Scott Aitchison
Parry Sound—Muskoka, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the member just described what happens in a recession. The fact is that Canadians need results. This Prime Minister promised results.”
“Mr. Speaker, where are the results? The Prime Minister promised to double the pace of housing construction to almost 500,000 new homes a year, but his own budget watchdog said his new $13-billion housing agency will build only about 5,000 homes. The CMHC's chief economist pointed this week to “weaker momentum for future supply”.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find most troubling about this particular bill is that it is not too dissimilar from the government's Build Canada Homes creation, an agency created with $13 billion, with zero targets, zero metrics and no transparency. Nobody knows how it is really supposed to work or what it is going to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, home builders and homebuyers in Ontario are still waiting for the federal government to finalize the regulations to permit them to rebate the HST on all new homes. This is creating more confusion and uncertainty in the market, and it is leaving both buyers and builders in limbo.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 156 lines we hold for Scott Aitchison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“This spring I encourage everyone, locals and visitors alike, to get out, bring their families, support our producers and take part in these incredible celebrations. When people show up, they are not just enjoying maple season, they are supporting the people and communities who make Parry Sound—Muskoka the most incredible place to call home.”
“Mr. Speaker, from the first run of sap to the last maple taffy, communities across our region are coming together to celebrate one of Canada's oldest and sweetest traditions. Whether it is Maple Mayhem at Muskoka Lakes Farm and Winery, the community spirit of the Parry Sound Maple Fest, the energy of the Muskoka Maple Festival in downtown Huntsville, the hands-on experiences of the Muskoka maple trail or a true working sugar bush experience at Hubbert's Maple Products during the Almaguin Maple Festival, there is something happening in every corner of Parry Sound—Muskoka. These events remind us of who we are: hard-working, community-minded and deeply connected to the land and the traditions that built this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising the minister read only a part of that report, because the report actually talks about how housing starts are falling. They are dropping dramatically, and the reason they are dropping is that the cost of government is just too high and housing construction is too expensive. My question is simple. Instead of creating a fourth federal housing bureaucracy with the new Build Canada Homes, why will the government not deal with the real barriers to home building, which are taxes, fees and approvals, so builders can get building the homes that Canadians can afford?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a new day, and that means there is another CMHC housing report that is warning that housing starts are falling because projects simply no longer work financially. Government taxes, fees and regulations now account for up to half the cost of a new home. When government takes that much, fewer homes get built, so will the Liberal government please just listen to the Conservatives, listen to experts and take the immediate step to improve the economics of housing and eliminate the GST on all new homes?”
“I am wondering if the member can explain to the House specifically why Build Canada Homes is required and why the things that they wanted to do could not have been done by the Canada Lands Company, which is a federal Crown corporation; the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which was the first Crown corporation; or maybe even the department. What specifically about the fourth federal housing agency is so crucially important, if London can get it right?”
“Mr. Speaker, I noted that my hon. colleague mentioned some great things going on in the city of London. It is important for us to congratulate Mayor Morgan and his council for some of the things they have done to get housing built faster in that city. What they have focused on is streamlining the process, speeding up approvals and zoning as of right, so people do not have to go through the rezoning process. Interestingly enough, the Liberals did not need Build Canada Homes to do that. They did it already and are getting the job done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment a little more on the notion of building bureaucracy. There are now four federal housing agencies. Build Canada Homes is the third federal Crown corporation focused on housing. I wonder if the member might be able to predict how many Crown corporations it will take to build a home.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is a former deputy mayor of the city of Toronto, which is one of the most expensive cities in the country to build a home in. I am sure she is quite familiar with how much cost the local government and the city add to the cost of every new home. I am wondering if she might be able to speak to the cost of government, particularly at the local level, and if she sees a way for the government to do things like reducing the cost of government on the cost of a new home.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work with young people. He focuses a lot on youth employment and unemployment, as it were, and he is quite correct. I have talked to young people all across the country and in my own community, even before I came to this place. Young people hope to own a home. This is something my generation and previous generations simply took for granted. The reality is that we have done it before. It is only over the last 40 years that we have made it so expensive and so hard to get permission to build a home. The way to fix that is to make it easier, and Conservatives would do that.”
