House Publications

     moved:

     He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

     I just learned that if I pause for a brief second before it is time to talk, my colleagues will clap. I feel like a professional wrestler who pauses for people to cheer them on. I thank my colleagues for clapping. I wish I had that power when I was out on the street. I would simply pause, wait and listen, and people would clap. I thank my colleagues for edifying me in that way.

     It is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but it is a particular pleasure to rise with respect to this motion. I am going to read my motion into the record and expand on it for the next few minutes, because I believe it is an important motion. The motion states:

    Before I begin, I want to recognize that my niece was recently engaged. I want to give a shout-out to my niece, Juliana Bradley, and her new fiancé, Dayton Vidovich. I wish them happy nuptials as they set a date. I am very proud to be an uncle to Juliana. We are very proud of the young woman she has become. She is a force in her world as she navigates adulthood, and she is doing so well. We are so proud of her and Dayton, and I wish them all the best in their engagement.

     I am going to begin my remarks by speaking to law enforcement and Canadians generally. Conservatives believe law enforcement has not had the appropriate tools to fight crime. I look back on Bill C-5, for instance, which was passed here when then Minister Lametti justified people getting house arrest for drive-by shootings. That was just last Parliament. The Liberals will come in here and say they are tough on crime, yet that law still stands. For extortions with a firearm, drive-by shootings and robberies with a firearm, a person can serve their sentence on house arrest. This narrative the Liberals are pushing about how they are tough on crime and the Conservatives are not is simply untrue.

     It has always given me great pleasure to speak in the House. Speaking for the next few minutes on a bill I have devoted substantial time to is something I have looked forward to. With that, I know there is another colleague of mine who has spent a fair amount of time on this. That is the member for York—Durham, with whom I will be splitting my time.

    Where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to have an appropriate lawful access regime that gives law enforcement the tools it needs and also, and this is the big also, respects the charter rights and privacy rights of Canadians. I believe that needle can be threaded. It is the government that drafts this legislation. It is the government that has to convince Canadians that the needle has been threaded. Thus far, when it comes to the committee, the government, to be very candid, has failed.

    For those who do not know a lot about this bill, there are two parts. Part 1 is not all that contentious. Part 1 looks at a confirmation of subscriber information and a streamlined mechanism to get production orders.

    There is a bit of controversy around whether that should be on the threshold of what is called reasonable grounds to believe or of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to believe is when a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and there is evidence present in the records or the place. Reasonable grounds to suspect is, I believe, above a hunch but below that belief, which we call a subjective belief in law. Witnesses have said there are charter considerations under section 8, and if we go to the reasonable grounds to suspect, it might be too low of a threshold. The government has attempted to make the case that there is a limited body of information that would be produced, hence the lower threshold.

    I believe we will get through this at committee. The Conservatives have put forward a number of amendments. My colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc have also put forward a number of amendments. That is not the contentious issue. I believe this would be very helpful to law enforcement. Law enforcement has told us this. Right now, law enforcement often has to go on a fishing expedition, going to provider after provider.

     I will be very clear. I will be sending a letter to the public safety minister very shortly, saying the Conservatives are prepared to pass part 1 once we get through clause-by-clause. I hope that is sufficiently clear.

    My exhortation to the government is to take what we have so far and give it to law enforcement, because part 2 is highly contentious. I understand that law enforcement has asked for part 2, but in the committee's clause-by-clause process of part 2, the government has failed to convince Canadians that the lawful access regime it has put forward would balance the tools that are required with the charter and privacy rights of Canadians. That is where we stand.

     In fact, the government thought it could just ram this through committee. One of my greatest issues with this is how little time there has been. The Liberals may say we have studied this for quite some time, but here is the problem. This is a very contentious and technical bill. We had panels of experts, sometimes with three experts per panel, who gave five-minute opening statements, and then we were all expected to question these experts over a one-hour period. We had literally 45 minutes with three experts. That meant we were not really able to flesh out the details.

    So far, the government has said we need this bill because it wants to catch people who are committing nefarious acts. No one will ever hear me saying we do not want to catch terrorists or child predators. I have spent much of my life on the latter issue. However, we need to catch them in a way that is constitutional, whereby the government does not ask us to give it this, “just because”. The government failed to come to the committee table, say precisely what we need and why, and tell us how it is going to balance those charter rights.

    Let us pass part 1 to give law enforcement those powers.

    At the end of the day, we have spent a great deal of time on this, but we need more time on Bill C-22. I think we should be recalling witnesses. The fact is that we had so little time. We often had three experts on a panel. I would maybe get six minutes, and I am the lead critic on this. That was not enough.

    I see my time has come to an end. I will now take questions and comments from my colleagues.

    Madam Speaker, it is somewhat shameful that the Conservative Party likes to talk as if they are tough on crime. In reality, we have witnessed the Conservative Party bend at the knees, not recognizing the importance of action.

     This government, under this Prime Minister, just over a year ago, was elected with a substantial legislative agenda to deal with getting tough on crime, and the Conservative Party has been the biggest barrier to that happening. It needs to take responsibility.

    Why will the Conservative Party not recognize what law enforcement agencies across this nation are asking for? They are asking for lawful access, which is something other Five Eyes countries have. Only Canada does not have it.

     Why is the Conservative Party continuing to filibuster on lawful access?

     Madam Speaker, I wish I could take the member to law school for one seminar, because he pontificates like a lawyer and tries to sound like a lawyer, but—

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Frank Caputo: Oh, he is smarter than a lawyer. Okay, great. Thanks for that heckle from across the way.

    Madam Speaker, even the member does not agree. Anybody watching at home cannot hear this, but the member is saying, “I am?”

     The government members cannot sit here and say that they have been tough on crime. Someone could still get house arrest for a drive-by shooting, I will remind the member.

    What the member did not talk about is what is in the bill. This is exactly the trap the Liberals have fallen into: Give us this, and to heck with the charter and with concerns of Canadians. This is the arrogance of the Liberal Party, and that is why Bill C‑22 is where it is at.

    Madam Speaker, we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North, who has sat in the House, in government, for 11 years but has done nothing to crack down on crime. The Liberals brought in Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which do everything within their power to put violent criminals back out on the streets, yet now he hectors Conservatives for not doing enough for the Liberals while they are in government.

    What does the member think of the government's pontificating again about being tough on crime?

     Madam Speaker, let us talk about Bill C‑75. The member across the way from Winnipeg talks about being tough on crime as Liberals, but there is more. If someone is accused of an offence, Bill C‑75 says they get bail on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest possible opportunity. Why will the member not rise—

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Frank Caputo: Madam Speaker, he said that was pre-this government.

    Who is in power now? It is the current Liberal government. Who is not acting on Bill C‑75? It is the Liberal government. Who is allowing the status quo to be maintained on Bill C‑75 with a majority? It is the Liberal government. Spare us the rhetoric on Bill C‑75's being tough on crime, until the government is prepared to deal with the least onerous measures bail provisions in Bill C‑75.

    The member should take a seat, because we put forward legislation on this, the jail not bail act. The Liberals voted against it.

    Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised by the member's comments and by the fact that he is proposing to delay the passage of this bill by failing to abide by our rules. The member gave a good description of the process in committee, where there are five‑minute speeches and then time for questions. That said, we also have the opportunity to hear from experts who present briefs, so we take all the time we need to really benefit from the informed perspectives provided by experts. There is no challenge when it comes to decision-making, and we need to act now.

    Can we move forward with this bill now?

    Madam Speaker, I am so glad to have received that comment, because, get this, amendments were due on Bill C‑22, but we did not have briefings. There were actually multiple briefings that were not provided to the committee. Witnesses came to committee, for my hon. colleague's edification, saying that they had submitted a brief days ago. We looked around, and I asked my staff, “Did we get that?” They said no. Then I asked the clerk if we had received it, and the answer was no.

    The member talks about briefings, but we did not even have those briefings. It speaks to how quickly this was rushed. We need to slow it down, pass part 1 and leave part 2.

     Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C‑22 again. I spoke about it at second reading, raising my significant concerns with the Liberals' latest attempt at lawful access legislation here in Canada. In that speech, I focused on part 2, but I want to focus this morning on part 1 and, in particular, our motion to split the bill between part 1 and part 2. Part 1 has largely been referred to as the confirmation of service portion of Bill C‑22, and part 2 is about the new lawful access, government surveillance architecture that is quite problematic, but we will leave part 2 for most of this morning.

    What we are trying to do with the motion is salvage a huge mess the government has created. The government presented a bill in the fall, I believe it was Bill C‑2, with a whole host of problems. Thankfully we were able to prevent its passage. Then, instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back to Parliament with a proposal on lawful access that would be reasonable and proportionate, and that would balance the needs of law enforcement to catch the bad guys, which we all want to do, with protecting Canadians' reasonable expectation of privacy on things that are important to them, such as their location data, their metadata, whom they visit and whom they send emails and text messages to, we got Bill C‑22.

    Bill C‑22 would create a whole new part 2 architecture on surveillance, which industry, technology companies and any people who know anything about tech have uniformly come out and opposed. We have not been able to hear from all those voices, because it seems to be the intent of the government to push the bill forward. We are trying to salvage a mess the government has created with Bill C‑22, because we think there are parts of part 1 that could be salvaged.

    I am going to try to explain some of the problems that exist with part 1 that I think we could amend in committee. Some of those amendments are before the committee right now and will be discussed later today. If we make those amendments, then I think part 1 would be more amenable to this side of the House. We will see how interested the government is in passing a piece of the legislation, but I think the government quite clearly understands that part 2 is a problem.

    Part 1 and part 2 both have problems. Let us start with the part 1 problem. Within part 1, there are, I think, three problems we want to try to solve. Part 1 would allow police to ask a whole host of providers, “Do you offer services or provide services to this particular Canadian?” Unfortunately, the type of information that police would be allowed to request, with no judicial authorization, I will note, which is different from the new production request that I will get to in a moment, also in part 1, includes a whole host of personally identifying information.

    That information includes more than just someone's name. It can also include the types of services that are being offered by companies. It may be what one might, in a common-sense way, think the police are asking for, such as “Does this person have Internet with Bell or Rogers?” However, it could be far more expansive than that.

    What we are proposing to do is narrow the range of the types of information that could be requested. If the Liberals are serious about the police just needing confirmation of service, okay, that is great. Let us narrow it to names and perhaps certain types of addresses, and keep the list very narrow. Right now the list is open-ended, which creates a possibility that the types of information police could get under part 1 would actually be pretty broad.

    This is a point that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner in their submission to the public safety committee and the Minister of Public Safety. In fact, it was a recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner that the range of information under this provision of part 1 be narrowed, so, I believe, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to do that. Unfortunately, it has not yet been accepted by the Liberals.

     Worse than that, not only are the Liberals refusing to accept good-faith amendments about our concerns, but the amendment itself was proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, and they are refusing to allow the Privacy Commissioner to be present at committee when these amendments are being discussed. The Privacy Commissioner made several amendments. I just mentioned the first one. I will mention two more with respect to part 1.

    During debate on this, Conservatives requested that the Privacy Commissioner be granted the same opportunity as other government-related officials who are, in the normal course, permitted to attend and to provide information to committee members and answer their questions. We asked for it as a motion. We asked for it on unanimous consent. Every time, it was denied. I have not heard a good reason why the Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to attend committee and be available to parliamentarians, whether Conservative, Bloc, or Liberal, to answer questions about the amendments to part 1.

    The second problem with part 2 is the range of providers that can be requested to provide confirmation of service. Right now, it is anyone who provides telecommunications services. That is not very well defined in the act, so it could encompass a whole host of providers beyond the normal telcos. That could include, say, a lawyer, a grocery store or the hotel someone stayed at.

    Again, we have suggested an amendment, which was originally proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, to narrow to just telcos the range of who could receive this confirmation request, because that is the first thing law enforcement wants to know: Are they providing a telecom or Internet service to a particular person? Again, the Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to be present at committee to answer questions on the amendment of narrowing the range of who could receive this request.

    The third amendment, which I hope we will get to in committee, but I do not believe we have yet, is that once this request is made and once information is provided to law enforcement, the person who has provided the information to law enforcement should be required to produce a document that sets out what information was provided. This is so that, in case something goes wrong and we need to know what was provided, we have a document that says what they provided. Again, this is a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner that Liberals have refused.

    Those are three critical problems on the substantive side with part 1, and I will add one more to that. This is the threshold issue on the production order request, which is the second part of part 1. We have conservation of service, and then production order. The Liberals have proposed to lower the threshold for obtaining a production order, to reasonable suspicion. This would be lowered from the traditional grounds for obtaining a production order, which is reasonable grounds to believe. In this case, it would have judicial oversight of some manner, which would not necessarily have to be a judge. It could be another judicial official, such as a peace officer who is not a judge. It would not even have to be a lawyer.

    For the non-lawyers or people who are not initiated in these two thresholds, I will explain that this would be an important change, because the first one, reasonable suspicion, is simply someone's subjective view that they think something bad has happened. They think a crime has been committed, so they need some information to see if they are right. That is a very low threshold. It is like a hunch. It is as if I have a hunch that someone committed a crime, so I am going to get the government to give me all their personal information. I do not think that sounds like a good idea.

