Build Canada Homes Bill

Moved second reading of Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

He said: Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you as the sponsor of Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

I normally try to insert a sense of levity into my speeches, but regarding Bill C-20, I can find no humour. The lack of non‑market housing for Canadians across our land is such a serious issue that it has consumed me from my very first day as a senator.

As we embark upon second reading debate of Bill C-20, I wish to express my unequivocal support for this critical piece of legislation. I am heartened to see the federal government has taken a proactive role in creating non-market housing during a time of such pressing need across Canada. The magnitude of this initiative is remarkable.

This bill emphasizes the essential role of housing, framing it not merely as a basic necessity but as a fundamental element of human dignity and social justice. Every Canadian is entitled to a secure and decent place to call home. For over a year, Prime Minister Carney has underscored the importance of the government’s involvement in the creation of more affordable housing.

Bill C-20 represents a vital step toward achieving this objective effectively and swiftly. The legislation proposes the creation of the Crown corporation Build Canada Homes, aimed at transforming surplus government lands into thriving housing communities. Rather than establishing a new bureaucracy, this bill builds upon the efforts of the Canada Lands Company, a Crown corporation that I had the privilege to serve for the five years before my Senate appointment.

At Canada Lands Company, I chaired the real estate committee and the governance committee, gaining valuable insights into their extensive land holdings and proactive adherence to governance obligations. The Canada Lands Company operates two primary lines of business: attractions and real estate. The attractions line manages iconic Canadian landmarks, such as the CN Tower, Ripley’s Aquarium, Downsview Park, the Old Port of Montreal and the Montreal Science Centre, while the real estate division focuses on the proactive management of surplus federal lands. When properties are deemed surplus by the respective government departments, the Canada Lands Company bids to acquire them at fair market value and assesses their redevelopment potential. As protocol, they conduct the necessary environmental remediation and engage with community stakeholders to devise thoughtful land-use plans, effectively reintegrating those lands into Canadian society.

It is crucial to point out that their mandate primarily centred around the responsible resale of land to builders rather than direct housing construction.

The Canada Lands Company is a beacon of thoughtful duty to consult with Indigenous stakeholders throughout all its land holdings. Canada Lands has forged some of the most successful partnerships with Indigenous groups across Canada.

With the establishment of Build Canada Homes, Bill C-20 will integrate the land-management capabilities of the Canada Lands Company into this new Crown corporation. This legislation is poised not only to enhance land development efforts but also to promote the construction of non-market housing accessible to all Canadians.

The establishment of Build Canada Homes affirms that this government believes that dignified housing is a basic human right and essential for personal well-being. Former President Barack Obama once wisely noted that a decent home is the cornerstone of dignity and opportunity. As we proceed with Bill C-20, let us aspire to create a future where every Canadian has access to the housing they require.

This legislation will officially establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a focused mission: to enhance the availability of affordable housing throughout Canada. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will possess the necessary autonomy, flexibility and tools to function effectively as a developer, financier and strategic collaborator. These capabilities will enable the rapid delivery of housing nationwide, fostering a more efficient and innovative homebuilding sector.

At its core, Bill C-20 aims to restore housing supply, improve construction methods and ensure that Canadians have access to affordable rentals. Build Canada Homes will also catalyze a new phase of growth in Canada, contributing to a stronger and more productive economy.

The current state of housing in Canada is in crisis. Many Canadians are facing challenges in securing affordable housing, with rising costs and supply not meeting demand. The pandemic served to exacerbate an already challenging landscape in non‑market housing, while today’s geopolitical factors continue to affect the supply chain and our key trade relationships. These pressures on our housing system are felt nationwide, from metropolitan hubs to rural communities, leading to increased costs, limited availability and widening inequality.

That is precisely why the Government of Canada is enacting transformative changes to address the housing landscape. Bill C-20 will empower Build Canada Homes with the authority needed to significantly boost housing supply.

Budget 2025 represents a generational investment by the government in housing, aimed at facilitating affordable rental construction, fostering lasting prosperity and empowering Canadians. Addressing Canada’s housing crisis requires immediate action to lower costs, reduce regulatory obstacles, improve productivity and accelerate the construction of affordable rental housing.

To restore affordability and meet the needs of a growing population, we must significantly increase the supply of land where various housing types can be built. Build Canada Homes will leverage public lands, employ flexible financial instruments and promote modern construction techniques, such as factory-built homes and mass timber. Innovative strategies will shorten construction timelines and enhance the transformation of housing in Canada.