“The first one has told us what its targets are, and the government would create a new one without targets. It would just be more bureaucracy, and I do not foresee any results coming out of it.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the new Crown corporations talk to the other Crown corporations, but the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is the first housing Crown corporation of the government, and it is talking about making sure we build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes a year for the next several years to restore affordability. However, instead of engaging CMHC to help with this project, and instead of engaging Canada Lands Company, the other federal Crown corporation responsible for housing, the government is creating a third one, and it does not have any targets. The government has let the first corporation talk about targets, and it let the newest one take over one of them. Honestly, it makes zero sense to create yet another corporation.”
“Madam Speaker, as usual, there is a fundamental flaw with that member's line of argument. I honestly do not understand what he is talking about. There is no question that the federal government has a role. I think I have talked about that many times. He is just not paying attention. That is fine. I do not really expect him to pay attention. The fact of the matter is that, as Conservatives, we would much prefer that Canadians have the opportunity to own their own home rather than rent from the government. It is great that the member wants to build lots of government homes, but Canadians do not want to live in those homes; they want to live in one they own. That is the promise that we would restore.”
“The problem with that, particularly in the markets where housing is really in crisis, the largest markets in the country, is that the first-time homebuyers do not make up enough of the market of new homes for builders to break ground. As such, it is not enough to actually stimulate the market. Builders are laying people off as we speak, and they are not starting any new projects. We have to reduce the cost overall so that we can get builders building again, and the government is not doing that. This is putting home ownership further and further out of reach. The Conservatives have a plan to actually make home ownership a reality again for Canadians by reducing the cost overall, which includes fees and time.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a very important point, and I probably should have spoken about it more in my speech. I listened to the minister , and I heard all about these new projects. They are all focused on rentals, and there is clearly no question that there is a need for rentals in Canada. It was the first Trudeau prime minister who cancelled the incentivization of building purpose-built rentals, and we see the implications of that today. However, what the government seems to forget is that home ownership is still, in fact, the dream of young people in this country, and until we reduce the cost of new homes, we are just not going to make that a reality. The Liberals will talk about how they have removed the GST on new homes, but only for first-time homebuyers.”
“Madam Speaker, I will tell the member right now that, in fact, Quebec is one of the provinces that actually has done fairly well on housing. There is no question that partnerships between the federal level and the provincial level are important. I would simply argue that those partnerships should focus on getting provinces to reduce the burden of endless reviews and consultants' reports. We have to speed up the process required to get things approved in this country. All that time adds cost, and until we reduce that time, we are not going to reduce the cost. This government could do that in partnership with Quebec, as with every other province.”
“The solution is not more bureaucracy; it is about getting the bureaucracy out of the way. I wish this government would simply understand that and help us get the bureaucracy out of the way.”
“Madam Speaker, I suppose the FCM can be forgiven for thinking that there may be some results coming from this government after 10 years, but the fact of the matter remains that the Liberals have created a fourth federal housing bureaucracy. There is the department; there is CMHC, a Crown corporation that has existed since just after the war; there is the Canada Lands Company, which is already developing these projects they announced; and now we have Build Canada Homes, which, by the way, is now responsible for one of the other Crown corporations. My question for the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: How many bureaucracies will we need to solve this crisis? Is it maybe one more? What if this one does not achieve what we want it to do? Will we build another one?”
“Let us choose reform over reorganization. Let us choose timelines over talking points. Let us choose permission over paralysis. Canada can build again, but only if we stop repeating the costly errors of the past and start removing the barriers that caused this crisis and continue to make it worse. Canadians deserve this level of urgency, this level of honesty. This nation has done it before, and we can do it again, but Canadians are running out of time. We must do it now.”
“For 10 years, Canadians have been promised strategies, funds, frameworks and agencies, and for 10 long years, affordability has moved further and further out of reach for every Canadian. Home ownership has fallen, rents have risen and starts have slowed. The crisis has deepened. This is not a failure of messaging or announcements; it is a failure of government. Repeating the same formula, another agency, another announcement, another layer, will not produce a different result; it will produce more of the same. If we are serious about restoring affordability, then we must confront the truth. The obstacle is not a lack of government; it is too much government standing in the way. The answer is not a fourth housing bureaucracy; it is the courage to reform the system that created the delays in the first place.”
“We have delivered transformative projects before, but the question before this House is not whether Canada can build; it is whether we are prepared to do it again, because when government makes it too hard to build homes, it weakens economic security across all generations for all Canadians. Canada does not lack builders, Canada does not lack capital and Canada does not lack the skill. Canada lacks permission. (1245) We must restore urgency. We must restore accountability for time and restore clarity of purpose, and then supply will follow. Canada can build again, but not if we continue pretending that more bureaucracy is actual reform, and not if we continue layering announcements on top of delay.”
