Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply · Closure motion · now law Where it stands
The debate was on a motion to end further debate on Bill C-26, which would authorize $1.7 billion in payments to provinces and territories to improve housing supply. Liberal members, including the minister, said the money is urgently needed to address the housing crisis, that provinces like Ontario have already committed to using it to cut sales taxes on new homes, and that provinces and territories can spend it in ways that suit their needs, including rural, northern and Indigenous housing. Conservative members opposed cutting off debate, noting the bill had not gone through the usual stages of study, amendment and committee review, and raised concerns about the lack of targets, rules and transparency for the funds, whether small municipalities could access the money, and how First Nations housing needs would be addressed. Liberals pointed to what they described as Conservative attempts to adjourn the House and delay the bill, while Conservatives asked that the minister appear at committee to answer questions.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
29 statements
“I want to end debate on this topic so we can move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 11, I move: That debate be not further adjourned.”
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 11, I move: That debate be not further adjourned.
“The government is spending lots of money, but housing costs are not going down. I want the minister to explain why spending more money and creating another government office will work this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister, but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of everything that is happening in the House of Commons. Of course, we know it is springtime. It is actually a great time to be sitting in Ottawa and debating the business of the country, making sure we are moving forward in holding the government to account and making sure that the legislation we bring forward is the best it is going to be for Canadians. I beseech the minister, if he can, to actually take a look at the bill. This is his fourth Crown corporation, and there are no solutions so far. There is lots of money going out the door and there are lots of announcements, but no solutions have been put forth to actually aid Canadians and bring lower housing costs across Canada. What does the minister think he would accomplish with even more money and another bureaucracy that has not been accomplished along the way with everything else that has been done so far in this field? The lack of accomplishments is stark. Can he please address why he thinks it is going to be different this time?”
Question or comment in debate
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 analysisMr. Speaker, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister, but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of everything that is happening in the House of Commons. Of course, we know it is springtime. It is actually a great time to be sitting in Ottawa and debating the business of the country, making sure we are moving forward in holding the government to account and making sure that the legislation we bring forward is the best it is going to be for Canadians. I beseech the minister, if he can, to actually take a look at the bill. This is his fourth Crown corporation, and there are no solutions so far. There is lots of money going out the door and there are lots of announcements, but no solutions have been put forth to actually aid Canadians and bring lower housing costs across Canada. What does the minister think he would accomplish with even more money and another bureaucracy that has not been accomplished along the way with everything else that has been done so far in this field? The lack of accomplishments is stark. Can he please address why he thinks it is going to be different this time?
“This bill gives $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories to build more homes. It helps provinces like Ontario cut taxes and fees on new homes to save buyers money and get builders building again.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, this debate is about the housing supply act before the House, which is about $1.7 billion that would be distributed among the provinces and territories to boost housing supply. We already have an uptake on this with the province of Ontario. It was announced a few months ago. Ontario, thanks to the federal support that is tied to the bill, would be rebating the full 13% of the harmonized sales tax, the HST, on new homes up to $1 million. Buyers of those new homes up to $1 million could save up to $130,000. When we combine that with the initiative around reducing development charges, which is 30% to 50% with municipalities in Ontario and is administered by the province of Ontario, it is an additional up to $70,000. All this is in response to the crisis that Ontario, particularly the GTA, has had with the housing market. There is oversupply in the housing market and other challenges, such as uncertainty in the market, buyers not buying and builders not being able to move on projects. This is about getting the housing market going across the country, particularly in Ontario and B.C.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, just to be clear, this debate is about the housing supply act before the House, which is about $1.7 billion that would be distributed among the provinces and territories to boost housing supply. We already have an uptake on this with the province of Ontario. It was announced a few months ago. Ontario, thanks to the federal support that is tied to the bill, would be rebating the full 13% of the harmonized sales tax, the HST, on new homes up to $1 million. Buyers of those new homes up to $1 million could save up to $130,000. When we combine that with the initiative around reducing development charges, which is 30% to 50% with municipalities in Ontario and is administered by the province of Ontario, it is an additional up to $70,000. All this is in response to the crisis that Ontario, particularly the GTA, has had with the housing market. There is oversupply in the housing market and other challenges, such as uncertainty in the market, buyers not buying and builders not being able to move on projects. This is about getting the housing market going across the country, particularly in Ontario and B.C.