    What should be approved through amendment to the bill is bringing that standard back up to the standard that has been used for production orders in the Criminal Code for decades, which is reasonable grounds to believe. This means that not only would someone have to have a hunch, but they would also have to have an objective belief that there is going to be some evidence. It is not enough that someone thinks someone has committed a crime. They have to know that there is some evidence or have a good belief that there is evidence.

    Through decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and all common-law jurisdictions, the court has said it is not enough to just have a hunch. In the common law and now under the charter, we must have more than a hunch to invade someone's privacy and demand information about them. If the Liberals will not change that standard, then we will oppose part 1 as well.

     Madam Speaker, it is really rich to hear the Conservatives talking about the Supreme Court and upholding a Supreme Court decision because generally what I have heard in debate over the last several months is, “Just don't listen to the Supreme Court. Do everything to oppose their decisions in the past.”

    I would also like to say that many of the members get up and ask about organized crime in question period every day. The only way to fight organized crime is to make sure we give police the tools so that they can get evidence. Criminal organizations are using modern tools. They are using technology.

    Why have the Conservatives been supporting the big tech companies instead of supporting Canadians and their public safety?

    Madam Speaker, everything we do on this side of the House is for the benefit of Canadians, and that includes striking a balance between their privacy and the needs of law enforcement. I have tried to make very reasonable and sensible arguments here, not hyperbole.

    To clarify to the member, it is the strength of the Supreme Court's reasons that is important. It does not matter that the court sits on high. It is the strength of its reasons that we look to. In this case, its reasoning on section 8 and unreasonable search and seizure has a long history, and I support it. It is not just because Supreme Court justices sit in robes that we listen to them. It is because of the strength of their reasons. That is very important, and the member misses that.

    Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is very concerned about the issues raised by Bill C-22, and I understand that the purpose of today's motion is to split the bill, but I would like to hear my colleague's views on the substance of the matter.

    One of the concerns he raised is that, if Bill C-22 is passed, it will allow people's personal information to be retained for one year. He touched on the issue briefly, but what is his interpretation of the type of information that could be retained under Bill C-22, as presently worded? Does it include geolocation data?

     Madam Speaker, I would describe Bill C-22 right now as a big, fat dumpster fire. This is the government's dumpster fire, which this motion is trying to fix. What the member quite rightly points out is that in part 2, there is a metadata retention requirement, and that includes one's location services.

    That means that law enforcement, or any other part of government, can choose to get this information later. We have seen in other countries that it does not stop at law enforcement. Other government agencies look for that information. They will know who someone had coffee with because they will be able to see two iPhones at the same location. They will know if someone goes to church on Sunday because they will see a pattern. All of that reveals very private information, which is exactly why, in the EU, the European Court of Justice said that this information is very private, and it struck down the very same metadata retention requirements that Bill C-22 includes.

     Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this includes any organization or any company that transmits electronic data on behalf of a client.

    Would this include physicians, the medical field, where they either fax or email prescriptions to the drugstore? They are transmitting electronically on behalf of a client. Would that be subject to part 1 of Bill C-22?

    Madam Speaker, that is a good question. There are certain carve-outs in the bill that are attempting to address this issue, on medical records and solicitor-client privilege, I believe. The problem is that this is very vague, in part 1 especially, and the Privacy Commissioner makes this point. The list of entities that could be requested to provide information is very broad, so it would include more than just telecoms. The information that they would be requested to provide is non-exhaustive. It could go beyond just what it says in the bill.

    We are trying to fix that in part 1 so that we do not get in a situation. It would not be a doctor, because that is carved out, but there are a lot of other health care providers in there who may touch on someone's information. That is private. That should be protected. We need to fix that in part 1. If we fix that in part 1, I think we have a path forward. Right now, we do not have a path forward.

    Madam Speaker, I move:

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     moved:

    That in relation to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill; and

     That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

     Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30‑minute question period.

     Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

     I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

    Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to the House why we are rushing through this bill now, keeping in mind, of course, that the federal government now has four federal housing agencies?

     We started with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is the original Crown corporation that actually solved the crisis after the Second World War. Then there was the Canada Lands Company which is a Crown corporation as well. It was created after CN was spun off. They develop land and do it reasonably well. There is the ministry. Then they created this thing called Build Canada Homes, which was another agency.

     Now, in the final stages of the sitting in this session, the Liberals are scrambling to move this time allocation to not just have this agency but to turn it into a Crown corporation. For the record, if people are counting, that makes three federal Crown corporations engaged in the housing file, on top of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities.

     I guess the question has two parts. Why do we need a fourth housing agency, a third federal Crown corporation, and why are we rushing through to get this corporation created?

    Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we are in a housing crisis in Canada.

     Affordability is a challenge for too many Canadians: finding an affordable place to live, finding a place to live at all for those who are at risk or are homeless currently. We need to take action here. This is a dedicated agency for affordable housing, for non-market housing, the supply of which is short in Canada compared to our peer countries in Europe, where there is several times more non-market housing. We need an agency that is dedicated to that.

     We are in a crisis. That is why it is urgent that we have this agency created as a Crown corporation with the powers and accountability that enables, ensuring that we are taking action and delivering results as the Government of Canada, partnering with provinces, territories, cities and indigenous governments, and ensuring that we are delivering the affordable housing Canada needs.

    Madam Speaker, the government loves to create bureaucracy, and a good example is what is happening here today. I guess my question for the minister has to do with building codes. There are ways the government could simplify and get more housing built without spending money and creating more bureaucracies, but actually simplifying life and letting industry and other people get the job done for prices that people can afford.

     Has the minister ever talked to the Minister of Industry about building codes and how to get them simplified, and how to make sure people know what changes will cost, so Canadians can build more homes and have more affordable housing?

    Madam Speaker, in the spring economic update there was a signal of the opportunity to work on the national model codes, the building codes for Canada, with the National Research Council, which is under the Minister of Industry. We have big opportunities across the country to ensure that building codes are more harmonized with provinces, territories and, in some cases, cities that control their own codes. We certainly have an opportunity to have a clearer set of standards around manufactured building components and to make sure that we have those standards accepted across the country, so manufacturers of wall panels, floor panels and modular homes can have an opportunity to have those products certified and accepted across the country. We see that as an important next step that is certainly related to the work we are doing.

     Madam Speaker, I listened to one of the Minister of Housing's answers, and he said, “We are in a housing crisis”. The simple question is “Why?” The Liberals have been in government for 11 years, and they are acting like this housing crisis came out of nowhere. The policies that they have put in place caused this housing crisis with red tape. We talked to municipalities. The fact that the Liberals are blaming this housing crisis on anyone other than themselves is confusing, because the Liberals have been in government for 10 years.

    Who created this housing crisis?

    Madam Speaker, the housing crisis has been decades in the making. It goes back to the federal government not taking enough action to build affordable housing and non-market housing. It goes back at least to the nineties, and arguably before that. Governments of all stripes take responsibility; governments at all levels or orders across Canada as well. Certainly, there are challenges at the local level. I served at the local level. There are challenges in approving enough, approving fast enough and approving a balanced mix with non-market. Non-market housing needs the support of provincial and federal governments. There has to be investment in that. Build Canada Homes is an excellent vehicle to fast-track, and attract private capital to, non-market housing and the affordable housing spectrum.

    Madam Speaker, I want to take advantage of the minister's presence here to tell him about what is happening in my riding, in the Gaspé region and in the Magdalen Islands. The cost to build housing is not the same across the board. In the Gaspé region, in particular, it often costs about 25% more because of the remote location and the fact that there is less competition. It is even worse in the Magdalen Islands because all the materials have to be brought in by ship.

    Here is my concern and my question for the minister. First, is he aware that the regions may have different construction costs? Second, will Build Canada Homes have the flexibility it needs in its support for housing projects in order to adapt to regional realities?

    Otherwise, what is happening right now is that projects in my riding are stalled because they cannot be completed within the budget, given that construction costs were based on cost estimates in urban areas.

     Madam Speaker, costs do vary significantly across the country, certainly in the member opposite's riding and in the territories. The good news is that we have agreements now with Quebec to build, with Build Canada Homes, hundreds and hundreds of homes throughout Quebec in partnership with Quebec. As well, there are examples in Nunavut: 750 homes with the territorial Government of Nunavut and with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the housing corporation in Nunavut that is Inuit-controlled.

    We have opportunities to build with provinces and territories where the cost is significantly higher. This affords an opportunity also to empower the manufacturing industry and get components of housing or volumetric housing to those remote territories and provinces. We see manufacturers now starting to set up in many parts of Canada to bring more efficiency to the farther regions out and bring those costs down as well.

    Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister would agree that it is critically important that we work collaboratively with other jurisdictions, whether it is provinces, indigenous people or other stakeholders. It is very clear that the Conservatives made the decision long ago that they do not support Bill C‑20. If it was up to the Conservative Party, Bill C‑20 would never, ever pass. That is why I appreciate what the Minister of Housing is doing today. Given the importance of collaboration, I wonder if he can expand upon that point. He made reference to the province of Quebec and the benefits of collaboration.

    Could the minister just expand on that and provide some comments on accountability within the legislation also?

    Madam Speaker, to the point of collaboration, we have seen fantastic uptake from provinces and territories. I mentioned Quebec moments ago and Nunavut. We have a partnership with B.C. to build 1,100 new affordable homes and 700 of those are supportive and transitional homes for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are in partnership with Build Canada Homes for more than 1,000 homes.

    Right out of the gate, we have agreements with provinces and territories; Yukon and Nunavut are examples, as are Ontario and Quebec. We have opportunities to build in every province and territory right now, and existing agreements are in place. That speaks to that collaboration. I think we are seeing the interest and the uptake. It is not only from different levels of government, like the City of Ottawa, but also from the private sector.

    Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Those watching at home may not realize this, but MPs have a mechanism by which we can contact one another directly. I sent the minister three emails directly. Candidly, I have sent notes to other ministers and they respond typically within 12 to 24 hours. It shows respect among ministers and members of Parliament to do that. Not once has he responded.

    What kind of example is the minister setting, as a minister of the Crown, when he cannot even respond to notes from another member of Parliament?

    Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to walk across the floor. I would be happy for him to come over and talk. We are here in Ottawa all the time. If he wants to be more bureaucratic and send emails, there is that, but I am here. I am here to talk about this. We are here to get housing built. That is the goal. I have certainly been approached and had conversations with many members on both sides of the House. I am certainly willing to focus on getting housing built in all the communities across Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion with the minister.

    He mentioned prefabricated houses, and I am aware that both the Quebec and Canadian governments prefer them as a means of reducing costs. However, what we are seeing in the Gaspé Peninsula is that prefabricated components have to be shipped, and that poses a problem.

    I therefore ask that, when planning future programs, the government consider that prefabricated houses, if built in the city, will have to be shipped to the regions, which adds to the cost. So far, in the Gaspé Peninsula, we have determined that it does not actually work out to be any cheaper in the end.

    I would also like to mention the company Les Habitations Mont-Carleton, which is based in Matane and aims to become a Canadian leader. I think they have a bright future.

    Can the minister assure us that, even if the government makes a shift towards prefabricated housing, the cost of shipping the components will be taken into account?

    Madam Speaker, there are challenging costs related to shipping anything to remote regions of Canada, and that is factored into the cost. Build Canada Homes has to factor that in when it is putting together these partnerships with provinces and territories, or with community builders in various regions around the country.

    The benefit of shipping manufactured components or volumetric homes is that is all that is being shipped: We are not shipping extra materials that are cut off and then turned into waste. Construction waste is the number one source of waste in solid waste landfills. We need to reduce the amount of waste in the industry, and we can do that with shipping. We have to factor in that cost. Ideally, we need to employ as many local people as we can for the assembly or installation of these homes.

    Madam Speaker, I find it very funny that one member of the Conservative Party was talking about sending emails to the minister when his leader was asking the members of the Conservative Party not to send letters of support for projects under the housing accelerator fund. Can members imagine that?

    We welcomed the minister in New Brunswick a couple of months ago for a wonderful announcement, a $300‑million agreement with New Brunswick to be able to build up to 1,500 N.B. homes. Can the minister elaborate a bit more on this wonderful agreement we signed with New Brunswick? There are actually announcements happening right now across New Brunswick about some of those projects.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his leadership in New Brunswick.

    The province of New Brunswick certainly has been an early adopter of manufacturing and modern methods of construction. There are many companies now set up in New Brunswick producing homes or components of homes.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. The minister is trying to answer the hon. member's question.

    The minister has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, we see great leadership from New Brunswick, not only with respect to the 1,500 homes that are now in the works, between Build Canada Homes and New Brunswick, but also on the manufacturing side. It is one of the leading provinces in manufacturing homes and components of buildings and homes. That is where we see the future.