“Prime Minister Pearson believed governments are judged by what they make easy and what they make hard. By that measure, we are failing. It is easy to announce, reorganize and create new agencies, yet it remains hard to approve housing, shorten timelines and remove duplication. It is hard to say “yes”, and Canadians are paying the price for that imbalance. They see it in the cost of every home, the rent paid each month, delayed family plans and slower growth that affects retirement security and public finances alike. That is not abstract. It is absolutely measurable and absolutely reversible. We have built at scale before. We have mobilized nationally before.”
“It is about removing friction: expanding as-of-right zoning, imposing building review timelines, aligning infrastructure funding with housing results, reducing the onerous tax burden, coordination across jurisdictions and holding departments accountable for time. None of that requires yet another Crown corporation. It requires government reforming itself at all levels. Following the same playbook of the last 10 years simply will not work. President Kennedy warned about myths: the myth that comfort can replace courage, that process can replace decision and that more administration equals more results. Canada is living that myth right now. As we are trapped in that myth, prices rise, supply continues to fall, opportunity continues to narrow, growth continues to weaken and confidence continues to erode.”
“Housing supply is tied to our nation's fiscal health. It is tied to productivity, and that scarcity harms us all. We know this is true because residential construction represents roughly 7% of Canada's GDP. With related industries included, nearly one-fifth of economic activity is connected to housing. When housing slows, construction employment declines, material production declines, mortgage lending slows, and retail contracts and government revenues shrink. Housing anchors fiscal health at every level, so when supply fails, the economic ripple is national. We know that real reform is not about announcing new funds or new agencies.”
“It is about young Canadians, but it is important to point out that scarcity affects every generation, because housing supply affects retirement security. When young families cannot afford homes, household formation slows. When household formation slows, economic growth slows. When that growth slows, pension sustainability weakens. When housing markets become distorted by undersupply, volatility increases, and volatility affects home equity. Home equity affects retirement planning. Reduced labour mobility reduces productivity, and that reduced productivity affects tax revenues, those same tax revenues that fund health care and pensions. Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue; it is an issue of national stability. Boomers should care, mid-career Canadians should care and young Canadians already do care.”
“At the end of the Second World War, Canada faced a severe housing emergency as well. Nearly one million veterans returned home. Ten years of depression and six years of war had nearly halted construction. By 1946, the country was short more than 200,000 homes. Families were living in temporary huts and converted barracks. The crisis was immediate, yet Canada mobilized. Financing expanded, land was serviced, approvals were streamlined and authority was clear. Housing production increased dramatically through the late 1940s and early 1050s, and within a decade, that shortage was largely overcome. That is not nostalgia; it is a very clear example of urgency a time when the government treated time as the enemy. It is easy for us today to frame this housing crisis as only about young Canadians.”
“With every new agency or program, the signal from the government is very clear: The system is not optimized for speed; it is optimized for review. Review without discipline becomes delay, and delay without reform feeds the paralysis. (1240) I find it interesting that when the government seeks to assist the auto sector, as an example, it works directly with the producers. It tries to strengthen their competitiveness; it secures investment for them and works to improve their supply chains. When the government wants to support farmers, it does not create some federal body that plants crops and raises cows. It backs producers, reduces risk and tries to expand markets. However, in housing, instead of empowering builders by reducing delays and costs, the government has created a new bureaucracy. Homes are built by builders, not by boards.”
“We have seen this pattern before from the Liberal government. The housing accelerator fund was introduced with similar language, such as urgency, speed and transformation. Billions were allocated, planning studies were funded, consultants were hired and zoning frameworks were reviewed, but did it eliminate discretionary rezonings, impose binding approval timelines or remove duplication? In many cases, it simply funded more planning. It did not remove process. Money was layered on top of delay and actually subsidized the paralysis. Even the CMHC is not immune. Developers across the country report prolonged underwriting reviews, repeated revisions and changing requirements mid-process. The financing designed to accelerate housing is slowed by administration.”