“I want the minister to tell us if small towns can get this housing money. In the past, federal programs ignored small, rural towns in Manitoba and across Canada. Will the government let all towns access this funding this time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister minds addressing whether any of this money would be available for municipalities that are quite small. Despite their not being perhaps as flashy as big announcements in the major cities across Canada, these municipalities, in previous Liberal iterations of bloated federal government programs and funding, could not access the type of funding that they needed to spur small-scale housing projects in their municipalities. Can the minister comment on whether Liberals are going to get it right this time and ensure that all municipalities within the country can access funding for housing projects or whether they going to forget about rural Manitoba and rural Canada once again?”
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister minds addressing whether any of this money would be available for municipalities that are quite small. Despite their not being perhaps as flashy as big announcements in the major cities across Canada, these municipalities, in previous Liberal iterations of bloated federal government programs and funding, could not access the type of funding that they needed to spur small-scale housing projects in their municipalities. Can the minister comment on whether Liberals are going to get it right this time and ensure that all municipalities within the country can access funding for housing projects or whether they going to forget about rural Manitoba and rural Canada once again?
“We must not forget the housing needs of small and rural towns, especially in the north. This bill sends money to the provinces and territories to build more homes. For example, Ontario will use this money to cut the sales tax for homebuyers across the province.”
“Mr. Speaker, we absolutely cannot forget about the important housing needs in smaller communities. Rural Canada faces many of the same challenges in terms of affordability and housing supply. Particularly in the north, housing supply is a huge challenge. Build Canada Homes is an agency focused on making sure the supply side is boosted, but in this case, the funding would be going to the provinces and territories. Ontario has given us the first example of what can be done. It is choosing to use its funding to effectively eliminate the HST for homebuyers throughout Ontario. It would benefit homebuyers and home builders, by extension, across all of Ontario, from urban to rural. Obviously that is a much-needed break on the HST for the homebuyers. That would be provided for in Ontario because of the housing supply bill.”
Mr. Speaker, we absolutely cannot forget about the important housing needs in smaller communities. Rural Canada faces many of the same challenges in terms of affordability and housing supply. Particularly in the north, housing supply is a huge challenge. Build Canada Homes is an agency focused on making sure the supply side is boosted, but in this case, the funding would be going to the provinces and territories. Ontario has given us the first example of what can be done. It is choosing to use its funding to effectively eliminate the HST for homebuyers throughout Ontario. It would benefit homebuyers and home builders, by extension, across all of Ontario, from urban to rural. Obviously that is a much-needed break on the HST for the homebuyers. That would be provided for in Ontario because of the housing supply bill.
“The government wants to force this bill through without normal debate. They are skipping committee study, amendments, and the final vote. I want the minister to explain why he is shutting down debate on this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is really eroding the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. He is never here, yet he is imposing some of the most draconian measures on parliamentary debate. The motion before the House would impose on Bill C-26 that there would be one more speaker for each party at second reading, and then after the vote at second reading, it would be deemed adopted at all stages, with no committee study, no report stage debate and no third reading debate. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby is saying, “perfect”. This is what Liberals want. They want to shut down debate. This would not just be closure of debate at a stage. It would be shutting debate down at all stages, with no possibility for committee study or amendment. This is just an unconscionable attack on the processes that are supposed to defend the rights and liberties of Canadians and to defend good decision-making. How can the minister, if he really thinks this is a good bill, justify the most draconian use of shutting down a procedure that we have ever seen in the House, shutting it down not just at one stage but at all stages, with no possibility for debate, study or amendment?”
Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is really eroding the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. He is never here, yet he is imposing some of the most draconian measures on parliamentary debate. The motion before the House would impose on Bill C-26 that there would be one more speaker for each party at second reading, and then after the vote at second reading, it would be deemed adopted at all stages, with no committee study, no report stage debate and no third reading debate. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby is saying, “perfect”. This is what Liberals want. They want to shut down debate. This would not just be closure of debate at a stage. It would be shutting debate down at all stages, with no possibility for committee study or amendment. This is just an unconscionable attack on the processes that are supposed to defend the rights and liberties of Canadians and to defend good decision-making. How can the minister, if he really thinks this is a good bill, justify the most draconian use of shutting down a procedure that we have ever seen in the House, shutting it down not just at one stage but at all stages, with no possibility for debate, study or amendment?
“I want us to pass this bill to send $1.7 billion to provinces and territories to build more affordable housing. Canada has a housing crisis. Conservatives are trying to delay the bill by filibustering and trying to end the workday early.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am stumped by the actions we just saw in the House from Conservatives, trying to adjourn the House for the day. They just voted to adjourn the House, but fortunately a majority of us are here to do the work and continue with the business of the House. We voted that adjournment motion down. We welcome the debate, in the case of this bill, to advance the work on housing supply. Housing is in a crisis across Canada, and we need to make sure affordability is paramount. The bill is about investing $1.7 billion in provinces and territories to boost their housing supply. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. There have been hours of debate on it. We can contrast that opportunity for members to speak to the bill with what happened yesterday in the House, when the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford filibustered for hours, preventing many other members from being able to speak in the debate in the House. I know there are lots of games being played around adjournment and filibustering. The bill is about getting funding to the people on the ground in our country who need affordable housing.”
Mr. Speaker, I am stumped by the actions we just saw in the House from Conservatives, trying to adjourn the House for the day. They just voted to adjourn the House, but fortunately a majority of us are here to do the work and continue with the business of the House. We voted that adjournment motion down. We welcome the debate, in the case of this bill, to advance the work on housing supply. Housing is in a crisis across Canada, and we need to make sure affordability is paramount. The bill is about investing $1.7 billion in provinces and territories to boost their housing supply. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. There have been hours of debate on it. We can contrast that opportunity for members to speak to the bill with what happened yesterday in the House, when the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford filibustered for hours, preventing many other members from being able to speak in the debate in the House. I know there are lots of games being played around adjournment and filibustering. The bill is about getting funding to the people on the ground in our country who need affordable housing.
“We have a housing crisis. People cannot buy, build, or sell homes. I blame the Liberals' high spending and bureaucracy for doubling housing costs over the last 11 years. They are offering more of the same, which will not fix the problem they caused.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister already mentioned in the discussion today that we are in a housing crisis. He spoke earlier about the fact that buyers cannot buy and builders cannot build. I would agree with that. I would add that people who are looking to sell also cannot sell during this housing crisis. However, of course, we are in a housing crisis after 11 years of Liberal policies that have brought in more bureaucracies, higher spending and higher inflation that have driven up the cost of living and doubled the cost of housing for Canadians right across the country. That is why we are in this housing crisis. Now that the Liberals are bringing forward more spending, more bureaucracy and more of the same, how are Canadians supposed to believe that the Liberals are going to get us out of this housing crisis that they caused, with more policies that are right along the lines of the policies that caused this crisis in the first place?”
Mr. Speaker, the minister already mentioned in the discussion today that we are in a housing crisis. He spoke earlier about the fact that buyers cannot buy and builders cannot build. I would agree with that. I would add that people who are looking to sell also cannot sell during this housing crisis. However, of course, we are in a housing crisis after 11 years of Liberal policies that have brought in more bureaucracies, higher spending and higher inflation that have driven up the cost of living and doubled the cost of housing for Canadians right across the country. That is why we are in this housing crisis. Now that the Liberals are bringing forward more spending, more bureaucracy and more of the same, how are Canadians supposed to believe that the Liberals are going to get us out of this housing crisis that they caused, with more policies that are right along the lines of the policies that caused this crisis in the first place?