     Certainly, New Brunswick can produce for other Atlantic provinces as well, and ship within the region, but we are seeing that opportunity with manufacturing emerging in many other parts of the country. We are also seeing opportunities, like with New Brunswick's model, where there are a lot of smaller projects in rural communities in New Brunswick that are being coordinated by New Brunswick as a province, the housing minister and his team. That is a fantastic model for getting a lot of different types of projects, small, medium and large, built across the province. We hope to see that in many other provinces and territories.

    Madam Speaker, the annual report from housing advocate Marie-Josée Houle, who is also a cabinet adviser, says that “the current pace of building deeply affordable homes is so slow that it [will] take over 1,000 years” to get to where we need to be.

     Housing is a provincial and municipal jurisdiction. All these agencies are working as fronts for private interests. What we need is for the government to cut taxes and just get out of the way so that we can get the homes built.

    Madam Speaker, as the member said, we are not building affordable homes fast enough. That is why we need to have Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, with all of the tools, financial instruments and accountability to make sure we can build faster from the federal side. We need to have these partnerships in place. We need to make it easier for the private sector to build. We need to make sure it is faster for the cities, provinces, territories and indigenous governments to get housing built. We need to be an enabler or a catalyst. We certainly rely primarily on the private sector to do the actual construction and building. All levels of government need to be coordinated to make sure it is easier and faster to get affordable housing built.

    Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that back in 2017, when the Trudeau government came out with its national housing strategy, it gave it to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the first federal Crown corporation for housing, which delivered those programs, among other things. The CMHC does a lot of research on housing, probably more research than any other group in the country, in fact, and it is well respected. It also insures mortgages.

    I find it interesting that this fourth federal housing agency, the third Crown corporation for federal housing, is being created with no clear timelines or targets as to how many units would be built. I actually asked the CMHC the other day if the government had discussed with it what the targets should be, based on the need that exists out there. It said there has been no discussion.

     I wonder if the minister could explain to the House how the government justifies a $13‑billion fourth federal creation for housing, having done no research to provide it data on the number of units it needs to have built for non-market housing.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his questions and his concerns. Build Canada Homes will be the federal government agency to deliver affordable housing. CMHC will focus on market housing. There will be two agencies right now, CMHC on the market side and Build Canada Homes on the non-market side, that will be focused on housing.

    The Canada Lands Company, which has been involved in housing development for the federal government, is effectively folding into Build Canada Homes with the portfolio of federal lands where affordable housing can be built. That is one component. It is basically that we are going to two agencies. One is affordable housing-focused, non-market, and the second, CMHC, continues to provide support for market housing, the apartment construction loan program, the MLI select program and the research that the member opposite is discussing, which is valuable across the board for the whole housing continuum.

    Madam Speaker, the minister just answered the question I was going to ask about how this structure actually clarifies the housing spectrum of non-market and market, and how the Canada Lands Company comes in, and so how this new structure will function in a way that is much, much better for proponents.

    Instead, I will ask the minister about the following. I know the proponents in my riding are going to provide housing for seniors with mental health issues. These are non-market housing units. They are going to get to functional zero in terms of youth homelessness.

    Minister, what has the response been in the community to Build Canada Homes? What kind of response are you seeing from proponents in the non-profit housing sector?

    I would remind the hon. member to go through the Chair when asking questions.

    Madam Speaker, we have seen enormous uptake among the non-profit or community housing builders. I think a majority of the proposals coming into Build Canada Homes are from the community building sector and non-profits partnering with the private sector, which will do a lot of the construction and building. Those homes will be effectively operated by the non-profit sector, because they are affordable homes.

    In particular, I want to speak to the great uptake we have seen with transitional and supportive housing. The most important solution right now for homelessness is making sure people have access to a home that has the wraparound supports. We have a couple of thousand homes now in the works in partnership across the country for that supportive housing.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question that has already been asked, but I do not think the answer was adequate: Why replace existing bodies, such as the CMHC, that could very well have fulfilled the same role?

    Essentially, we are not going to oppose the bill since an agreement has been reached with the Government of Quebec, but it would have been much easier to simply transfer the money to Quebec.

    Madam Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, will continue to focus on the market side of the housing continuum, and that is from rental housing to the mortgage insurance products it has provided for generations. It can specialize in that, and Build Canada Homes can specialize in affordable housing. We think it is important to have this separation between the two. They are very different lines of business, with very different partnerships that get put together with the provinces, territories and cities on the affordable housing side.

    The example of Quebec's partnership illustrates the opportunity that provinces and territories see in partnering with Build Canada Homes to get the homes delivered, and get them delivered with affordability at the core.

    Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister entirely understood my question. When I asked him why there were no targets with this new $13-billion agency, the fourth agency, he explained to me what each of them does. Here is a news flash: I understand what each of them does. I just do not understand why we have created a fourth one.

    Then I asked very specifically why we would create a third federal Crown corporation and give it $13 billion and no targets other than to say that it is going to focus on non-market housing. The pre-eminent researcher on housing in the country is the first federal Crown corporation on housing, the CMHC. It does all the research.

    Why has the third Crown corporation not talked to the first Crown corporation? Why has the minister not talked to the first Crown corporation to give this thing some targets and put some parameters around it? This is $13 billion of Canadian taxpayers' dollars, and there are no targets. Why is this?

    Madam Speaker, the target is to build as much affordable housing as possible with the capital that is being provided here by the Government of Canada. There is an array of partnerships and collaborations now. There are different levels of affordability, as the member knows as a former mayor. There are projects that have deeply affordable supportive and transitional housing. Those require more investment from government, more support in terms of an equity investment to achieve that level of affordability. There is a mix of affordable rentals in many projects as well.

    As for setting random large targets to shoot for, we want to see the maximum amount of housing delivered. We want to see as much affordability as possible. That is the core goal for Build Canada Homes. We want to also leverage opportunity across affordable rental housing and co-op housing. We want to see a whole range of housing in the middle market, the so-called missing middle, delivered alongside that. It is a range of different types of projects, with different affordability, but we want to see all of that maximized for the benefit of Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, we have heard quite a bit, and rightfully so, about the problems with all the bureaucracies that the government is creating, but one thing it has not done in 11 years is negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States. In fact, the minister's own province of British Columbia has had close to 35 sawmills close in the last five years. We were reading lots of articles about sawmills closing in Quebec. The ability to produce the goods that are needed to build homes in this country is being severely limited, yet the government has done nothing about that.

    Is the minister going to advocate and push to try to get the sawmills open again so that Canada can produce the things that are needed, which, by doing so, would actually bring down the cost of building homes in this country?

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern around softwood. We see enormous opportunity with Build Canada Homes to focus on building with Canadian wood. That would benefit our industries from B.C. to Quebec and New Brunswick, provinces that rely heavily on softwood and forestry. We have real opportunities to scale up the value-added industry and make sure we are protecting jobs with softwood here in Canada. Buy Canadian is a key element with Build Canada Homes. That has gone into the investment criteria. We are seeing proposals come in that would use Canadian wood to build. We want to see, in the manufacturing sector, mass timber and value-added products built with Canadian wood.

    That is our focus with Build Canada Homes, making sure we do everything we can to use Canadian materials, to strengthen Canadian homebuilding and manufacturing, right into the forest industry. I am working in collaboration with the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources to make sure we are maximizing that opportunity and supporting that industry.

    Madam Speaker, further to the question that was asked by my friend and colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, we were extremely pleased this year that the minister came to New Brunswick and that we were one of the first provinces to sign the housing agreement. We certainly recognize that New Brunswick is a very rural province, and the provincial government had a key role in making sure the plan was brought forward.

    I am wondering if the minister would be able to explain how imperative it was that the province played a key role in ensuring that New Brunswick was able to sign an agreement in a fairly short period of time.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her leadership on behalf of New Brunswick.

    Like the members of Parliament from New Brunswick, we are very encouraging of Build Canada Homes and New Brunswick partnering to maximize the opportunity to build affordable housing across New Brunswick. The Government of New Brunswick has been a leader, as the member said, in being one of the first provinces to step forward. As I mentioned earlier, with the opportunity to build in communities of all shapes and sizes, the province has put together projects across New Brunswick. It is bringing that portfolio forward and will help manage the delivery of that housing, which is fantastic. It makes it much more streamlined for Build Canada Homes to be able to invest, knowing that the province is overseeing that portfolio, and many communities are being served at the same time.

    I give a big thanks to New Brunswick for leading the way on that and to the members for supporting that.

    Madam Speaker, the AFN estimates that there are 157,000 new homes needed to address the severe housing crisis on first nation reserves in addition to the 81,000 existing units needing major renovations. The minister announced some indigenous incentives in this, but the numbers add up to about 3,400 homes across 600‑plus first nations.

    Can the minister address more systematic fixes when it comes to first nations housing crises, rather than just band‑aids?

    Madam Speaker, certainly, indigenous housing is a really important component of what Build Canada Homes is delivering and will continue to deliver. The floor for investment in indigenous housing in Build Canada Homes is 10% of the capital there for affordable housing. There are many proposals coming in from indigenous home builders.

     We look forward to seeing Build Canada Homes supporting projects. There is a huge opportunity. We saw this in the Nunavut and Yukon territories, where the majority of the population is indigenous. That housing will obviously be delivered by the territorial governments, but it will benefit indigenous residents. We are going to see a lot of proposals and partnerships with first nations and Inuit and Métis people as well.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion before the House.

    The question is on the motion.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

     Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

     Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act—

    I have to interrupt the hon. member.

     In fact, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has three and a half minutes remaining. She is now in the House, so I will ask the secretary of state to wait until the hon. member has finished her speech.

     Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and promote innovative and efficient building techniques for the housing sector. The goal matters deeply in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

    As I said at the beginning of my original speech, I am splitting my time today.

     Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the time allocation was given correctly. How are we getting a minute and a half for the member?

     With everything going on, could the hon. member have the chance to actually deliver her speech, if she starts right now? We would appreciate that. There is too much noise here. We were not listening carefully.

     We will let the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith give her remarks. She will have three and a half minutes remaining in her comments.

    The hon. member.

    Mr. Speaker, among other things that I am continuing in my speech from the other day, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing sector. That goal matters deeply in communities such as Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

     Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home, seniors are looking for options that allow them to downsize while staying close to family and workers are struggling to live near the jobs that keep our communities running. We agree that we cannot meet that challenge with old thinking alone. We need to build differently, build faster and make use of better and new methods and Canadian standards, as well as local business that are already doing the work.

    The mid-island did not wait for legislation. We know we cannot rely on the government to solve our problems for us. Local innovators have already risen to the occasion to make the mid-island an emerging hub for modular and innovative construction.

     I recently toured Cueva Homes, which is headquartered in Nanaimo. There, I saw exactly the kind of practical innovation this country needs. Cueva Homes is focused on modular homes, backyard suites, ADUs and smaller housing options that can help communities add supply without changing the character of every neighbourhood. The folks at Cueva Homes are ready to go. These are real homes designed for real lots, and they are built with the kind of efficiency that could help address the housing shortage. They are especially well suited for communities like ours, where many families need options for aging parents, adult children, renters and first-time buyers. Cueva Homes' work also shows why standards matter. When homes are CSA-compliant, even if they are fabricated abroad with a significant proportion of local materials exported from the island for that purpose, communities can have confidence that innovation is not coming at the expense of safety, quality or code compliance. That should be central to the purpose of Bill C-20.

    I also want to recognize Wescon Doors, another Vancouver Island business contributing to this same housing ecosystem. Wescon manufactures doors built for our climate and to meet applicable Canadian standards. Businesses like Wescon Doors remind us that housing innovation is not only about the finished home, but also about the local supply chain, components, skilled workers and manufacturers that make faster, better building possible.

    If Bill C-20 is truly about supporting innovative and efficient building techniques, then the government must recognize communities such as ours. We already have businesses working in modular housing, prefabricated systems with high-quality components and climate-appropriate construction. The opportunity now is to connect federal policy with local capacity. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is ready to be part of that solution

    Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to hear the member opposite say something to the effect of Bill C-20 inspiring Canadians and helping them build more homes faster. I agree that there is that inspiration within Bill C-20.

    Could the member expand on that particular point? Through Bill C-20, we want to be able to encourage and see that support realized.

    Mr. Speaker, for his benefit, I would like to share with the member opposite what I am hearing on the ground.

    We are also concerned about the fact that there are multiple bureaucracies already in place. We are very concerned about Build Canada Homes and making sure that it does not become another Ottawa-driven program that overlooks the builders and manufacturers already solving problems on the ground in communities such as mine.

     We would like a commitment from the government that it will help and support practical, CSA-compliant, scalable solutions such as those found in our communities.

    Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report commenting that the government was stripping away services to the vulnerable via housing benefits and social housing in order to fund another bureaucracy.

    I wonder what the member thinks about the government taking money away from the most vulnerable to fund another bureaucracy that is going to produce, as the PBO says, only “a modest amount” of new housing.

    Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question, because just last night in my community, our local city council was holding a special meeting about the need for sober housing specifically. All kinds of housing in our communities came up.