Urgent measures are necessary to reduce costs, eliminate bureaucratic and regulatory barriers, and expedite land development and home construction, allowing us to enhance affordability and effectively respond to the needs of an expanding nation.

In this light, the launch of Build Canada Homes in September 2025 as a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada marked a pivotal moment. With an initial funding allocation of $13 billion, Build Canada Homes forms an integral component of the federal government’s comprehensive strategy to accelerate housing development, enhance affordability and combat homelessness.

To instill confidence among housing providers, builders and manufacturers, Build Canada Homes will offer multi-year funding agreements. This initiative is part of a broader endeavour to simplify building processes, thereby reducing costs for Canadians.

In its initial phase, Build Canada Homes is prioritizing shovel-ready projects, transitioning over time to support large-scale initiatives that yield measurable improvements in affordable housing supply.

This legislation is a crucial advancement, empowering Build Canada Homes with the capacities of a Crown corporation to mobilize capital at scale, forge substantial partnerships and invest in progressive housing construction methodologies. This is how Build Canada Homes will manifest thousands of affordable residences across public lands and communities nationwide.

Since its inception, Build Canada Homes has swiftly commenced its mission to realize housing projects. It has pinpointed public lands suitable for development, engaged local governments to streamline processes and waived fees while fast‑tracking necessary approvals. To date, it has advanced six direct‑build projects in cities, including Dartmouth, Longueuil, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton, with immediate plans to begin construction this year.

Furthermore, six significant partnerships have been established with the City of Ottawa and the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, alongside collaborations with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, with the latter leaning to an agreement in principle, supporting the development of 750 units of non-market housing collectively designed and delivered within Inuit communities.

Collectively, these direct-build projects and agreements are set to provide more than 10,000 new homes for Canadians, heralding the beginning of a transformative journey and demonstrating Build Canada Homes’ capacity to deliver timely and impactful results.

Build Canada Homes will have in its tool box a suite of flexible financial tools, including grants, low-interest loans, equity investments and tailored loan guarantees. This will mitigate risks, lower barriers and encourage private and philanthropic investments.

This collaborative approach aims to develop a diverse array of housing options that reflect the varied needs of Canadians.

Partnerships focused on mixed-income housing, combining non-market affordable rentals with market affordable rentals, will unlock new capital sources, enhance supply and support long-term affordability.

In addition, Build Canada Homes is engaging with provinces, territories and municipalities to promote supportive and transitional housing, ensuring that the necessary wraparound services accompany these initiatives. For instance, partnerships have facilitated the establishment of supportive and transitional units — 30 in Nova Scotia, 54 in Toronto and an additional 390 in Quebec City.

Following the release of the Investment Policy Framework and the launch of the national submission portal in November 2025, proposals have been received from every province and territory in Canada. Hundreds of proposals are currently under review, with many projects poised to commence in 2026.

Build Canada Homes is set to deliver the housing Canadians need more efficiently, intelligently and affordably, all while nurturing a robust and resilient economy. This approach enables a shift from incremental efforts to transformative outcomes. Build Canada Homes will embrace the Government of Canada’s Buy Canadian Policy by prioritizing projects that utilize Canadian materials, bolster domestic supply chains and generate meaningful employment.

From the softwood lumber of British Columbia and New Brunswick to the steel of Ontario and the aluminum of Quebec, the homebuilding sector intertwines Canadian resources with Canadian jobs. This embodies the essence of the Government’s Buy Canadian Policy approach to become our own most valued customer. It is a strategy for reinforcing the resilience of our economy.

By purchasing and constructing domestically, we reinforce Canadian industries, support our workforce and cultivate a stronger, more vibrant economy.

The Buy Canadian Policy unveiled in December 2025 transforms the federal government’s purchasing framework. It emphasizes Canadian suppliers and mandates the use of domestically produced steel, aluminum and wood in all major federal projects.

This ensures that the investment we make will stimulate local demand, fortify domestic supply chains and empower Canadian workers and communities.

This transition marks a shift from reliance to resilience in an era of increasing trade uncertainty. This is the embodiment of being our own best customer. It is the future we are dedicated to shaping, and that is precisely what the Build Canada Homes act aspires to achieve. This act marks a pivotal milestone in the government’s mission to construct homes more efficiently, ensuring that every Canadian has access to affordable housing.

While the legislation will undoubtedly lead to the construction of more affordable homes, which is an extraordinary achievement on its own, it also represents a vital component in Canada’s economic retooling aimed at enhancing the lives of all Canadians.