“We need to pass this bill quickly to give provinces money to build more homes. Past governments spent 40 years ignoring affordable housing, which caused today's housing crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to our predecessors here in the House, there is about 40 years of history of the Government of Canada’s neglecting to invest enough in affordable housing. That is what has created the housing crisis today. It has been built up over decades by governments of all stripes. There have been lots of challenges from the local, provincial and territorial levels in not expediting and not approving housing. The challenges have mounted over many years. The government has now been elected to take action. That is what advancing the bill is about: to make sure we are investing, working collaboratively with provinces and territories to get housing built and to get the housing market going again. I know that the opposition housing critic has been very vocal about supporting getting the housing market going. Ontario and B.C. are two of the provinces that are really challenged on housing supply and market. We need to get this money invested on the ground as quickly as possible.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, with all due respect to our predecessors here in the House, there is about 40 years of history of the Government of Canada’s neglecting to invest enough in affordable housing. That is what has created the housing crisis today. It has been built up over decades by governments of all stripes. There have been lots of challenges from the local, provincial and territorial levels in not expediting and not approving housing. The challenges have mounted over many years. The government has now been elected to take action. That is what advancing the bill is about: to make sure we are investing, working collaboratively with provinces and territories to get housing built and to get the housing market going again. I know that the opposition housing critic has been very vocal about supporting getting the housing market going. Ontario and B.C. are two of the provinces that are really challenged on housing supply and market. We need to get this money invested on the ground as quickly as possible.
“I want the minister to explain how this housing bill fits into our bigger housing plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain how Bill C-26 is part of the overall housing plan in this country, which Canadians are expecting?”
Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain how Bill C-26 is part of the overall housing plan in this country, which Canadians are expecting?
“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives money directly to the provinces and territories so they can build more affordable homes in ways that work best for them.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 would be one tool in a large tool box that we need to activate to get the housing market turned around here in Canada, to get more affordable housing built, to make sure we have a healthy housing market and to make sure the homebuilding industry is innovating and advancing to make housing more affordable. This would be one tool in collaboration with the provinces and territories. It would be a direct investment, a transfer, and would give them the flexibility to apply it where needed. Ontario is choosing to eliminate its HST for this year, which I think is having a very positive effect on the market in Ontario. Other provinces and territories would have different approaches depending on their markets, but we have many other tools from Build Canada Homes and reaching home, which is supporting homelessness efforts, to the housing accelerator fund, which works with communities and local governments to cut red tape and get housing built. We have a wide array of tools. We need to continue scaling up the work on those tools, scaling up the investment that is needed to ensure that we have enough affordable housing being built, and to make sure that as a House we are here supporting the efforts and collaboration with all levels of government and the private sector.”
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 would be one tool in a large tool box that we need to activate to get the housing market turned around here in Canada, to get more affordable housing built, to make sure we have a healthy housing market and to make sure the homebuilding industry is innovating and advancing to make housing more affordable. This would be one tool in collaboration with the provinces and territories. It would be a direct investment, a transfer, and would give them the flexibility to apply it where needed. Ontario is choosing to eliminate its HST for this year, which I think is having a very positive effect on the market in Ontario. Other provinces and territories would have different approaches depending on their markets, but we have many other tools from Build Canada Homes and reaching home, which is supporting homelessness efforts, to the housing accelerator fund, which works with communities and local governments to cut red tape and get housing built. We have a wide array of tools. We need to continue scaling up the work on those tools, scaling up the investment that is needed to ensure that we have enough affordable housing being built, and to make sure that as a House we are here supporting the efforts and collaboration with all levels of government and the private sector.
“The government is rushing this housing bill through without enough study or debate. Rushing laws leads to bad mistakes. I want the minister to explain why Canadians do not get to hear this bill debated properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have stood in the House in the last few days to talk about the government’s again ramming a bill through the House. In this case, the bill has not had the benefit of second reading, committee study, third reading or report stage. It has not been to the Senate. It has not had the benefit of being studied in either House. It concerns an extremely important area of policy and law in this country, and we have seen the unintended consequences of badly drafted Liberal bills being rammed through the House. We saw it with Bill C-3, wherein there are unintended consequences, including lots of Americans who are discovering their connections to Canada. We have seen it with the minister’s actions when he was the mayor of Vancouver. This is an area that we have to get right, and I would urge the government not to do this. I would challenge the minister to explain why Canadians should not get the benefit of debate on the bill.”
Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have stood in the House in the last few days to talk about the government’s again ramming a bill through the House. In this case, the bill has not had the benefit of second reading, committee study, third reading or report stage. It has not been to the Senate. It has not had the benefit of being studied in either House. It concerns an extremely important area of policy and law in this country, and we have seen the unintended consequences of badly drafted Liberal bills being rammed through the House. We saw it with Bill C-3, wherein there are unintended consequences, including lots of Americans who are discovering their connections to Canada. We have seen it with the minister’s actions when he was the mayor of Vancouver. This is an area that we have to get right, and I would urge the government not to do this. I would challenge the minister to explain why Canadians should not get the benefit of debate on the bill.
“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives money to provinces and territories so they can build more homes, which areas like Vancouver badly need. The opposition says they want debate, but they just voted to stop work for the day.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the members of the opposition are so insistent on debate time, why did they just vote to adjourn the House in the middle of the day on a Tuesday? It does not add up. The bill is all about focusing on delivering results for the housing market, particularly in the member opposite’s province, where I live too, B.C. The housing market in metro Vancouver is extremely challenged right now. The Province of B.C. would have the opportunity to deploy this funding to get the province’s market going. That is an example. I think we have seen that already happen with Ontario as the first mover taking action to eliminate its HST. We need to get this funding out to communities. That is the priority. It is a very simple and straightforward bill about collaborating, investing in our provinces and territories and making sure that housing is built across Canada.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 33 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, if the members of the opposition are so insistent on debate time, why did they just vote to adjourn the House in the middle of the day on a Tuesday? It does not add up. The bill is all about focusing on delivering results for the housing market, particularly in the member opposite’s province, where I live too, B.C. The housing market in metro Vancouver is extremely challenged right now. The Province of B.C. would have the opportunity to deploy this funding to get the province’s market going. That is an example. I think we have seen that already happen with Ontario as the first mover taking action to eliminate its HST. We need to get this funding out to communities. That is the priority. It is a very simple and straightforward bill about collaborating, investing in our provinces and territories and making sure that housing is built across Canada.
“I do not want this bill to pass. It gives the Minister of Finance over $1.7 billion for housing with no rules, no goals, and no plan for how to spend it.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find most troubling about this particular bill is that it is not too dissimilar from the government’s Build Canada Homes creation, an agency created with $13 billion, with zero targets, zero metrics and no transparency. Nobody knows how it is really supposed to work or what it is going to do. It is just going to do non-market housing. The bill before us would involve $1.713 billion that the minister could spend at his whim. There is nothing in the bill about what the metrics would be nor what the housing needs are by province. It is just $1.713 billion, and the Minister of Finance could spend it however he chooses on housing supply. There would be no requirement for him to talk to the Minister of Housing. There would be no requirement for him to understand CMHC data on the need by province. It is nothing. It would just be a blank cheque for the Minister of Finance. The House is responsible for the public purse. Why would there be no scrutiny of the $1.713 billion?”
Mr. Speaker, what I find most troubling about this particular bill is that it is not too dissimilar from the government’s Build Canada Homes creation, an agency created with $13 billion, with zero targets, zero metrics and no transparency. Nobody knows how it is really supposed to work or what it is going to do. It is just going to do non-market housing. The bill before us would involve $1.713 billion that the minister could spend at his whim. There is nothing in the bill about what the metrics would be nor what the housing needs are by province. It is just $1.713 billion, and the Minister of Finance could spend it however he chooses on housing supply. There would be no requirement for him to talk to the Minister of Housing. There would be no requirement for him to understand CMHC data on the need by province. It is nothing. It would just be a blank cheque for the Minister of Finance. The House is responsible for the public purse. Why would there be no scrutiny of the $1.713 billion?
“We want to pass this bill to give provinces money for housing. Ontario already used this funding to cut sales tax and help its housing market. We want each province to have the freedom to spend this money how they see fit to build more homes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we need to look at what is happening in the member opposite’s province. Ontario has been first out of the gate, accepting this funding and deploying it to eliminate the HST, for which members opposite have been calling for months, to take action. I think both sides of the House agree we need to take action to get the housing market going in Ontario and B.C., where it has been stalled. This has done that in Ontario. Ontario is a good example of making a good choice to eliminate the HST for this year and prime the pump on its housing market. That is an example of what we want to see across the country. We would not be prescriptive with provinces and territories. We would be responsive to the needs across the country. We want to be sure that Ontario and B.C. markets are addressed, as they are in a state of relative crisis, but we want to have flexibility with this too. It is a very simple next step and a statement of collaboration with provinces and territories that we would entrust them to do the right thing and take action to deliver on housing.”