     The provinces, especially provinces like mine, are really struggling in the context of this economy. Of course, this means that municipalities are struggling as well. If the government is going to allocate funds toward housing, it really needs to work harder to address those issues in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith and beyond.

    Mr. Speaker, the member from Nanaimo knows a lot of the issues that are particular to the island. Market housing works really well in places like Nanaimo, and can probably be the solution that she is expressing would be valid there, but urban markets with the missing middle are a challenging place. Regardless of the red tape and other things, it is very hard for builders and developers to develop there.

     How does the member consider developers should be incentivized to build in those areas without a Build Canada Homes-like approach?

     Mr. Speaker, if the member believes market housing is working well in Nanaimo, he really does not understand British Columbia. We are the missing middle. We have the missing market housing and the missing supportive housing. We are in the throes of an addictions crisis. Last night, we heard testimony about how hard it is for someone to resist the lures of addiction when they are down, homeless and sleeping on the street.

     That question was an insult to my communities.

    Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the response to that question, in the sense that, if we look at it, we have seen a great deal of emphasis on collaboration. We want to work collaboratively with municipalities, provinces, indigenous people and so forth.

     Does the member not agree that working collaboratively is the best way to deal with the issue that is before us?

    Mr. Speaker, the member from the other side goes back to the question before and suggests that I was being insulting, when someone was trying to tell me that my community does not need mid-market housing and below, and that we are just fine with market housing. I am sorry, but that is another member who does not understand what is going on in British Columbia or in my riding.

     Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in support of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.

    The challenge before us is significant. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford, and too many communities are facing housing shortages that continue to drive up costs. That is why our government launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025 with a clear mandate to build affordable homes, support builders with financing and encourage innovative construction methods using Canadian technology, workers and lumber. In just a few short months, Build Canada Homes has already begun advancing projects and establishing partnerships across the country.

    Bill C-20 would build on that early progress by establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, providing it with the operational autonomy and dedicated governance needed to scale up efforts to address Canada's housing crisis. By transitioning Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency to a Crown corporation, the legislation would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate at scale while maintaining accountability to Parliament and to Canadians.

    All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action, which means that this is about more than creating a new institution. It is about giving Build Canada Homes the tools it needs to build more homes more quickly.

    As we consider the legislation before us today, it is worth revisiting exactly what Build Canada Homes was designed to achieve. Build Canada Homes was created to build and finance affordable housing at scale while helping to catalyze a more productive and innovative homebuilding industry. It makes it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground, attracting public, private and philanthropic investment. thus maximizing impact.

    Build Canada Homes does more than fund individual projects. It is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with governments, builders, non-profits and investors to identify and scale high-impact housing solutions. It is also helping modernize Canada's homebuilding sector by supporting innovative approaches, including modern methods of construction. Build Canada Homes is helping create the conditions needed to build more homes more quickly and more efficiently.

    This is particularly important at a time in Canada when Canada needs to significantly increase its housing supply. Build Canada Homes is helping build the capacity needed to meet that challenge. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof.

    It would work alongside non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government to help move projects from concept to construction and to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing. It would also work in close partnership with developers, investors, manufacturers and housing providers focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers or organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians.

    These strategic partnerships would create homes that are affordable to a range of households across the income spectrum. These partnerships are about building capacity, supporting innovation and creating the conditions for more homes to be built across Canada, which is what makes the legislation before us today so important.

    By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, Bill C-20 would provide the agency with the operational autonomy and governance structure needed to pursue its mission more effectively. It would also provide Build Canada Homes with the flexibility needed to hold assets, make investments and make long-term decisions that support the delivery of affordable housing. Together, these tools would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate and build more homes for Canadians. These are exactly the kinds of tools needed to increase housing supply and accelerate construction across the country.

    Partnerships with provinces and territories are central to the success of Build Canada Homes. Whether through land financing, housing expertise or construction-ready projects, provinces and territories play a critical role in increasing housing supply and helping more homes get built.

    Allow me to use my home province of British Columbia as an example. Build Canada Homes and BC Housing have partnered to deliver at least 1,100 homes, including supportive, transitional and affordable rental housing. This partnership will make use of standardized designs, Canadian-made prefabricated components and modern methods of construction to reduce costs, improve quality, shorten construction timelines and help increase housing construction at scale. These approaches demonstrate how innovation can play a critical role in addressing Canada's housing shortage.

    This is only the first phase of a broader commitment between Canada and British Columbia. By aligning federal investment with construction-ready projects, Build Canada Homes is helping move projects from plans to shovels in the ground, while laying the foundation for thousands more homes in future phases. This is exactly the type of collaboration Build Canada Homes was created to support. It demonstrates how governments can work together to increase housing supply while helping to modernize the homebuilding sector.

    Importantly, it also demonstrates the potential of Build Canada Homes as a national institution. In just a few short months, it has advanced projects and partnerships representing thousands of homes across the country. Bill C‑20 is about turning that early momentum into sustained long-term results. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, we would be strengthening its ability to support more projects, deepen partnerships and help deliver more homes for Canadians.

    However, that is not all. In addition to helping build more houses, Build Canada Homes is also helping build a stronger Canadian economy. By prioritizing projects and partnerships that invest in sustainable Canadian materials, strengthen Canadian supply chains and create good jobs through the homebuilding process, Build Canada Homes is helping advance the federal government's buy Canadian strategy. This means Canadian lumber, Canadian building materials, Canadian manufacturing and Canadian construction expertise.

    Across the board, Build Canada Homes is helping ensure that public investments create economic benefits here at home. In a changing global economy, strengthening domestic capacity matters. Build Canada Homes is helping increase housing supply while supporting Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian innovation. The partnerships and projects already under way demonstrate what Build Canada Homes can achieve. Bill C‑20 is about scaling up what is already working. It is about building the partnerships, capacity and innovative construction approaches needed to deliver more homes for Canadians in the years ahead.

    By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, the legislation would provide the governance, flexibility and financial capacity needed to build on that progress and to deliver on its mandate at a greater scale. It would allow Build Canada Homes to hold assets, make investments, deploy innovative financial tools and pursue long-term opportunities more effectively, while maintaining a clear accountability framework to Parliament and Canadians.

    At a time when Canadians need more homes built more quickly and more affordably, Bill C‑20 would help ensure that Build Canada Homes has the tools it needs to deliver. I urge all members opposite to support it.

    Mr. Speaker, could the member who just delivered his speech explain to me and to the House why we need a third federal Crown corporation to do what he described it would do? Why can CMHC or Canada Lands Company not do these things?

     Mr. Speaker, I think this is a Crown corporation that would take a lot of federal lands, provincial lands and municipal lands and build quickly and efficiently. It would actually hold, in a lot of cases, those assets in the Crown corporation, and the revenue from that would hopefully help build more homes going forward. It would also help expedite a lot of the process.

    I think it is much needed. Canada has tried many other things, and I think this is a time when more homes are needed more quickly. We need an agency like this that has the agility, the financial firepower and the power behind it to build these homes much more quickly.

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

    Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I apologize for not being able to answer in French.

    I think it gives, first, the financial tools. There is $13 billion seeded in it, so it has a lot of financial capability. It has the necessary vehicles, whether that is using CMHC or its own funding, the new building code with pre-approved designs, and encouraging modular design and working with modular providers. These are the types of tools that give it the assets and capabilities to move much more quickly and much more efficiently, and also to innovate in the industry in a time when sometimes the private sector is a little hesitant to do that. That is the ability it has, and as a Crown corporation, it would have more power than a special body.

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price.

    For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing.

    What does my colleague have to say about that?

    Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The affordability measurement is, I think, 30% of pre-tax income of a household, as a means of affordability. That is the test case, so it varies, obviously.

    In areas where perhaps housing costs are lower, there might be less of a need for Build Canada Homes, but I think that in most cases, Canadians are feeling the pinch in having to pay a lot more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing. The goal is to build the type of housing for which people do not have to pay more than 30% of their household income.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Mike Moffatt, who is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the housing crisis. He comments on the program, saying, “Canada has a substantial shortage of three-bedroom and larger homes, and the need for our cities to densify, [but this program's] prioritization of small, low-rise homes is a peculiar choice.”

    Why is the government making a peculiar choice to help build the wrong type of houses, not what Canadians are looking for?

    Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with that. When Build Canada Homes makes its judgments, including for the 1,100 homes that are being built in British Columbia, it uses a varied metric of all types of housing, such as three-bedroom units in these buildings, two-bedroom, one-bedroom and accessible units. It is designed and built for a mosaic of the families that need them. If that needs to be adjusted, I would welcome the Conservatives' comments at committee to make sure that Build Canada Homes does that.

     Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. As we are here to discuss third reading of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, I have been sort of reflecting a bit. Of course, I have spoken on this issue a few times. I have spoken on housing many times in the House of Commons, in committee and certainly around the country. I guess it is no secret that I spent most of my adult life in local government, in municipal politics. I have sat in municipal council chambers and planning committee meetings, and I have also worked with a lot of local builders and understand the process they have to go through to get things approved.

    During my time as a mayor, I devoted an awful lot of time trying to speed up processes, and when things got stalled about 10 years ago, I was part of the charge at our district council to cut development charges by 50%. We were thinking ahead back then. Now, of course, here we are still talking about the development charges in this country. I guess if there is one thing I would regret from my time there, it is that I did not change the systems well enough. I worked within them to keep things moving, but after I left, things slowed down again a bit, I think. It would have been good if I had done things to change the process.

    If we fast-forward, we are now here in this place. I thought that, in a time of crisis, this place might work in such a way that we would see what the problems that created the crisis were and that we would work together to find a way to clear the bottlenecks that make it harder and more expensive to build homes.

    However, if we look at Bill C-20 today, I have to say I find my patience is a little worn. We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is actively compounding. It is getting worse every single month for young families and young professionals. Interestingly enough, I think it is also getting worse for seniors. We probably do not talk enough about seniors and how the housing crisis affects them. If people cannot afford to buy, that means they cannot afford to get into the market, which means the market is not healthy. This means, for the people who were planning to use the equity built up in their home to help fund their retirement, if they cannot afford to sell, they are kind of trapped there. We need movement in this system. This is something that affects all generations, not just young people, but that is mostly who we talk about.

    After all the debates and the discussion in this place, it is really frustrating that the government's response to this crisis of bureaucracy, pace, process and fees is the creation of a brand new, multi-billion-dollar federal bureaucracy called the Build Canada Homes corporation. For the record, I just want to make sure all Canadians know that I am not talking about a new agency. I am talking about the fourth federal housing agency. We are all familiar with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the work it does. It was created right after the Second World War, and it did miraculous things by getting things out of the way and just getting things built. We solved that housing crisis then in about 10 years. We also have, of course, the Canada Lands Company, which was created and actually does development. It uses federal lands to develop. I hear the members opposite talking about how this Build Canada Homes agency is going to build on federal lands, even though there already is one doing that.

    We are at a point of real crisis in our country on the housing file. I think people maybe thought that, when they elected this new Prime Minister, there was going to be some kind of shift from the past. They were promised this technocratic competence, a sort of practical delivery. We were told that we were going to get this economic mastermind. He has been the governor of a couple of banks, such as the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We thought we were going to get this leader who would move past the superficial politics of the past and bring this cold, hard managerial excellence to federal operations.

    Instead, though, it has actually been a bit of a disappointment, a bit of an illusion, I would say. What we see now is the style over substance that we had with the previous government. I can give examples. The first one would be that, like clockwork, on Monday mornings, the Prime Minister puts on a nice, new, clean hard hat, puts on a fancy, brand new, high-visibility vest, and he goes out into the suburbs of Ottawa and stands in front of a housing construction project for a nice photo op.

    I have to say that the Prime Minister looks like he is straight out of central casting. He looks really good in that get-up. It looks really exciting, because the image says that the Liberals are getting things done, that they are building. The staging is really immaculate. If members have not seen it, I encourage them to take a look. It is really good stuff. He holds these press conferences, but the interesting thing about press conferences, photo ops, talking points and bureaucracy is that they do not get homes built. They do not pour concrete. As it turns out, posing with a golden shovel does not get a roof over a family's head.

    The hard truth is that, while the Prime Minister is out there modelling safety gear for his communications team, actual housing starts in this country, which we are studying at the human resources committee, are declining. They are declining at a time when the first federal housing Crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does more research than anybody else on housing in this country, has reported that Canada needs to build between 430,000 and 480,000 homes per year just to reach affordability for all homes. We cannot even build 250,000 homes a year, and starts are declining. It is getting worse. This is what I find so incredibly frustrating. I think Canadians find it incredibly frustrating as well.

    At committee we looked at the actual structural design of this bill and this agency. We asked housing experts to come and tell us what they thought, and they exposed the reality. Do not get me wrong. We brought in some of the sharpest minds on this. There were builders and experts. Dr. Mike Moffatt was mentioned, who is a well-known expert on this file. Of course, everyone is very polite at committee, because that is what we do. We are polite. However, when we strip away all the polite language and the niceties at committee, their collective verdict was actually kind of devastating. Maybe the Liberal members did not hear this, but I heard over and again that if it were up to them, they would never have created this fourth federal housing agency.