For workers, it translates to improved stability and opportunities. For business, it promises consistent demand and predictability. For our nation, it’s another significant stride in a nation-building strategy that invests in Canadian communities and industries.

Further, it is about reimagining the future of Canadians, for Canadians, ensuring that the next generation can choose the communities where they wish to reside. It aims to provide families with stability while supporting Canadian manufacturers and supply chains and fostering robust economic growth.

It is also about creating new career opportunities and equipping communities with the tools necessary for sustainable development.

Ultimately, the Build Canada Homes act will grant more Canadians access to the cornerstone of stability, which is the home in which they live, and opportunities associated with having a safe, affordable place to call home.

It will enable Canada to transcend incremental progress, providing affordable housing on the scale and timeline that Canadians require. Additionally, it will help shape a future defined by stronger, fairer communities that leave no one behind.

Honourable senators, I urge you to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, meegwetch.

Absolutely.

Thank you for the great question.

With respect to what Build Canada Homes does, the non‑market housing that it creates is afforded to those who have the rent-geared-to-income, or RGI, type of wraparounds. Unfortunately, the federal government is not in the position to fund that.

That is in partnership with municipalities and provinces; they’re the ones who have the money available to assist those who have now occupied non-market housing and allow them the freedom and flexibility to live their lives. It has to be in conjunction with partnerships with provincial governments and municipalities.

The numbers will correspond to whatever the provinces and municipalities want to do. That is to say that Build Canada Homes will build the houses, but the wraparound services have to be provided in partnership with those other entities.

Will Senator Varone take a question?

Absolutely.

When the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance questioned witnesses from Build Canada Homes, we realized that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, already carries out a significant portion of their duties and that some CMHC employees will be transferred to Build Canada Homes. Do you have the necessary funding to manage this new agency? Will CMHC’s budget be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount that will be allocated to fund this new agency?

Thank you for the question; it’s a complicated one.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, like Build Canada Homes when this bill gets approved, is a Crown corporation under the minister. It is my understanding that they will be doing different things.

Regarding what CMHC is now doing, in terms of programs that will be phased out and imported into Build Canada Homes, that’s when they will be able to assess what those programs are, what has and hasn’t worked and what kinds of budgets they will need to continue.

There will be some — I would not use the word “duplication,” but both of them have the ability to loan-guarantee projects. If CMHC is dealing in affordable but not non-market housing, they have the ability to guarantee loans so that private builders and developers can build affordable housing.

Build Canada Homes also reserves the right to offer loan guarantees. However, my understanding is that they’ll use that in very specific cases where CMHC will not — because of the fundamentals of the economics of a project — issue a loan guarantee.

They have a lot of work between the two of them to sort out what they’re doing and how they are going to do it to best deliver housing for Canadians, but it’s a good question. It’s what they have to concentrate on.

Will you take one more question?

Yes.

Yes. As part of the plan, is there any plan for remote and rural Canada? A lot of housing is needed there as well, especially in spots where new mines are being set up.

Many kinds of infrastructure in rural Canada are not up to where they are in urban Canada. Housing — and the lack of housing — is in the same spot as a lot of the infrastructure troubles we see in rural Canada.

That is a great question. There is no part of Canada that doesn’t have a housing crisis. Put simply, the modality under which you deliver that housing will be different.

In urban centres, it’s a lot easier given the kind of clout the industry has to produce that housing. In rural and remote areas, you are pretty much obligated to go with general contracting, hiring and putting it out to bid. That type of housing is quite expensive, more so than in urban centres.

They will be delivering those houses whether or not it’s a primary focus because they may not have land that they’re redeploying, which is surplus to the government, but it’s my understanding from the minister that they are not opposed to looking to buy land to create the housing where it may be needed in Canada.

To your comments around factory-built housing, that could play a big part in what could be used in rural Canada. Even the lack of general contractors in a lot of areas is a hindrance to new housing. I think factory-built housing would be an interesting prospect in many parts of rural Canada. Do you agree?

One of the best Canadian success stories is ATCO from out West, which is in the business of creating modular housing. That is the perfect type of stuff when you’re talking about mining communities. They’re factory built and can be assembled in days or weeks, not months or years. That’s the kind of modality that I think they are zeroing in on for remote communities, so you’re absolutely right.

Will the senator take another question?

Absolutely.

This is a follow-up to Senator Osler’s question and, to some extent, Senator Carignan’s question as well.