“They were proof that the new Crown corporation was hitting the ground running and already delivering, yet we know that those lands were already well under development through the Canada Lands Company, an existing federal Crown corporation. The sites had already been identified, transferred and prepared; planning work was already under way; municipal engagement had already begun, and in some cases, approvals were already advancing. Build Canada Homes did not unlock those sites; it inherited them. We all know that rebranding does not increase supply, shorten approvals or break the chains of our process. If greater authority was required, it could have granted that to Canada Lands Company. Instead, the government has layered on another structure, while the underlying approvals system, with all its delays and costs, remains unchanged.”
“The answer is quite simply no, it would not. It would reorganize, but it would not reform, and that matters because the crisis we face is not a shortage of institutions; it is an accumulation of delay. Build Canada Homes would not change zoning law, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development or remove environmental duplication charges. It would add a new entity; it would not remove a barrier. If we do not fix time, we do not fix cost; if we do not fix cost, we do not fix affordability. The minister said that we do not need to predict how this new agency is going to work; we already have some evidence. Those first six housing projects on federal lands announced by Build Canada Homes were presented as proof of momentum.”
“Prime Minister Lester Pearson believed that governments reveal their priorities not through their rhetoric but through what they make it easy to do and what they make it hard to do. In Canada today, it is easier to create a new program than to reform a process, it is easier to announce than to approve, and it is easier to expand bureaucracy than to shorten timelines. That imbalance is not limited to housing, although housing is where its consequences are most visible, which brings us to Bill C-20 . Bill C-20 would create the Build Canada Homes corporation, the fourth federal housing bureaucracy and another governance framework and layer of administration. Let us apply the Pearson test. Would it shorten municipal timelines or eliminate duplication or endless review? Would it impose service standards or reduce the tax burden on housing?”
“In its article IV consultation, it has warned that housing supply constraints in Canada now represent a macroeconomic risk. They are not simply a social issue, but a macroeconomic risk. Housing shortages fuel inflation, restrict labour mobility, suppress productivity growth and elevate financial vulnerability. When workers cannot move to opportunity, productivity declines. When productivity declines, growth slows, and when growth slows, fiscal capacity weakens. This paralysis by process in housing becomes paralysis in economic growth, so when international institutions flag housing supply as a growth constraint, it is wise for us to listen. Canada does not lack capital, talent or expertise; what Canada lacks is permission.”
“This is not some cyclical downturn that will just reset itself. It is structural and it is pervasive. That is not just my diagnosis. I am not just griping as a partisan here. The warnings are everywhere. The OECD has repeatedly identified restrictive zoning, prolonged permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as principal constraints on housing supply in Canada. It has called for as-of-right zoning, predictable and shortened approval timelines, reduced regulatory overlap and alignment between infrastructure funding and housing approvals. Its conclusion is clear: Canada's housing challenge is not primarily a financing issue; it is a supply and regulatory issue. (1235) The International Monetary Fund has gone even further.”
“That is not ideological rhetoric. It is simple math. This paralysis by process is measurable in months, in dollars and in lost opportunity. The CMHC estimates that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for a sustained period to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that pace. In recent years, housing starts have fallen well below that level. Meanwhile, population growth accelerated. Between 2019 and 2024, for every 100-person increase in the adult population, only a small fraction of ownership housing was added. That imbalance compounds annually. Home ownership among Canadians aged 30 to 34 has declined sharply, rents have risen and carrying costs have increased dramatically. Now, nearly nine in 10 Canadians express concern about housing affordability.”
“Until we confront that truth honestly, housing affordability will not return. Canada's housing crisis did not appear suddenly overnight. It was constructed, layer by layer, over years, over decades, with one additional approval, one new study, one longer consultation, one more appeal mechanism and one more condition layered onto an already complex process. Each individual decision seemed reasonable and each safeguard seemed maybe defensible, yet layered together they produced delay. Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision and it has a cost. When approvals stretch from months into years, capital sits idle, risk increases and projects that once made economic sense no longer do. As time expands, costs explode, and either those costs are embedded into the final price or the homes are just simply never built.”
“Singing O Canada as a constituent wins gold at the Olympics is something I will never forget. I will move on to the debate today: For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. The warning President John F. Kennedy delivered at the Yale commencement in 1962 is the warning that we need to hear today. President Kennedy knew that nations could drift because of the comfort of assumptions, systems and myths. Today, Canada is living a myth. The myth is that we can solve a housing crisis by expanding bureaucracy, that another agency will compensate for a system that is designed to delay, and that process is the same as decision. The truth is much harder. The problem in this country is not a shortage of process. It is a shortage of permission.”