     As it turns out, Canada does not suffer from a shortage of housing agencies. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have the Canada Lands Company, which develops on federal land. At the very time that Canada needs less government bureaucracy, costs, processes and painful work to get permission to build a house in this country, the government has responded with more bureaucracy. We saw the limits of this approach even with the launch of this thing. Everyone remembers, I am sure, when the Liberals proudly announcing the first six projects that were going to be done under the Build Canada Homes banner on federal lands. It was very exciting. It was evidence that they were hitting the ground running. Even before they turned it into a Crown corporation, it was an agency of the government. There were six new projects. It was so exciting. There was great fanfare. As it turns out, there were really good photo ops and staging. I will tell members that they really looked good. However, the truth is that those six projects they announced were already well under way by the second federal Crown corporation called the Canada Lands Company. It already had the land. It had already done a lot of the planning. Some of the units had already been built on some of these sites. They were presented as this proof that Build Canada Homes was going to develop faster on federal lands. Build Canada Homes did none of those things. What it did was adopt projects that were already years in the making and already well under way.

    If the Liberals slap a new corporate logo on the side of a train that has left a station and is moving down the track and then claim they built the engine, that is ridiculous. It is rebranding. They have rebranded the Canada Lands Company projects and called them Build Canada Homes projects. We are supposed to celebrate that because apparently it is building more homes, when really all they have done is slapped a new logo on it.

    If the Prime Minister really wanted to accelerate federal land development, he could expand the existing mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is an agency that has broad legislative authority. In 2017, it was handed the bulk of the government's national housing strategy to deliver programs. It was not really used to delivering direct programs anymore, but it scaled up and got things going, and for years delivered on these various different programs.

    However, instead of expanding the mandate or giving new directions to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which is already actively doing development, the Prime Minister has created a whole new parallel executive suite with new corporate rules.

    It has been a year. The Liberal government has built no homes, yet here we are celebrating. Not only have we created a new agency, but now we are going to jam through a piece of legislation that turns that new agency into a federal Crown corporation, as I pointed out, the third federal Crown corporation. I still do not know why we are celebrating that. The truth is the failure goes even deeper than just the administrative burden of this new thing. Experts like Mike Moffatt told the HUMA committee that they would not have done this either. At the same time, one of the problems with what the government has created is that there is a staggering lack of any concrete targets, clear definitions or binding timelines.

    Everybody should think about this for a second. This is a brand new fourth federal housing agency, the third new federal Crown corporation for housing. It has been given $13 billion and there are zero targets for how many units it is supposed to get done. The government says it is going to focus on non-market housing. I asked CMHC about this just the other day. It is the leading researcher on housing. CMHC told us how many units we need to get built in this country. It pointed out that 95% of housing in this country is market housing and 5% is non-market housing.

     I asked CMHC about this. It is interesting. It does not seem to have any targets. I asked whether the government had had a conversation with CMHC or its research department about maybe what their targets should be. The president and CEO of CMHC said they had not had those discussions. I asked if CMHC had done any research to send the government some targets. I realize it has taken employees from CMHC, so now maybe CMHC does different things, but it still does research. Maybe it could advise on how many non-market housing units the country actually needs. It has not done that.

     Of course, I asked the minister here, just moments ago, whether he had talked to CMHC and its research department about whether it had done any analysis of just how many units needed to be built.

    Interestingly enough, the CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a comment about how he did not know what their target would be, but that they had a certain amount of money. I said, “Wait a second, this is just based on how much money they have. Shouldn't this be based on the need for non-market housing?” Colleagues may be surprised, but I did not really get an answer to that question because, of course, it is Build Canada Homes. It is the Prime Minister's baby. Everyone is very excited about it and we do not ask too many questions, even though we have a situation today where a housing crisis has been getting worse. The government's response is to create a fourth federal housing agency and give it $13 billion.

    The minister stood here and said the goal is to get as many homes built as possible. Well, I do not find that very promising for Canadians, who are desperately hoping that one day maybe they might own a house. I look at all these pages down here. They are nice, bright, young people who may want to own a house one day. I worry about that.

    All we get from the government is more platitudes and more billions of dollars, with no targets. How do we measure success if the government has no goals and sets no targets? It is classic. There is that vast research department there that has advised every agency, the industry, the banks and the government on housing data. The government does not want to talk to CMHC. It is not interested in that. It is not interested in setting targets.

    In fact, the minister referred to a target for the Build Canada Homes corporation. He said it was just a random number. He did not like that. We got nothing. Obviously, he does not respect the work of CMHC and the research it does. I was talking about using those experts, who have done more analysis on the housing market in Canada than anybody, to help them come up with a number. Right now, we have this new agency. We are rushing through this bill because it needs to be a Crown corporation, because somehow that is going to make it better.

     I have talked to private and non-profit builders across Canada who already have applications in to this Build Canada Homes apparatus. Interestingly enough, with CMHC, when they had this program, there was an apparatus where builders could follow their application online and see how they were doing. They could reach out to get information about the status of their application. Curiously, there is no such thing with Build Canada Homes, so builders are sitting there waiting and wondering what the status of their file is.

     They do not know, really, what criteria will be used to adjudicate their file. They do not really know when a decision will be made. There is no way to track the progress. I have to say, as a former mayor who has dealt with this on the front lines, that this uncertainty, this lack of transparency, is a killer. It is a killer of housing development. That investment requires some level of certainty. When a builder does not know where their application stands in the process, capital sits idle. Land loans accumulate interest, because one has to borrow money for the land. Subcontractors cannot be booked.

    By building an agency with no timelines, no targets and no tracking framework, the government has not just created yet another bureaucracy at a time when we need to reduce bureaucracy; it has actually fixed in place this paralysis by process. It has institutionalized the bureaucracy, and we just do not know when this process is going to be done.

    Homes are built by builders, not by boards and certainly not by prime ministers and photo ops. The housing experts who came to our HUMA committee made it very clear that they would not have built this agency. The tools were there. They existed, and yet here we are. We have wasted an entire year, as the crisis gets worse, adding a fourth federal layer of bureaucracy and administration. It does not solve a crisis that is rooted in regulatory delays.

    If we do not fix time, we do not fix costs. Bill C‑20 does not fix time. It simply creates an unaccountable gatekeeper and makes builders wait in the dark. I call it the illusion of competence. We do not need a government that acts like a public relations firm. We need a government that focuses on the quiet, very unglamorous work of clearing the path, eliminating regulatory friction and restoring basic administrative competence. We need to get out of the way of builders and stop subsidizing the bureaucracy.

    If we stopped subsidizing and creating new agencies and new bureaucracies with billions of dollars, maybe then we would have the resources left over to invest in those important social and supportive housing needs that exist in our country. Maybe if we spent some time talking to the researchers, to get real data on what is needed in this country in terms of the number of social, supportive and non-market housing units, we could create some targets. We could have given the CMHC the tools it needed to make sure that this was happening.

    Instead, we spent one year creating another bureaucracy, and here we are. The crisis is worse than ever, and the minister has the gall to stand in the House and say that the goal is to get as many built as possible. Liberals say not to worry and to just trust them, because it has only been 11 years and they have created strategies. They have another strategy they want to create for housing for young people specifically.

    Canadians cannot live on strategies and proclamations and photo ops alone. They need homes. They need governments to stop getting in the way and to reduce the bureaucracy, the cost, the fees and the taxes.

    This was an opportunity for the government. I thought that maybe this was a Prime Minister who understood the file and understood the issue, that we need to use federal dollars and leverage federal infrastructure investment to get results at the local level, working with provinces and working with cities to get the job done, and to get out of the way. There is absolutely none of that. All we have now is a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with $13 billion, and anyone's guess is as good as mine as to how many units are going to get built. It is a huge disappointment. It is the illusion of action, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he was a mayor before being an MP. There was a program that was very helpful for municipalities. It was the housing accelerator fund, just like the Build Canada Homes program. This is what their leader was telling them. This article says, “Conservative MPs frustrated after [their leader] bars them from promoting housing fund”. The Conservative leader “instructed Conservative MPs to stop advocating on behalf of municipalities in their ridings who want to obtain funds [for housing].”

    The member said that he was a mayor. Was he one of the members who were told not to send a letter of support for a housing project in his municipality?

     Mr. Speaker, the fundamental difference between that member and me is that I recognize the importance of getting things done. Conservatives have proposed all along that we use federal dollars as leverage to make sure that municipalities are getting the job done. I will acknowledge that, in reality, the housing accelerator fund has been useful in some small and rural communities that are already doing really good things. However, in larger centres, where the epicentre of the crisis is, like the GTA and Toronto or the Lower Mainland and Vancouver, in those areas, they have used that money and they have given billions of dollars to cities on promises that they will be better. It has been a failure. It has been another classic Liberal situation where they give a whole bunch of money to cities, have a photo op and pretend that homes get built. It did not work.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs.

    What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.

    Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is a crisis, in many ways created by the current government. It has been building for years, I grant the Liberals that, but their solutions are, in fact, what the member said: They are building new bureaucracies, creating new agencies, and they give money out based on promises from cities that they will be better. As a case in point, the City of Toronto got the most money of anyone in the housing accelerator fund, $471 million. The Liberals gave it the money and made the deal, and then the City of Toronto, immediately after the ink was dry on that deal, raised its development charges by 40%.

    Do the Liberals not understand that rising costs make it less affordable and harder to buy a home? They did not get it, and they still do not get it. They are creating more bureaucracy. They are handing money with photo ops, and it is not getting the job done. They are completely ignoring that they are now a big part of the problem.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”.

     CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague always has incredibly insightful questions. That is a very good point.

     In fact, what has happened with respect to development charges is that the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges, but not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program. A local municipality can say, “Yes, we are good; we like our development charges at $100,000 a lot”, and that means nothing happens. Those development charges stay high and no results happen. It is all based on whether the municipality agrees to reduce its development charges.

     Conversely, the Conservative plan would be to leverage municipalities to reduce their fees, and to assist them, absolutely, with the costs of housing-enabling infrastructure, but it would be based on results, not on hopes of things getting better.

     Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on Bill C‑20 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He asked good questions. We really felt that he truly wanted to understand.

    After listening to him today, however, I have to wonder whether we were on the same committee or heard from the same witnesses.

    I find the premise of the member's speech a bit disingenuous. We heard the committee witnesses, including promoters and developers, talk about how BCH would help, because increasing the number of affordable homes would ease the pressure on the market. We heard, including from the head of CMHC, about how BCH and CMHC are collaborating and how their work is complementary. Most important, the CMHC CEO said that while CMHC does have the legislative mandate to do some of the work that BCH will be doing, it is not set up for it. It would take it quite some time to ramp up to get to that point. I am just wondering if my colleague can really stand here today and say that none of these things were heard at committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am a big fan of that member. We have done some great work together. However, I think she has been afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear.

     There is no question that builders and developers said they would use Build Canada Homes and work with it, that they have to work with the cards they are dealt by this federal government and they are going to work with them. They also said they would not have created this agency if it were up to them. They did say those words. The fact is that all the member heard was that they love Build Canada Homes, they want to work with it and they want to do these things.

    I also heard the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do. The interesting thing about this is that, in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy, the CMHC was not set up to deliver that either, but it scaled up and did it. This is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan. They gave the housing project to CMHC in 2017, which scaled up, but now all of a sudden it is incapable of scaling up to deliver this stuff. I do not know why we have a fourth federal housing bureaucracy.

     Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned taxes and costs from the government. The member has already spoken about that. The government has other tools. Instead of setting up a bureaucracy to spend and waste money, the government could be doing other things. One of the things that I would like the member's comments on is building codes. It has been estimated that the latest round of building codes created by the government agencies will potentially add $115,000 to the cost of an average house in Canada.

    I wonder if maybe changing the building codes or keeping in mind the cost of things that are happening in the building codes might be an even easier, simpler way to reduce the cost of housing in our country.

    Mr. Speaker, that is another incredibly insightful question from my colleague. He happens to be a builder, and he knows what he is talking about. He has actually built homes, and he understands these changes and what they have done.

     The real problem with the building codes process federally is, of course, the process itself. There is a whole process that they go through where they make recommendations to make changes to the code. Then provinces may or may not adopt that. The interesting thing about these code review bodies is that they are populated, mostly, not by electricians or plumbers or carpenters, but by lobbyists and salespeople for the people who manufacture these products. In fact, they do not ever consider what the cost implications are of the changes they are making.

     The Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that over the last 10 years, changes made to the building codes have added over $100,000 to the cost of a home. Not all of those things are common-sense, energy efficiency-type things. They have just added more cost, and there has been no consideration by the national building codes or the National Research Council of what that means for the cost of a new home.

    Mr. Speaker, giving a farewell speech in Parliament feels a little like delivering a eulogy at one's own funeral, so if I leave members with anything, let it be my personal gratitude for the opportunity to serve and to make a difference, and the unending importance of doing politics differently.