Although you’re absolutely correct that the provinces and municipalities have a part to play in the wraparound services, for many years, there has been what I’ll call an incentive fund by the federal government called Reaching Home, which has done a lot of good in a lot of places. It has 20 months left in its current package of funding.

In terms of promoting best practices, would the federal government be thinking about reinstating Reaching Home or some sort of similar funding? It’s been very valuable for wraparound services and people with really complex needs.

That’s a great question.

My understanding is even though there are pockets of money in different ministries, the federal government wants to sunset the majority of those programs and then funnel them all through Build Canada Homes so that they can have a concise pocket of money. You may see some stuff end but new stuff begin just for that purpose. Then if it’s a catalyst to engage municipalities and provincial governments to match funds, that’s probably the best way to move forward.

Senator, could you give the Senate an estimation of how many homes are expected to be built and what the cost will be for each home and the time frame?

Personally, I can’t. Those numbers are not available. That data point is non-existent.

To answer it more productively for you, the land development process is a provincial-municipal responsibility. As a Crown corporation — in this particular case, Canada Lands Company will become an agent Crown corporation with the ability to supersede provincial regulations and municipal governance. They won’t. Canada Lands Company has, in the past, always adhered to municipal processes, which means that any citizen in Canada who has a concern about a housing project can object to a higher authority. It becomes part of the process that all builders face sooner than later, which is the regulatory burden.

There are no KPIs at this point in time. They have the tools in the tool box to override that through Crown immunity, but whether they will do it or not, I’m not sure.

Senator, you will recall that the Government of Canada was going to plant 2 billion trees, and they put up $3.2 billion to do that. They only planted over 200,000 trees — about 10% of what they budgeted for. All you need to plant a tree is a spade and a shovel, and they couldn’t do it. How can Canadians be confident that this government is capable of building houses?

I’m very confident that this government can build houses. As a Crown corporation, they will be subject to the Financial Administration Act, where they have to submit routinely and annually their platforms to the government. There is an annual review that will contain history and what the future looks like.

I’m keen to see them continue to follow the process that Canada Lands Company has been following for the last 30 years, and that is estimating at the beginning of the year and looking into the future for the next several years. That’s the best way I can answer that.

Thank you, esteemed colleague.

You mentioned First Nations and land management. Not all communities benefit from the First Nations Land Management Act. Recently, in Manawan, we saw that as many as 17 people sometimes live in a single house.

I would like to know whether the Crown corporation will have a seat or seats for First Nations members. Steps also need to be taken to ensure that the First Nations are able to speak both French and English, because newly created organizations tend to operate in English only. French was imposed on me and I’m proud to speak it, but it’s important to think about these things. That is my first question.

Next, can you assure me that the dozens of recommendations that the Assembly of First Nations made to the other place were considered when this bill was being drafted?

You can get back to me in the next few days, but I do need to know whether the duty to consult was fulfilled.

Thank you.

That’s a two-sided question, and from my experience at Canada Lands Company, the duty to consult was front and centre. As well, on that board, we had a member named Brenda Knights from Vancouver, who was part of an Indigenous housing community. If they follow the same model, Build Canada Homes will have a governance structure with a board of directors.

I can’t tell you what they’re going to do, but I can tell you what’s been done and what they can model it after, and that is the manner in which Canada Lands Company had modelled it before.

Are you able — like with Bill C-29, the National Council for Reconciliation Act — to add an Indigenous voice that is comfortable in both French and English? I was wondering if Canada or the government is open to that. There is some expertise from B.C., but we also want to make sure that our voice is heard in Quebec as well. Can I have that guarantee or an answer to that?

Thank you.

The guarantee won’t come from me. Having said that, I can recommend that past practices be adopted.

Senator Varone, will you take a question?

Absolutely.

Senator Varone, as you know, with the Accessible Canada Act, the federal government is committed to a barrier-free Canada. When it comes to Build Canada Homes, there are some organizations that have questions and concerns as to whether those homes will be built accessible from the start.

What do you know about that? Who will be responsible? Who will oversee the accessibility aspect of that project to ensure it is compatible with standards when it comes to accessibility?

Again, I have no guarantees on that, but I can speak about the past practices of Canada Lands Company, which won the Rick Hansen Foundation award for accessibility. They reinvented the CN Tower with accessibility.

