to accomplish. We had five programs during that housing initiative called head start on a home, affordable home ownership, rental construction incentive, $35 million for rental housing, and habitat for humanity partnership. The numbers actually coalesced with the programs. We wanted 1,100 units for head start on a home, 600 units for affordable home ownership, 2,900 units for rental construction, 160 for rental housing and 30 for habitat for humanity, so a total of 4,690 homes. Can colleagues imagine a government bringing forward a program with the actual targets of what it wanted to build so that citizens knew what they were voting for? That is my problem with the Build Canada Homes program. My problem is that the government threw $13 billion into a pot to create a whole new bureaucracy. I would love it if one of my Liberal colleagues would tell me how much of that $13 million is going to go into bonuses for executives. How much is going to go into actually paying bureaucrats to sit in Ottawa and not put shovels in the ground? We did just get a lot of numbers related to bonuses for Crown executives this past year. What was the total payment for Crown executives? I think millions and millions of dollars went to executives of Crown companies who did not provide any results. My fear with Bill C‑20 is that there are going to be a lot of bonuses for executives and hardly any homes for Canadians.

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

Liberal
“We are working with Alberta and Saskatchewan to build homes. If the member opposes this bill and federal housing projects, will he clearly say so today?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member’s colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions. Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“The provinces need federal money to build homes, but the federal government should not create a new agency to do it. The government should give money to the provinces instead of trying to build homes itself.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 96 of 100

    Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be very bold. I think the provincial governments do need some federal funding. I do not think the federal government needs to have another bureaucracy in order to listen to municipalities and provinces and get them the funding they need to build homes. It does not have to be in the business of homebuilding. It can actually help the provinces when it comes to funding. The government does not have to pick winners and losers, which I know Liberals like to do. After Build Canada Homes comes to fruition, I am very sure that Brookfield will be building a lot of homes in Canada.

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