     Politics is like pushing a boulder up a hill. All of us feel that at times, I think. It is rewarding and frustrating. It is meaningful progress in one moment and unfinished work at the same time. There are three things that I think matter as we are pushing that boulder uphill. Sometimes it rolls back down on us, obviously, and sometimes we get it to the top or think we have gotten it to the top. We need ambition, and I do not mean ambition in personal title; I mean ambition in ideas. We also need a team. No one accomplishes anything alone, and I would not have accomplished anything over the years without my team.

    There is a quote I am reminded of. It says that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, and “Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” I think that in politics, one needs almost unreasonable persistence at times. It does sometimes pay off. I have been lucky to be a part of efforts to deliver progress at times.

    There has been stronger climate action and accountability, for my kids and hopefully for our economy, and action to reduce poverty. There have been, with the Canada child benefit, hundreds of kids lifted out of poverty. The guaranteed income supplement is incredibly important for seniors. The Canada workers benefit, formerly the working income tax benefit, has increased in a significant way, and tens of thousands of workers have been lifted out of poverty. I am lucky to have been part of that advocacy. There is also a new disability benefit that needs to be improved and strengthened, of course.

     When I look back over 10 years, this is part of the work we have been able to do together. If we have the courage to reform old age security, we could actually end seniors' poverty without spending a single dollar. I hope future Parliaments get that done.

    There has been action to defend competition and protect consumers. Of the many things I have been proud of, one is that CEOs of oligopolies do not like to come to committee when I am there, whether they are CEOs from Rogers, Bell, Stellantis, Facebook, Apple, Google or grocery oligopolies.

    There is a story here, because it is incredibly important to work together, where we can, across party lines at committee. I am turning 42 years old next week, but on my birthday a number of years ago, I was so incredibly furious because grocery store CEOs had all been communicating with one another to cut pandemic hero pay at the same time for low-income workers. I tapped out a motion on my phone. We brought the industry committee together, brought the grocery store CEOs to that committee and worked across party lines to deliver recommendations that the government acted on to make sure we criminalized wage-fixing so that what took place cannot take place again.

    We have built more housing. I have been part of those efforts and part of advocating. We have gotten to a place where, across party lines, we all understand the need to end restrictive zoning and to get out of the way so the private market can deliver. I think more work still needs to be done to deliver non-market housing and to really and truly treat housing as a home first.

     There has been action to protect animals: to end the captivity of whales and dolphins; to ban shark finning and testing on animals, especially cosmetic testing; and to strengthen the Criminal Code against animal abuse. If someone had told me before I was elected that I would be at a press conference beside Jane Goodall and Murray Sinclair, advocating for treating animals humanely, I would not have believed them.

    We are treating addiction as a health issue and Canadians as responsible adults. For example, we have legalized cannabis. No, the sky did not fall, and now I am no longer a criminal. Overwhelmingly, we still need to follow through on following the evidence to save lives and truly treat substance use as the health issue that it is, the same way we treat eating disorders, gambling addictions or alcohol addictions.

    I have been there for my community. All of us who have served through and since the pandemic have had the frustration and the exhaustion, but also the good fortune, to be there for our communities, delivering for thousands of people and making sure that they are able to access benefits and supports in the most critical time and moments of their life.

     I have also been there for my community in probably its most difficult time over 10 years: I was there with the Danforth families, including the Fallon family in the wake of the Danforth shooting. Then I was part of efforts supporting those same families and advocating for sensible gun control.

     I can point to my standing up for constituents. I consider myself a pretty good advocate, but an expert in nothing. Constituents who are experts in something or have lived experience have come to me with ideas. I can point to a range of examples, but I would hold up childhood cancer survivor Helena Kirk. I worked hand in hand with her and other advocates, and we were able to deliver tens of millions of dollars for pediatric cancer research and support.

    We have been defending human rights and civil liberties, and dying with dignity, of course. Being elected, we were dealing with that issue for the very first time. One of the first moments when I disagreed with the government was to say that I did not think this law was constitutional and that we should fix it. On the Emergencies Act, there was calling out its invocation in an overbroad manner. There was fixing overbroad anti-terrorism legislation from a past Conservative government, and defending international human rights in, hopefully, a consistent way and with a sense of conscience for Rohingya refugees, Uyghurs, Hong Kong democracy activists, Palestinians and others.

     To make politics about ideas, in the pandemic, we transitioned from hosting regular town halls to hosting a podcast. I have been lucky to have many colleagues in this place join me for conversations across the aisle to really make politics about ideas. When I think back, it was a promise I made when I was running in the nomination in 2013 and 2014.

    I leave with, yes, a sense of accomplishment in some ways but also a sense of unfinished business. I do hope that future Parliaments will take wealth inequality and generational fairness more seriously. I hope they take action to ensure that, in a wealthy country like ours, people will not live in poverty, and all people will live with a core sense of dignity.

    I hope there is transformational action to deliver competition. We are a country of oligopolies, but we should not be. I hope that we do see a wartime effort to build housing, transit and clean energy infrastructure, and that we take international peace assistance and co-operation more seriously. We could use more Pearson in this moment.

    We all know that this is a job that comes with little job description. It is what we put into it. It is what we make it. I have had some roles, not an unending number, over the years. On the anti-poverty caucus, I had the co-chair role alongside Senator Pate where we advocated for basic income supports and strengthening the social safety net. There was the animal welfare caucus, which I helped found with other Liberal colleagues. I was the 416 caucus chair, and we helped deliver transit and housing for our city. I was chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the team on the Canadian side.

    I was also minister of housing, where I was lucky to deliver, for colleagues on all sides of the aisle, housing and building housing faster. It was one of the busiest times of my life, and my wife can attest to this. It was four months, although I will say that I did serve under two prime ministers.

    The role I have lived the most, the one I have worked hardest to make a reality, is simply to be a principled voice in Parliament, one who takes ideas seriously, is willing to work across the aisle, acts with integrity, and more than anything, is honest, which is the most important value in this place.

     I wrote this a while back, and I believe it to be true. I think we can all agree that no political party represents our views perfectly. We find the party that best represents our views and values, and we engage, debate, and organize to bring our party and country closer to those goals. We push, and in my case, I have seen my role as being to push the government to be the best version of itself. Yes, we disagreed at times but made that disagreement about ideas, and more often than not, with the benefit of time and persistence, there was change.

    I will comment on the importance of independence. I was just telling my wife this. In the leadership race in 2023 for the Ontario Liberal leadership, I was in Norfolk County at an event. A woman rolled up in front of the café that I was about to go into for the event. She had all the “F Trudeau” stickers one can imagine. Her pickup truck was decked out. I went in to the event and saw that she had a thick binder of articles about me. I was not really sure how it would end.

    I gave my speech, including the ideas I cared about but also the approach to politics I cared about. Afterwards, as I was working table to table, I came to her table. She quickly shut the binder and said, “You know what? I really appreciate what you said about independence. We need more of that in politics.” It strikes me that, when we take a step back, not only do we agree on more than we disagree on, but overwhelmingly across the aisle, we do care about the same approach to politics when we step outside of this place.

     When I was first running in the nomination, a 29-year-old who had no idea what I was doing, a friend of mine from law school gave me a book entitled Tragedy in the Commons. I do not know if members have read it, but it is a series of exit interviews from former parliamentarians. They all basically say the same thing. It is a series of laments. They said things such as that when they came to Ottawa, they wanted to make the biggest difference they could on behalf of their community, but when they arrived, they read the canned talking points they were given to read, delivered the prewritten speeches given to them by staffers to deliver and voted how they were told to vote. They did not make the difference they had set out to make.

    When I was elected, I was determined to not give an exit interview like that. In the back of my mind, I always kept this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: “We are what we pretend to be, so we should be careful about what we pretend to be.” I actually happen to think it is doubly true in politics. This is my last speech, but when I go back to my first speech, and to judge at the end, one might want to go back to the start, I said at the time that I would stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness and the importance of reasonable disagreement.

    If I leave members with anything, it is this message: We should all act how we want this place to be. We need more ideas, more independent thinking and more honesty. Honesty is central to trust, and trust is at the heart of our representative democracy. Amidst the centralization, the pressure and the whips, we should act how we want the House to be.

    Yes, I can hear the common reply to this: “But isn't politics a team sport?” First, I would say that we are first and foremost trustees in the public interest, even if it means, yes, the occasional visit to the whip's office. We all win elections as a team, but we should remember why we win elections. We win elections to serve ideas. We do not come up with ideas to serve elections.

    The second thing to say is that we are also voices for our home communities, and those home communities are our team too. When I go back to my local grocery store and I see a friend from high school, they are my team. When I go back home and I see the volunteer who knocked doors with me in the snow in 2015, they are my team too.

    I just want to say, yes, I have been a very proud member of the Liberal caucus since 2015. I have been more proud to be the representative for Beaches—East York. I want to thank Beaches—East York and everyone back home. I want to thank supporters for everything. I mostly just want to thank Amy and my family, mostly for putting up with me but also for standing beside me.

    I am going to suggest that we take all the questions and comments first and then provide the hon. member with an opportunity to respond to them all at once.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

    Mr. Speaker, in tribute to my colleague, I will share with folks a couple of lessons I have learned in my time. The first is that the power and responsibility granted to a member of Parliament from the centre of a political party are never greater than the power and responsibility granted by our constituents, and the first and foremost role of an MP is to hold the government to account. On that point, I have watched our colleague do that even while sitting in the governing party's caucus, and that takes a spine.

    Our colleague has introduced bold private member's legislation that started national conversations and that pushed his party in Parliament to take clear positions on critical issues. Parliament works only when each of us remembers who sent us here. In that, Parliament needs much more envelope pushing and much less quiet complacency. My hope, as our colleague takes his leave of the House, is that the spirit he demonstrated over his decade of service here takes root, with a caveat.

    Here is one other lesson I have learned in Parliament. In order to get anything done for our constituents, we have to build consensus. Oftentimes in Parliament, lesson number one and lesson number two are in direct conflict with each other. How do we advance a policy on behalf of our constituency if our party does not want to embrace it, and how do we convince colleagues that our solution or our leadership is in their best interest?

    The answer to all these questions is humility, patience, persistence and self-discipline. Of all of the human virtues, these qualities are hardest to master, and there is no harder place to learn them than in front of the screens of millions of Canadians while sitting in the pressure cooker that is the Ottawa bubble as an elected leader. I see my colleague. I know that my colleague has always had his heart with the people who elected him, and as he leaves the House, colleague to colleague, I wish him this blessing: continuing the journey to find balance with those lessons, which admittedly is something I have to remind myself to fixate on every day.

    I also want to thank him for taking risks, pushing himself and earning the right to say that he has walked that path, which frankly few people in this place actually do. In his future endeavours, may he be known as a consensus-building maverick. For that matter, for the sake of our nation, I wish that for all of us.

    Mr. Speaker, it is sad for me to have to say this to my colleague from Beaches—East York, whom I knew and particularly appreciated at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for several years.

    First, if his wife is in the gallery, I would like to take the liberty of telling her that she and my colleague have a lovely kitchen, which we have had the pleasure of seeing many times in committee, and that they also have very beautiful children.

    What I will take away from my colleague is his spirit of independence. Independence obviously resonates with me very much. That is one of my motivations for being in politics. I actually wanted to ask him about that, and he talked about it in his speech. Indeed, for me, and just like the member for Calgary Nose Hill or the former NDP member for Windsor West, when we were on the Standing Committee on Industry, we knew that we had truly independent members.

    As for my colleague's legacy in the House, I would like to ask him the following question: If we were to create the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith index to measure MPs' degree of independence from their party line, how would that index look right now?

    I want to thank Nate, and I hope to see him again soon.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to say a couple of kind words about my good friend from Beaches—East York.

    I will start by saying that it is disappointing. In the last few weeks, this is the third progressive member of Parliament from the government caucus who is leaving this place, especially at a time when we need progressive politics.

     I cannot think of another member of Parliament in the history of this country who has fought and worked more to end animal cruelty and stand up for animal rights. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and we all know we have to carry that work forward. We will take his crusade with us.

    My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about courage, and I really want to emphasize that. He stood with the NDP well before the supply and confidence agreement on pharmacare. I am disappointed that he does not get to see it exercised in his home province. I hope the government will take that to heart. He stood with my bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to tackle the toxic drug crisis. He was an outlier in his caucus and he stood with us to make sure that we had a plan to respond to the toxic drug crisis. I want to thank him for his support.

    I want to highlight one thing, which is his job as a minister. He took it to heart when we asked for support for a pool upgrade in my riding. He understood the need for seniors to have a safe place to exercise and how it was community medicine. He constantly texted me, emailed me, phoned me and checked on the project. He worked so diligently. I was so taken aback by his persistence to try to get something done. It resulted in the single largest federal government investment in mid-Vancouver Island for a recreation facility. My community is grateful.

    I hope he will visit my community so that we can celebrate the incredible work he put into our project. I want to thank him for his work and courage, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about my colleague from Beaches—East York.