For some of the people who are moving over to the Build Canada Homes organization from Canada Lands Company, accessibility is front and centre. That’s the stuff they speak about and work with every single day. Will it be made available in every single home? Generally speaking, high-rise buildings — if that’s the modality of the housing we’re talking about — come with accessibility. It’s the low-rise buildings that are more of a concern, which have to be built specifically to deal with accessibility issues.

It is not a perfect answer, but it is the answer I know right now. Everything in high-rises will meet that standard. Low-rise is pretty much on a needs basis.

Honourable senators, wow, there were so many good questions from all sides of our chamber. I’m glad I’m not the sponsor of this bill. Being the critic allows me to be critical and analyze this bill from a different perspective. Out of the greatest respect for the sponsor of this bill, who is an expert in his own right, instead of rising to ask you questions, I put them into my speech. These are some things that we have already discussed.

I rise today at second reading of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act.

I do so with a deep sense of urgency on behalf of Canadians living through a worsening housing crisis, during which we have young families, seniors, newcomers and multi-generational households who cannot find suitable and affordable homes.

The question before us is not whether the crisis is real but whether this bill, and the new Crown corporation it creates, will actually help fix that crisis or whether it will simply add another layer of bureaucracy without the clarity, accountability and focus this moment demands.

We are the chamber of sober second thought, entrusted to protect regional interests, to bring provincial and local perspectives into federal law-making and to safeguard the long‑term integrity of public finances. With Bill C-20, we are being asked by the government to rubber-stamp a massive restructuring of the federal role in housing and to hand a $13‑billion blank cheque to yet another costly bureaucracy before Parliament rises for the summer.

It concerns me all the more because our pre-study of this bill was short and tightly constrained. The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy held only two meetings on Bill C-20, including a single hour with the minister and officials, and heard from a limited number of witnesses. The chair and committee graciously gave me an additional two minutes beyond my four-minute time allotment, which allowed me to ask three questions to the minister. More concerning than the brief time I had to question the minister is that by the time we held our first of two pre-study meetings, the bill had already passed the report stage in the other place.

In effect, the pre-study became a procedural formality to speed the bill through the Senate, rather than a meaningful opportunity to improve its text. With the housing expertise and experience of Senator Varone and the Banking Committee, which tabled its second report on housing, Out of Reach: Unlocking Canada’s Housing Affordability Crisis, in January 2026, had we been able to do our good work sooner or study the bill more thoroughly, rather than at this eleventh hour, Bill C-20 would be a better bill that we could all support.

Regardless of where I find myself today — still concerned about Bill C-20 — I want to acknowledge the thoughtful work of colleagues on the committee and the openness of Senator Varone, the bill’s sponsor, in engaging with concerns and observations raised during that process. Nonetheless, the testimony we heard during the pre-study raised more questions than answers about whether taxpayers are getting value for money from creating a new $13-billion Crown corporation instead of fixing and strengthening existing institutions, such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, as Senator Carignan raised, and Canada Lands Company, also known as CLC.

Those concerns are sharpened by the way Build Canada Homes, or BCH, itself has been rolled out. The government already launched BCH as a special operating agency last fall, announced projects and appointed a chief executive officer, even though Bill C-20, the legislation that formally establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, has not yet been passed by Parliament. Once again, like our Senate pre-study being held after reporting stage in the House had already concluded, the cart has been put before the horse. We are being asked to retroactively bless a structure, a leadership team and a suite of decisions that are already well under way since its launch on September 14, 2025. This government may argue that a housing crisis requires moving “at speeds never seen,” but urgency does not justify asking Parliament to sign a blank cheque after the fact.

To illustrate why these concerns matter on the ground, I want to speak from my own experience. I speak not only as a critic of the bill but as a resident of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia for more than 50 years. I know the ground we are discussing, the local communities and the federal properties the government now points to as housing opportunities.

Let me speak of Jericho Beach, the former Department of National Defence, or DND, Jericho Garrison, now known as Jericho Lands. CLC, in a joint venture with the MST Development Corporation, the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil‑Waututh First Nations, acquired the eastern portion of this 90‑acre coastal property from the DND in 2014, 12 years ago. For over half a century, I have watched that spectacular site change and wind down. My husband actually worked at a work yard there, so I was there many times. I played volleyball on those beautiful lands.

Following the site’s change and wind-down, it has simply sat idle as its future was debated. The federal government recognized decades ago that the garrison land was surplus, yet it took until 2014 just to transfer it out of DND and into that Crown-held joint venture. Today, in 2026, 12 years after that transfer, there is still not a single shovel in the ground. There are no families living there. No affordable housing units have been built, and a full build-out of the proposed homes is projected to take decades.