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to look at what is happening in the member opposite’s province. Ontario has been first out of the gate, accepting this funding and deploying it to eliminate the HST, for which members opposite have been calling for months, to take action. I think both sides of the House agree we need to take action to get the housing market going in Ontario and B.C., where it has been stalled. This has done that in Ontario. Ontario is a good example of making a good choice to eliminate the HST for this year and prime the pump on its housing market. That is an example of what we want to see across the country. We would not be prescriptive with provinces and territories. We would be responsive to the needs across the country. We want to be sure that Ontario and B.C. markets are addressed, as they are in a state of relative crisis, but we want to have flexibility with this too. It is a very simple next step and a statement of collaboration with provinces and territories that we would entrust them to do the right thing and take action to deliver on housing.
“First Nations need 157,000 homes, and national or provincial building codes do not apply on reserves. The government makes big funding announcements without details. I want to know if the minister will spend this public money on First Nations homes, and which building codes he will use.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been good at announcing programs, dollars and funds, but it is really blank on the details. I am wondering if the minister knows what codes are on the first nations themselves and if he is going to invest from the public purse into first nation homes. There is a shortage of 157,000 homes, and the national building codes and provincial codes do not apply on first nations. What codes will he be building to when investing this money from the public purse in first nations?”
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been good at announcing programs, dollars and funds, but it is really blank on the details. I am wondering if the minister knows what codes are on the first nations themselves and if he is going to invest from the public purse into first nation homes. There is a shortage of 157,000 homes, and the national building codes and provincial codes do not apply on first nations. What codes will he be building to when investing this money from the public purse in first nations?
Linked statement
“Other ministers and programs handle housing for Indigenous people, including a $4 billion fund. This bill gives $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories for housing. They can choose to spend some of that money on Indigenous housing if they want.”
“Mr. Speaker, the investment in housing for first nations on reserve is something the Minister of Indigenous Services is responsible for. She currently has an indigenous housing process going to build a strategy, which I will be happy to collaborate with her on. There is indigenous housing funding as well in Build Canada Homes that is focused on urban, rural and northern indigenous housing, which is about a $4‑billion envelope. There are a number of different opportunities for indigenous housing. With this housing supply bill, we are talking about $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories, giving them the discretion to deploy that funding as needed. Some may choose to work with indigenous populations to invest that money on housing. That is their choice.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the investment in housing for first nations on reserve is something the Minister of Indigenous Services is responsible for. She currently has an indigenous housing process going to build a strategy, which I will be happy to collaborate with her on. There is indigenous housing funding as well in Build Canada Homes that is focused on urban, rural and northern indigenous housing, which is about a $4‑billion envelope. There are a number of different opportunities for indigenous housing. With this housing supply bill, we are talking about $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories, giving them the discretion to deploy that funding as needed. Some may choose to work with indigenous populations to invest that money on housing. That is their choice.
“The Conservatives used to limit debate on bills when they were in power, but now they are delaying this housing bill. We need to limit debate to pass it and build more homes. I want the minister to explain why the federal government must lead on this and work with the provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, back in the day, Peter Van Loan sat a couple of desks in front of me. That was when the current leader of the Conservative Party participated in programming motions. They brought motions like what we have today well over 100 times. Earlier this year, we even saw Conservatives vote in favour of time allocation, or a motion of this nature, because they recognized that Bill C‑5 was an important piece of legislation. It seems that the Conservatives have supported the need for time allocation and programming. Given their recent filibustering behaviour, in order to get this over the goal line and build on Canadian homes, having these measures is really important. I am wondering if the minister would provide his thoughts on working collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and on how important it is that the federal government take the lead, which is exactly what we are doing with the passage of this bill.”