    I come to this place as a relatively new MP, but I had the privilege of collaborating with the member in my former life, leading a think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University. I greatly appreciated that we had the chance to engage on a number of the ideas he mentioned in his speech, particularly competition policy and responsible technology.

     What I especially appreciate about our departing colleague is his ability and commitment to attach thoughtful policy to committed politics. Our colleague is a person of ideas and he is deeply committed to the underlying change that can happen with more attention to those issues.

    We collaborated for a brief time on the industry committee. In fact, we had an exchange at the industry committee yesterday with a representative of one of those mega-platforms, which I think summoned the spirit of our departing member for Beaches—East York. In that time, I had the chance to understand his commitment to deep engagement on the issues and why and how it matters to get the details right, to get deep into the weeds of an issue, to call those involved in that issue to account and to be responsible, and to engage more broadly in how these big systems that are so removed from people, on the face of them, actually touch our constituents in all kinds of ways. These issues include affordability, protection online or those precious creatures that do not have their own voices in this place.

    I deeply appreciate my colleague's commitment to bringing those system-level issues and questions and bringing them down to our constituents, not only in his riding but on behalf of those who care about similar issues across Canada. Our colleague represented an area east of the Don River. I represent an area west of the Don River. In the Toronto caucus and in some of the political engagements we had, I learned a lot about the way we can have committed politics and attach them to thoughtful policy.

    With that, I wish my colleague the best in his new venture and new adventures. I know this place and our country have been stronger because of his service.

     Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Beaches—East York, I will say, on behalf of this House, we wish him and his family good health and happiness.

    The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

    Mr. Speaker, I should not have used that line at the outset. I felt like I was speaking at my own funeral, but now I have just heard other people speak at it.

    Where do I start? My wife is a chef, so that is why it is such a lovely kitchen.

     I do not mind the label “maverick”. I am a shameless politician who likes getting elected, and that does not hurt, but I have actually always seen myself as being more of a reformer. I am not alone, standing here and giving this speech.

     I think about the different issues I have raised over the years. When I first raised privacy issues, we worked collaboratively at committee. It was largely unanimous in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but privacy was not on the government's agenda. It then became government legislation on the government's agenda, like the digital government the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park just spoke about. We were early speaking about it, and now it is more firmly part of the government's agenda, recognizing that we live our lives online and we need laws to respect and realize that reality.

    When we look at the working income tax benefit that became the Canada workers benefit, it was a caucus resolution that I put forward, which then became government policy.

     I do not want to tell tales out of school, but the former prime minister called me shortly after my second son was born in December 2019. I said, “Prime Minister, thank you so much for the call. I have to be honest. You are not going to love this, but I just won the private member's bill lottery again and I am going to do something on drug policy.” There was a pause on the phone. I said, “We can collaborate. I could go alone and do drug decriminalization, but give me an adviser from your office, an adviser from Health and an adviser from Justice, and we will find consensus and get something done.” We did that and we changed the law, and now we treat substance use more as a health issue than we otherwise did.

    I think persistence is right. I think patience is right. I think working collaboratively while maintaining a sense of principled independence is also an important part of the picture.

     It has been great working with the members. I look forward to swimming in that pool. They can let me know when it is ready and I will be in Vancouver.

    This is the last thing. Everyone has been offering advice. I would tell the leader of the NDP, who is new, to stick to his principles. I would tell the Prime Minister to stick to his values. I would tell the Conservative leader to find his sincere and serious side, and the picture might improve. Otherwise, I thank everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to give my very best to my friend and colleague in his future endeavours, whatever they might be, and I want to acknowledge his family, staff and friends, who I am sure are very sorry to see him go. Others will get a bit more time with a loved one.

    Having said that, I want to get right into the discussions and talk about some of the things I heard coming from the Conservative Party today. I often talk about how the Conservatives like to mislead Canadians. Today, again, we are getting a good sample of that.

     I believe the Conservative critic for housing is a former mayor. He can correct me if I am wrong. He stood in his place and said, in essence, that municipalities do not require, need or want any sort of assistance in dealing with bureaucracy and reducing the cost of planning. The individual should go and visit some municipalities, and I would really encourage members opposite to do likewise. Some of them have. I can recall a letter campaign that went around among a number of the Conservative MPs, in which they were asking for financial support.

    If we take a look at it, the city of Winnipeg has benefited immensely from national policies dealing with housing. I am thinking about the accelerator fund. If we talk to the mayor and the city councillors, we will find that there was wide support for that program, and as a direct result, hundreds of homes have been built. To say, as the Conservative Party consistently does, that the national government should just get out of the way and it does not have a role to play in housing, is misguided at best. Ultimately, it is potentially threatening, if we think about how the Conservatives might ever again take the reins of power, especially the far-right Conservatives we see day in and day out here on the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today's Conservative Party would never have supported things like the CMHC, which has been around for generations, provided stability within our mortgage regime and enabled millions of Canadians to acquire the finances that are necessary in order to be a homeowner. I question where the Conservative right and its policies are today. Its members have made it very clear that they do not support Bill C‑20. Imagine my shock. I am not shocked.

    I can tell the House that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party is once again making a mistake by not realizing the difference between, let us say, the CMHC and Canada Lands and what we are proposing within the Build Canada Homes legislation.

    Arnold Viersen: We know the difference.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, they do not really know the difference. At least, they have not demonstrated that they do, because they constantly stand up and ask what the difference is. They do not understand it.

    Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand it, but the Conservative Party does not understand it. At least, the candidates who have stood up obviously do not understand it, because if they did, they would see the value in having this legislation passed. Build Canada Homes has the potential to do a wide variety of things, which the Conservative Party should recognize, given the time. The fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue is that we, the vast majority of Canadians and all provinces and territories, because they participate in the federal programs, recognize that the national government has a role to play in housing. This should be indisputable.

     We would think the Conservatives would understand and appreciate it. I am not surprised, because if we take a look at it, when the Leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, he built six houses. I do not know where they are, but apparently he built six homes; not him personally, but apparently, his department. Is that any shock? I do not think so, given what the Conservatives are saying today.

    If they were to listen to what their communities are saying and wanted to add value to the housing stock, or if they were to take a look at what this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, said as a part of our election platform to deal with the issues of affordability, which includes housing, they would see results. One year later, housing and rental prices have gone down. We have a government that is aggressively pushing the expansion of our housing market. Meanwhile, we see the Conservatives saying, “Get out of the way.” I do not understand how they believe that affordable housing is going to appear out of nowhere.

    An hon. member: That is a solution.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not a solution; it is a dumb idea being promoted by Conservative members.

    At the end of the day, a vast majority of Canadians recognize—

    Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. I believe the member was referring to Conservatives and our ideas and he called us a bad word, an unparliamentary word. I would like him to retract that word.

    It was not directed at any individual member, and even then, I do not think it would be unparliamentary.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

    Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that, while the Conservatives say how much they love freedom and do not want censorship, the member is trying to say that I cannot say the Conservative Party has dumb ideas.

     When one really stops and thinks about it, their solution for the housing crisis in Canada is to stand back and do nothing. There are provinces, municipalities, non-profit organizations and stakeholders out there saying that the federal government should do something, which is what Bill C-20 would do.

    Through Bill C-20, we would develop a corporation that would support the expansion of Canada's housing industry and our housing stock. For example, we are talking about promoting modular homes; increasing housing co-ops and other forms of non-profit housing; and working with municipalities and provinces to add value and to increase the amount of affordable housing. That is what Bill C-20 is all about.

    The Conservatives say, “No, we do not want that.” Why is that? I do not understand it for the life of me. They say that they understand the needs of Canadians, but they do not. They are going to vote against Bill C-20, just like they vote against any idea that comes out of the government to be affordable for Canadians—

     We will have to continue this later.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable milestone for the Kiwanis Club of Sault Ste. Marie as it celebrates 100 years of awesome service.

     Since its founding in 1926, the club has embodied the very best of volunteerism, generosity and community leadership. For a century, its members have dedicated countless hours to improving the lives of children and families through fundraising, literacy initiatives, scholarships, youth leadership programs and support for local organizations.

     Whether through the Kiwanis pancake breakfast, partnership with the Thrive Child Development Centre or care packages for vulnerable children, the club's impact has been felt for generations. Its members have shown that lasting change is built through compassion, inclusion and service above self.

     I extend sincere congratulations to all past and present members of the Kiwanis Club of Sault Ste. Marie as it begins its second century of service. I know that it will be just as inspiring as the first.

    Mr. Speaker, Italian culture is a rich tapestry of history, art, cuisine, family tradition and the values of respect for each other.

     Family is extremely important in the Italian culture. My grandfather arrived in Canada in 1950, where he had the opportunity to work and provide a home for his family. I had the privilege of growing up with my nonna who taught me the beauty of the Italian cuisine, which is enjoyed in my community in King—Vaughan and across Canada. Her recipes and teachings of tolerance, compassion and love will always be treasured.

    [Member spoke in Italian]

[English]

    As chair of the Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group, I am proud to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Republic of Italy. Let us all reflect on the friendships that Canada and Italy share, and let us continue the traditions. May we celebrate and continue to flourish together.

    Viva Canada! Viva Italia!

    Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the impact of Zero‑C, a company based in Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

     Zero‑C recently won the award of excellence in the manufacturing business category at the south shore chamber of commerce and industry gala, a testimony to its innovation and leadership.

    Zero‑C stands out for its commitment to sustainable, forward-thinking solutions. It perfectly embodies Quebec's expertise and the ability of our companies to innovate while contributing to a more responsible and high-performing economy. This success is the result of the hard work of a passionate team that is a source of pride for our region. Congratulations to this company on this well-deserved recognition. I wish it every success in the future.

    Mr. Speaker, over one year into this Prime Minister's mandate, and Canadians are still waiting for action on the national projects that were promised.

     Despite Liberal rhetoric, no new pipelines have been approved, and major projects continue to be stuck in purgatory, including the Trans‑Canada Highway through northwestern Ontario. Improving this vital piece of infrastructure is top of mind for people in our region, whether it be for the safety of travellers or for our overall economic sovereignty. That is why I have been advocating for this project for nearly seven years.

    Recently, I presented a petition to this House, signed by Canadians from every single province, calling on the government to support improvements to the highway through northwestern Ontario. Canadians know our national highway holds national importance, and its time the Liberals recognize it too.

    I stand once again, urging the government to finally make good on its promises and finally get shovels in the ground.

    Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the excellence, discipline, and determination of the 785 St‑Eustache Kiwanis squadron.

    On June 6, during the 2026 provincial military drill competition organized by the eastern division of the Regional Cadet Support Unit, 785 Squadron took first place in the triumph category, earning the title of best squad in its category.

    This victory is the result of remarkable hard work, strong team spirit and exemplary dedication on the part of our young cadets. I would like to congratulate the cadets, their instructors, the volunteers, the families and everyone who supports them on their journey. They proudly represent St‑Eustache and the entire Rivière-des-Mille-Îles riding.

    Congratulations to the 785 St‑Eustache Kiwanis squadron on this tremendous achievement.

     Mr. Speaker, record-high youth unemployment in Canada is a direct result of the Liberal government's reckless immigration policies. By flooding the labour market with temporary foreign workers and residents, the current government has created a wage-suppressing crisis. Instead of protecting opportunities for young Canadians, these policies have locked our youth out of the workforce, fuelling a devastating job crisis.

     Ethan Miranda is a bright young man who did everything he was supposed to do. He studied hard, earned excellent grades and was accepted in one of Canada's top universities in a highly competitive program. He graduated with honours and expected to find employment in his field. After 500 applications, he was forced to accept a job just barely above minimum wage.

     Now the Liberal government has launched an international campaign to recruit more foreign students to Canada who compete with Ethan and other young Canadians who are struggling to find work. The Liberal government should stop pandering to lobbyists and start putting Canadians first. Conservatives would replace the temporary foreign worker program with one that would prioritize Canadian youth and Canadian workers.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, a funeral took place at the Eastlink Centre hockey arena for a true Prince Edward Island legend, Forbes Kennedy.

     Raised in Charlottetown, Forbie built an extraordinary career in professional hockey, playing more than 600 games in the NHL with the Chicago Blackhawks, the Detroit Red Wings, the Boston Bruins, the Philadelphia Flyers and the Toronto Maple Leafs. Known for his toughness, determination and fierce loyalty to his teammates, he earned the respect of players and fans across North America.

     Beyond the rink, Islanders knew him as someone who never forgot where he came from. Forbes Kennedy represented the grit, humility and work ethic that Islanders value so deeply. He coached generations of young athletes and remained an important figure in our province's rich hockey and baseball history.

     I offer sincere condolences to Forbes's family, friends, former teammates and all those mourning his loss. May his memory continue to inspire, both on and off the ice.

     Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honour a man who has spent a lifetime proving that success means nothing unless one shares it. Bob Saunders has been called a perennial booster of good things, a title that is well earned.

     From founding Saunders Subaru to supporting arts, youth, sports, health care, veterans and education across Vancouver Island, Bob has never stopped giving back. I can speak to this personally. As a former Wounded Warriors Canada team runner, I have seen first-hand what Bob's generosity means to those who carried the weight of service long after coming home, not just in dollars, but in dignity, hope and healing. Bob believes that paying it forward and civic-minded people who lead by example inspire the next generation of community leaders. He has lived every word of that and he has inspired me.