Jericho’s story also raises a pointed question about Canada Lands Company, the same Crown real estate arm whose major housing-related sites and land management functions are slated to be transferred, in whole or in part, into Build Canada Homes under this bill. If federal land can sit for more than a decade after transfer with no homes built and no clear benchmarks, what reason do we have to believe that simply rebadging that machinery inside BCH and promising to build “at speeds never seen” will suddenly produce different results without stronger oversight, targets and timelines written into Bill C-20?

Jericho is not an isolated incident. At Wateridge Village, on the former Canadian Forces Base, or CFB, Rockcliffe lands east of downtown Ottawa, Canada Lands Company acquired that base in 2011 and has been leading the redevelopment into a master‑planned community. Yet, for roughly two decades after decommissioning, much of the site sat largely vacant and behind fences, while federal land clearance, environmental and liability issues were resolved and planning work was completed.

At Shannon Park in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada Lands Company purchased about 33 hectares of the former military neighbourhood from DND in 2014, began demolition around 2015 and has been overseeing a redevelopment plan for roughly 3,000 units, at least 20% of which are described as “affordable.”

But families left Shannon Park years ago. The buildings were demolished by 2017, and the site has remained largely empty, while plans inched forward and only now begin to move into early servicing and construction work.

The history of Jericho, Rockcliffe/Wateridge and Shannon Park is a clear cautionary tale. It shows that the bottleneck on federal lands has not been a lack of public sector builders but the glacial pace of the federal government’s own land management, environmental and liability processes under Canada Lands Company. Creating Build Canada Homes and simply absorbing CLC’s housing portfolio into it does not erase those structural problems; it risks repeating them on a more expensive, bureaucratic scale.

Honourable senators, some of the witnesses who appeared before the Banking Committee’s pre-study acknowledged that BCH could play a useful role in expanding non-market and deeply affordable housing, particularly on certain federal lands. I want to be clear that I share the view that every Canadian deserves a safe, dignified roof over their head and that there is a real need for more deeply affordable and supportive homes for those who cannot be served by the private market. BCH is intended to focus on that non-market end of the spectrum.

However, other witnesses raised significant concerns about its design and impact, noting that BCH would touch only a very small fraction of Canada’s overall housing needs, that its mandate risks overlapping with existing entities and that crucial concepts, such as affordable housing itself, remain undefined in the bill and largely left to future policy.

One of the most striking concerns raised was the mismatch between the scale of this crisis and the narrow scope of this new housing Crown corporation. Kevin Lee of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association reminded us that roughly 95% of Canadians live in market-rate housing, while BCH is designed to operate almost entirely in the non-market, government-supported segment of the system — so 5%.

Based on the evidence before us, BCH is expected to address only a very small share of the additional housing Canada needs, on the order of about 1% of the overall short- and long-term supply gap, even as CMHC’s own research shows we must roughly double annual housing starts to restore affordability.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reached a similar conclusion in a report tabled in December 2025, projecting that BCH will support roughly 26,000 units over five years, only a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of additional homes Canada requires to regain affordability.

Mr. Kevin Lee also warned us about the very thing this bill is supposed to fix: process and red tape. He described how in major urban centres, such as the Greater Toronto Area and the Lower Mainland, approval timelines can stretch to roughly two or three years, compared to a matter of months in some smaller jurisdictions, and how those delays drive up costs through carrying charges and uncertainty. He cautioned that BCH projects will face many of the same municipal bottlenecks.

Some non-market projects may be fast-tracked, but that only sharpens the question: If municipalities can move quickly for BCH or under rapid housing initiatives, why does it still take years for the other 99% of needed homes? BCH may end up at the front of the line while market projects fall further behind, without fixing the underlying regulatory problems for everyone else. That is not system reform; it is a parallel track.

Beyond this, witnesses raised serious concerns about mandate clarity and duplication. BCH does not operate in a vacuum. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canada Lands Company — which will come under BCH — the Canada Infrastructure Bank and other federal housing and infrastructure programs. In the recommendations I submitted to the committee for its pre-study, I urged the government to explain clearly how BCH’s role will differ from these entities, how responsibilities will be divided and how proponents will avoid being bounced between overlapping federal processes.

The Canadian Real Estate Association, likewise, called for clearly defined, outcome-driven mandates for BCH and CMHC — with CMHC refocused on attainable home ownership and “missing middle” supply, while BCH concentrates on deeply affordable and non-market housing — and for formal coordination between them. Those structural questions are not clearly resolved in the text of Bill C-20.