Mr. Speaker, back in the day, Peter Van Loan sat a couple of desks in front of me. That was when the current leader of the Conservative Party participated in programming motions. They brought motions like what we have today well over 100 times. Earlier this year, we even saw Conservatives vote in favour of time allocation, or a motion of this nature, because they recognized that Bill C‑5 was an important piece of legislation. It seems that the Conservatives have supported the need for time allocation and programming. Given their recent filibustering behaviour, in order to get this over the goal line and build on Canadian homes, having these measures is really important. I am wondering if the minister would provide his thoughts on working collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and on how important it is that the federal government take the lead, which is exactly what we are doing with the passage of this bill.
“We need to pass this bill quickly to give money to the provinces and territories so they can build more homes. We want to work with them to share workers, materials, and building rules across the country to get housing built faster.”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, on process, I have spoken to the urgency and simplicity of this bill in entrusting provinces and territories with taking action and deploying this funding to get housing supply scaled up in their jurisdictions. As we have seen with Ontario eliminating the HST, we already have a good example of what can be done. I think the collaboration piece is really critical here. We do rely upon provinces and territories. A member opposite had a question about building codes. There are attempts to harmonize on or to have a smoother flow for the supply chains for homebuilding materials, Canadian materials in particular, and for labour, workers and expertise across the country. We want the provinces and territories working on team Canada to get more housing built. I think it is really critical that, right now, we are investing across the board to facilitate more housing getting built and more interchange between provinces and territories to get that done.”
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, on process, I have spoken to the urgency and simplicity of this bill in entrusting provinces and territories with taking action and deploying this funding to get housing supply scaled up in their jurisdictions. As we have seen with Ontario eliminating the HST, we already have a good example of what can be done. I think the collaboration piece is really critical here. We do rely upon provinces and territories. A member opposite had a question about building codes. There are attempts to harmonize on or to have a smoother flow for the supply chains for homebuilding materials, Canadian materials in particular, and for labour, workers and expertise across the country. We want the provinces and territories working on team Canada to get more housing built. I think it is really critical that, right now, we are investing across the board to facilitate more housing getting built and more interchange between provinces and territories to get that done.
“The government is rushing this housing bill through without letting a committee study it. I want the housing minister to come to our committee for at least one hour to answer questions about the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to what the parliamentary secretary just said, it is important for Canadians to know that there is a big difference between using closure or time allocation at one stage of a bill in the House and shutting the bill down at every stage so there is no possibility of committee study. On Bill C‑5, we moved it forward, but we had detailed committee study and amendments from the Conservatives that improved that bill. In this case, the bill is being shut down at all stages with no committee study, no report stage and no third reading debate. I think it is because, in part, the housing minister is afraid to come to the human resources committee, where we sit— An hon member: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member is blowing that off. I will ask the minister a simple question. This motion is going to pass; they have their majority, so it is going to pass. Will the minister agree to come to the human resources committee, even for one hour, to talk to us about the bill? The human resources committee is supposed to be studying housing. We have two studies going, one on housing starts and one on homelessness. We have not heard from the minister. We also have this bill going through on housing. The minister is trying to skip coming to committee. Will he come to human resources committee for an hour to talk about this bill, yes or no?”
Mr. Speaker, in response to what the parliamentary secretary just said, it is important for Canadians to know that there is a big difference between using closure or time allocation at one stage of a bill in the House and shutting the bill down at every stage so there is no possibility of committee study. On Bill C‑5, we moved it forward, but we had detailed committee study and amendments from the Conservatives that improved that bill. In this case, the bill is being shut down at all stages with no committee study, no report stage and no third reading debate. I think it is because, in part, the housing minister is afraid to come to the human resources committee, where we sit— An hon member: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member is blowing that off. I will ask the minister a simple question. This motion is going to pass; they have their majority, so it is going to pass. Will the minister agree to come to the human resources committee, even for one hour, to talk to us about the bill? The human resources committee is supposed to be studying housing. We have two studies going, one on housing starts and one on homelessness. We have not heard from the minister. We also have this bill going through on housing. The minister is trying to skip coming to committee. Will he come to human resources committee for an hour to talk about this bill, yes or no?