    Recently, I had the honour of joining Bob and his beloved Norma at a Victoria Shamrocks season opener, celebrating 70 years of marriage and 70 years of making our island better. On behalf of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and those across Vancouver Island, I thank Bob, Norma and the entire Saunders family. Their legacy is written in the lives that they have changed.

    Mr. Speaker, visitors strolling through the Parc des pionniers in Baie-Comeau will see a 1,150-foot-long snake winding its way across, made up of some 34,000 rocks painted by people from around the world, like a fantastical creature emerging from the nearby sea.

    This immense creature sprang from the genius of a young boy, Hugo Jobin. At eight years old, when leukemia was threatening his childhood, Hugo chose to bring his rock snake to life, because he decided then that he would beat not only leukemia, but also a Guinness world record.

    Two years later, Hugo has beaten cancer and has already beaten every possible record for love and solidarity, alongside an entire community and, of course, his parents, Mélanie and Nicolas, as well as his little sister.

    I want to thank Hugo for showing us that the act of creating gives us even greater strength. He is 10 years old today. The Bloc Québécois is celebrating life with him and, soon, his Guinness world record.

     Mr. Speaker, I stand today to champion the Dr. Peter Centre, an organization in my riding that integrates housing, health care, nutrition, therapeutic and cultural programs to serve the underserved and the vulnerable. The centre's integrated model has demonstrated positive and measurable results among its clients for decades. I have personally witnessed its impact: Reduced dependence on emergency departments, improved health status and fewer overdoses equal a decrease in health care costs in the long run. However, most important is the hope that the clients get from this program and the sense of belonging and integration into the community.

     The Dr. Peter Centre has begun to extend this program across Canada. The vulnerable and underserved need our help and support to achieve these outcomes: positive health and social and economic well-being. After all, is this not what we all came here to do?

    Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, former prime minister Stephen Harper delivered in this House a historic apology and redress for the Chinese head tax. That was a defining moment in our country's reconciliation. It recognized a historic wrong and affirmed the great contributions of Chinese Canadians to Canada. From the railways that united our nation to the businesses, professions and communities that strengthen it today, Chinese Canadians have shaped our country's success for generations.

    Today, Chinese Canadians continue to excel in public service, entrepreneurship, academics and culture. That is why I have introduced Motion No. 32, which would designate June 22 as national Chinese Canadian contributions day and recognize June as Chinese Canadian contributions month.

     As we mark this important anniversary, let us honour the resilience, achievements and legacy of Chinese Canadians and ensure that their contributions continue to be recognized for generations to come.

    Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks in Port Moody—Coquitlam, I have been truly inspired by remarkable young people. I met students at the Youth Leadership Society of B.C.'s Model UN, the HanaTV youth press corps and the Steps Together Foundation public speaking contest, young people who were debating human rights and diplomacy, learning journalism and finding the courage to use their voices. I also had the honour of meeting members of the 754 Phoenix Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and hearing the remarkable Port Moody Youth Symphony Orchestra.

     These opportunities do not happen by accident. They are built by founders, mentors, families and leaders in every field who pour their hearts into helping young people grow and lead. This gives me great hope for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that Canada is in a recession.

    While the Liberals refuse to acknowledge this and continue to play with words, Canadians are facing very real hardships. A total of 2.2 million Canadians, a third of whom are children, rely on food banks. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. Housing is no longer affordable, and young people are giving up on the dream of home ownership. The overall economy is not doing any better. Productivity is tanking, businesses are investing less, and this marks the fifth negative quarter. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the labour market has weakened and that businesses are postponing their investment plans because of increased uncertainty.

    Banks are forecasting dismal growth of 0.8% according to Scotiabank and 0.5% according to BMO. That is the reality for all Canadians. Since the Prime Minister took office, we have had three negative quarters. Unfortunately, yes, Canada is in a recession. When will we see real results for all Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, today I want to highlight an act of generosity that deserves recognition.

    Recently, my father, who is 94 years old, had his mobility scooter break down. This vehicle is much more than a means of transportation for him. It also represents his independence and freedom.

    We called Remorquage Boissonneault for help. Once the vehicle had been towed, I asked the tow operator, Luc Dumont, how much we owed him. His response was that we did not owe him anything and that he does not charge seniors for that type of service.

    My father was touched by this simple gesture, which allows seniors, who often live on modest incomes, to avoid an extra expense and maintain their mobility. At a time when we often talk about the major challenges that our seniors face, it is important to recognize these concrete gestures that are truly making a difference in their daily lives.

    I want to thank Remorquage Boissonneault for their generosity and for their example of solidarity with our entire community.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is falling behind. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada stands alone as the only G20 country in a recession. Families feel it every day. Paycheques do not stretch as far, bills keep piling up, and home ownership is slipping out of reach. Canadians are left asking a simple question: How did we get here? The answer is a decade of Liberal economic failure.

    The Liberals said this spring that they would borrow $65 billion, yet the independent budget watchdog says the real number is $72 billion. That is $7 billion more on debt, $7 billion more to be paid by our children and grandchildren. The Liberals keep spending like there is no tomorrow, while Canadians are left paying the price today with higher debt, higher costs and less opportunity.

     Canadians deserve better than excuses. They deserve a government that grows the economy instead of growing the debt. It is time to end the reckless spending, restore fiscal responsibility and get Canada back on track.

    Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, a time to celebrate the histories, cultures, languages and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada.

     In my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we live on the ancestral and unceded territories of the Squamish, shíshálh, Líl̓wat and N'Quatqua nations. Archeological evidence from B.C. shows that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands for more than 14,000 years, representing one of the longest continuous human histories anywhere in the world.

     This month, communities across our region are coming together to celebrate indigenous history and culture. Whether attending syíyaya Days on the Sunshine Coast, joining National Indigenous Peoples Day celebrations at the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre or learning about indigenous history from a guided Talaysay Tour in West Vancouver, there are many opportunities to learn from and celebrate the first peoples of these lands.

    I encourage all Canadians to take this opportunity to listen, learn and celebrate the rich indigenous heritage that continues to shape our communities and our country.

     [Member spoke in Ucwalmícwts]

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the price for having the only recession in the G20. Now the Prime Minister is forcing Canadians to pay $90 billion for a high-speed rail project that will destroy farms in Quebec, all without consulting farmers. Communities in regional Quebec will pay the price, yet they will not even get a station.

    Why is the Prime Minister sacrificing Quebec's regions for yet another Liberal white elephant?

     Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers voted for a Liberal government in the last election. They elected 44 Liberal MPs in Quebec, and high-speed rail was part of the Liberal election platform in that province.

    High-speed rail will create over 50,000 jobs, contribute over $37 billion to GDP and bring a more prosperous and sustainable future for Quebec.

    Mr. Speaker, it just creates jobs for their Liberal friends.

    This “phantom” railway already has 13 vice-presidents, all of whom have received a $2.3-million bonus, even though not a single inch of track has been laid in Canada. Now, the Prime Minister wants to force farmers to lose their land and charge every Canadian family $4,000.

    Why is he proposing yet another white elephant when we are already in a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, we need to support large-scale national projects.

    The corridor will be only 60 metres wide, but it is the largest infrastructure project in the country's history.

    Now is the time to build Quebec strong and build Canada strong, and we are going to do it.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has created the only recession in the G7 and the G20. Today, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy revealed it is getting worse: an 8% increase in consumer insolvencies and a 10% increase in bankruptcies. In the 12 months the Prime Minister has been in office, we have had the highest number of insolvencies in a decade and a half. The Liberal Prime Minister created this mess by doubling the deficit, driving up inflation and grinding growth down.

    Will he reverse these disastrous Liberal policies before more Canadians go bankrupt?

     Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the biggest transformation of the Canadian economy in decades. We are building a stronger economy, a more resilient economy and a more independent economy, and our plan is taking root.

    Last week, we just heard that we have created over 88,000 jobs, all full-time, all private sector. This economy is creating jobs at twice the rate of the United States. More Canadians are in work than the Americans, and more Canadian women, by seven percentage points, than the U.S.

     Oh, Mr. Speaker, he is transforming the economy. He has transformed it into the only recession in the G20. Regretfully, this year there has been a net loss of 24,000 jobs, meaning that we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7, a third higher than in the United States.

    Today, Equifax said that “Canadian entrepreneurship is on the decline and business payment challenges continued to build as more companies fell behind on [their] payments”. A third fewer small businesses launched in the last 24 months.

    Current businesses are going bankrupt. New ones are not launching. Will he reverse course before more go bankrupt?

     Mr. Speaker, what matters is that people believe in this economy and are moving forward. The Leader of the Opposition does not believe in Canada.

    This is what is happening. More Canadians are in the workforce than the Americans. More Canadian women are in the workforce than the Americans by seven percentage points. Investment in machinery and equipment by businesses is up 10%. We have the highest level of foreign direct investment in 20 years. A trade surplus was just registered. We are building Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister accuses me of not believing in Canada. It is my patriotic duty to fight for the people who are suffering as a result of his recession.

     Once again, he is making the mistake of confusing Canada with the Liberal Party. We are not going to take any lessons on patriotism from a guy who stashes his corporate cash in a tax haven and moves his corporate head office out of this country. We are going to continue to fight for Canadian workers, Canadian consumers and a strong Canadian economy.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     I did not hear the question. We will go to the next question.

     Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister cannot stand up for the miserable economic track record he has created. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession.

     Instead of attacking other people's patriotism, why does he not take responsibility for the damage he has caused? Equifax reports that the national 60-day delinquency rate for businesses rose 11% year over year in the most recent quarter, with escalating costs and higher inflation being the main culprits. That is what the organization reports.

    We know the Prime Minister managed to put us in the only recession in the G7. Will he reverse these disastrous policies before he drives more people into bankruptcy?

    Mr. Speaker, we are growing an economy that is stronger, more resilient and more independent. The flash GDP estimate for April is 0.4% growth. I will annualize that to help out the Leader of the Opposition. That is 5% growth.

     A trade surplus just registered the strongest job growth in the G7 in just this last month, at 88,000 jobs, which is twice the rate of the United States', and twice the rate of foreign investment.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is abandoning Quebec culture to please the web giants and Donald Trump. First, he scrapped the digital services tax, which represents a loss of $1.4 billion per year, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Today, he is ordering the CRTC to waive every penny of the levies charged to streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and yet the European Union imposes levies on streaming platforms and they comply without any significant cost increases for their customers.

    Why is the Prime Minister in such a hurry to leave our culture at Donald Trump's mercy?

    Mr. Speaker, the real question is this: Why does the Bloc Québécois vote against investments in Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture at every opportunity? There is over $760 million for culture in the most recent budget, and we just proposed $600 million for the francophone and Canadian cultural sector.

    Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the Prime Minister's recent record. The Prime Minister is turning his back on culture in favour of digital giants like Netflix and Amazon. The Prime Minister is abandoning the fight against climate change in favour of the oil companies' American shareholders. The Prime Minister is handing control of pesticides over to multinational agrochemical companies.

    No prime minister has ever deregulated so extensively for the benefit of large foreign corporations. Is selling out to the highest foreign bidder what he means by building Canada strong?

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois always opposes everything. It is opposed to major investments in culture, including francophone and Quebec culture. It voted against major investment tax credits for the electricity sector in the last budget. It opposes the agreement with Quebec announced last week that includes $10 billion in investments across all sectors, particularly in health care and public transportation.

    Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Prime Minister sacrificed in the trade war with Washington is francophone culture.

    This reminds me of how Winston Churchill was advised to cut funding for the arts in the middle of a world war. Churchill asked, if not for the arts, then what are we fighting for?

    What the Prime Minister has sacrificed to Donald Trump is what sets the Quebec nation apart: our culture, in our language. This is how the Quebec people expresses its existence. How can he treat it as a mere bargaining chip?

    Mr. Speaker, it is sad, but it seems to me that the Bloc Québécois has not read the latest budget. It includes more than $750 million for culture: Canadian culture, Quebec culture, francophone culture, including funding for Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund, the National Film Board of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, and Radio-Canada.

    We have also just added $600 million for culture.

     Mr. Speaker, in addition to being an embarrassment for the Prime Minister that he is the only leader in the G20 to cause a recession—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     An hon. member is quite far back in the corner and I can still hear him. There is something wrong with that equation.

    The hon. Leader of the Opposition can start from the top.

    Mr. Speaker, having the only recession in the G20 is not only an embarrassment for the Liberal Prime Minister, who has been wrong on every economic issue of the last decade. It also has a serious human cost for Canadians. Yesterday, at the Calgary airport, I met an electrician who told me that despite working non-stop, he had to move back in with his mother because he cannot afford the cost of Liberal inflation and now the Liberal recession.

     We know Liberal insiders are getting rich off tax havens, handouts and consulting contracts, but why is it always the hard-working people, like this electrician, who have to pay the bill?