Equally troubling is what the bill does not say. Despite BCH’s core mandate to promote, support and develop affordable housing, Bill C-20 does not define “affordable housing” or “non‑market housing” in the statute. Affordability can vary by income, region, tenure and project type. Leaving the definition entirely to policy and program guidelines, rather than to Parliament, means we will be debating results without ever having agreed on what counts as success.

Dr. Mike Moffatt, a Canadian economist and Founding Director of the Missing Middle Initiative who has done extensive work on housing supply and middle-class families, warned the committee that, without legislated benchmarks, we won’t know “. . . five years from now whether Build Canada Homes has been working . . .,” because there are no clear targets or key performance indicators. The bill does not require BCH to set and publish numeric targets by year, by region, by tenure or by bedroom count, nor to report publicly on progress against those targets.

That is why, in my own recommendations, the Conservative recommendations, we called for BCH to establish clear performance indicators and to include in its annual reports the number, type, location and tenure of units, categorized by affordability level and target clientele, with 1-, 5- and 10-year benchmarks, so Parliament and the public can see whether it’s meeting its objectives.

The lack of clear direction on unit mix is particularly worrying for families. Statistics Canada’s work on housing need shows that larger renter households are far more likely to live in overcrowded conditions and that many renter households with five or more members would need homes with four or more bedrooms to meet the federal government’s own standard for suitable housing.

Dr. Moffatt pointed out that BCH encourages proponents to use CMHC’s Housing Design Catalogue and that, for Ontario — we don’t know about the other provinces — almost all of the catalogue’s designs are one- to three-bedroom units only, with only a single four-bedroom option among them. He warned that governments tend to do what is easiest, especially for low‑income and larger families, unless legislation forces us to do otherwise.

If BCH proceeds without explicit expectations and targets for family-sized units, we risk replicating the undersupply of suitable housing for larger families which already plagues our market.

The government’s primary defence of Bill C-20 is that this new Crown corporation needs “commercial agility.” But when we look at the text of the bill, that agility comes largely from carving BCH out of some of the usual guardrails of the Financial Administration Act, or FAA. The bill authorizes billions in capitalization and borrowing authority and then, for certain measures, exempts BCH from key FAA provisions that normally apply to Crown corporations. At committee, I raised four of them.

First is section 91 on contracts and procurement. This exemption means BCH can basically award major contracts without following the usual federal procurement rules, increasing the risk of sole-sourcing and reduced transparency.

Second is subsection 99(2) on the disposal of public property. This normally requires Governor-in-Council approval before a Crown corporation sells or leases federal real estate. Exempting BCH allows valuable public land to be disposed of without cabinet sign-off.

Third is subsection 100(1) on acquiring real property. These provisions are meant to limit and oversee how Crown corporations buy land and buildings. Exempting BCH lets it acquire real estate with far fewer constraints.

Fourth are elements of Part X, which set out the basic governance and oversight framework for Crown corporations. Bill C-20 both exempts BCH from certain Part X requirements and allows cabinet to declare additional Part X provisions inapplicable when issuing directives related to the Canada Lands transition.

At committee, the Minister of Housing told us that Build Canada Homes would be subject to all the usual accountability and reporting requirements of a Crown corporation and that the specific Part X exemptions we raised would apply very specifically to the transition of lands from Canada Lands Company to Build Canada Homes.

However, the wording of clause 43 is significantly broader than that assurance. It authorizes the Governor-in-Council, by order, to declare that any provisions of Part X of the Financial Administration Act do not apply to measures taken not only by Canada Lands Company and its subsidiaries but also by Build Canada Homes and its wholly owned subsidiaries so long as those measures are taken under a ministerial directive. That goes well beyond a narrow, one-time land transfer.

It matters what the law says, not only what the minister intends to do. If Parliament is going to exempt a $13-billion Crown corporation from normal Financial Administration Act rules on procurement and property transactions and give cabinet the power to switch off parts of Part X when directives are issued, those extraordinary powers should be tightly drawn and subject to clear safeguards: transparent justification, public reporting to Parliament and an explicit link and time limit tied to the Canada Lands Company transition.

Bill C-20 does not build those safeguards into the statute. Witnesses also reminded us that Build Canada Homes cannot, on its own, solve Canada’s housing crisis.

Mr. Kevin Lee stressed that while using public lands and supporting modular construction are positive steps, they will not be enough unless accompanied by broader reforms to accelerate approvals, harmonize building code interpretations, lower structural cost pressures from taxes and fees and expand ready-to-build land in partnership with provinces and municipalities.

Dr. Moffatt urged the government to pair Build Canada Homes with a renewed National Housing Strategy — a National Housing Strategy 2.0 — with clear, near-term goals for middle-class home ownership and missing middle supply, not just long-term aspirations stretching to 2060 and beyond.

The Canadian Real Estate Association echoed these concerns, warning that without a dedicated federal focus on restoring the missing middle, pathways to home ownership will continue to narrow, even if some non-market units come on stream.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s work reinforces this broader context. It finds that overall federal spending on housing programs is projected to decline significantly over the next several years as existing National Housing Strategy programs sunset, even with Build Canada Homes coming online.

Build Canada Homes is expected to support only a modest number of units relative to Canada’s overall supply gap. In other words, even as the government builds a new Crown corporation, the broader federal effort on housing is shrinking rather than growing.

Finally, colleagues, I must speak to a matter that touches on public confidence and institutional integrity. Bill C-20 empowers Build Canada Homes to channel up to $13 billion in capital, loans and equity into particular sectors, including prefabricated and modular housing manufacturing.

When Parliament creates a targeted industrial spending vehicle of this scale, we have a duty to ensure its design is insulated, as much as possible, from any reasonable perception of conflict of interest. This is particularly important given the public record regarding the Prime Minister’s prior role as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, a global investment firm with significant holdings in real estate, infrastructure and related supply chains, as well as his ongoing, long-term financial ties to Brookfield-linked investments extending into the 2030s.

The government has rightly emphasized that conflict-of-interest screens and blind trusts are in place; those mechanisms must be respected. At the same time, experts have highlighted the structural challenge of applying traditional ethics screens to vast and constantly evolving corporate groups with thousands of subsidiaries.

My purpose in raising this is not to cast personal aspersions or allege wrongdoing; it is to underline a systemic truth: When a government constructs a multi-billion-dollar agency to heavily finance a specific sector and when the head of that government retains long-term financial ties, even indirect ones, to major corporate players in that sector, the risk of a perceived conflict is inherently elevated.

That risk is compounded when the same bill exempts the new Crown corporation from key Financial Administration Act safeguards on procurement and property transactions and allows cabinet, by order, to set aside additional Part X protections in connection with ministerial directives.

In that context, Canadians are entitled to ask whether the Prime Minister and other well-connected insiders could be positioned to benefit, directly or indirectly, from Build Canada Homes’ investment and contracting decisions.

Canadians need to see clear statutory procurement and governance safeguards for Build Canada Homes so that they can be confident its decisions are made entirely in the public interest. Bill C-20 does not yet provide that level of assurance from this critic’s point of view.

Honourable senators, we are told we must pass Bill C-20 immediately because we are in a housing crisis. I fully agree; we are indeed in a crisis, but a crisis does not justify vague law. A crisis does not justify exemptions from key financial controls without clear, time-limited safeguards. A crisis does not justify creating another housing bureaucracy that, by the estimates of experts and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will address only a small fraction of the problem, even as broader federal housing spending declines. Nor does a crisis excuse putting billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at risk now and potentially for decades to come without the strong, transparent protections that Canadians are entitled to expect.

After a rushed pre-study, I am not persuaded that Bill C-20, in its current form, provides the mandate clarity, definitions, targets, performance measures and safeguards that a new $13-billion housing Crown corporation requires. Nor am I convinced that creating yet another federal housing bureaucracy — one that experts tell us will touch only a sliver of Canada’s housing needs — is the best way to address a crisis rooted in regulatory delay, structural cost pressures and a chronic failure to build the right homes across the entire continuum.

At second reading, we are asked to approve the principle of this bill. You may have guessed that, in principle, I do not support this bill, but I understand the crisis in which we find ourselves and the timing of this bill at this stage of our spring sitting.

We have assurances from the minister on record, which is why it is important to put them on the record here in this chamber as well, because we heard it at committee, and he is coming to our chamber tomorrow. I am looking forward to urging the minister to look at the observations we made during the pre-study, while hearing the concerns that I have raised today and that others have raised around this chamber.

Your questions actually made me want to add more to this speech, but at this time, I will simply say that, in principle, I cannot support this bill. We are ready for the question to send this bill to committee for clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow. Thank you, colleagues.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)