“Madam Speaker, just before my formal remarks, I would like to take one moment to mention that two weeks ago today, I was able to stand in the House and congratulate Megan Oldham from Parry Sound on a bronze medal win at the Olympics in Milan. I am excited to report that, a week ago today, I had the immense privilege of standing at the bottom of the hill and watching her win gold in the big air event. I had never been to the Olympics before, and I have to say that watching a constituent and family friend win gold is a pretty exciting experience. I just want to report that we are obviously immensely proud of Megan in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across Canada. The town of Parry Sound is actually planning a fairly large community celebration this Saturday, and I will be there.”
“Her determination is incredible, and her success is a source of pride for her hometown of Parry Sound, the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka, all Canadians in sport and all of us here in the House. I invite all my colleagues to congratulate Megan on her bronze medal performance.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a treat to rise today in the House to congratulate Megan Oldham on her incredible bronze medal performance at the Milan Olympics. Megan's achievement is the result of years of hard work, discipline, sacrifice and relentless effort, but the quiet determination it takes to compete on the world stage is what we saw. When Canadians watched Megan stand on the podium, they did not just see a medal. They saw the payoff of commitment, resilience and belief. She reminded young athletes all across Canada that excellence is built one day at a time, often far from the spotlight. On behalf of Canadians, I want to thank Megan for representing our country so beautifully and so classily.”
“Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised the minister is talking about his build Canada rentals project, but home ownership is what is collapsing. In 2020, 69% of housing starts were for ownership. Today it is 49%. New home sales are down 45% in the GTA, and builders are laying off workers. I have a very simple question for the minister: Does he really and truly believe that creating a fourth federal housing bureaucracy, without reducing taxes, fees or all the approval delays, would really make it easier for Canadians to buy their first home?”
“Mr. Speaker, new home sales in the GTA have fallen to their lowest in 45 years, putting 100,000 jobs at risk. Home ownership among 30-year-olds to 34-year-olds has dropped from 62% to 52%. Young Canadians are losing hope; 93% of gen Z and millennials are worried about housing, and nearly half of them are planning to leave their home communities. The Prime Minister promised to help Canadians buy their first home, so after nearly a decade, why are sales collapsing and builders are laying off workers, and why is ownership getting farther and farther out of reach?”
“Mr. Speaker, new home sales are down 45% in the GTA and 56% in Vancouver. Rebates do not matter to first-time homebuyers if no homes are getting built. Nearly half of young Canadians are now considering leaving their home communities because they cannot afford to stay. When will the minister listen to all the experts, the builders, the developers and the Conservatives, and remove the HST on all new homes under $1.3 million so that we can get builders building homes again?”
“Mr. Speaker, between 2011 and 2021, home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 60% to 52%. From 2019 to 2024, for every 100 adults added to the Canadian population, only 12 homes intended for ownership were built. That is less than half the rate of the earlier decades. How does the Prime Minister expect young Canadians to ever buy their first home when his government keeps using the same old policies that have not worked for the last 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's fourth housing bureaucracy, Build Canada Homes, replaces Justin Trudeau's life-changing national housing strategy with less money and even bigger promises. We need 480,000 homes per year in the next 10 years to restore affordability, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that Build Canada Homes will only build about 26,000 over the next five. So, why will the Prime Minister not listen to home builders, housing experts and the Leader of the Opposition and axe the tax on all homes under $1.3 million?”
“Mr. Speaker, CTV reports that 35,000 households left the GTA last year because the cost of housing is simply too expensive. The Missing Middle Initiative reported yesterday that “Ontario's housing engine has stalled”. In the GTA, preconstruction sales for condos are down 89%, and for ground-oriented homes, they are down 65%. This means that starts have fallen off a cliff, and it means it is going to be worse in 2026. My question is, when the Prime Minister told young Canadians that they would have to sacrifice, was he really referring to the dream of home ownership?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for demonstrating that he does not understand the scale of the problem. In fact, the industry has told us over and over again that cutting the GST on all homes under $1.3 million is the only thing that will get the market moving again. It is not just us. Mike Moffatt, the Liberals' housing adviser, says the exact same thing. Why do they not listen to him?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that my hon. colleague understands the problem in housing. This is a guy who used to build homes, so he actually understands the cost of local government, the cost of delays of the local government and the cost of development charges. What the current federal Liberal government promised to do in the election campaign was to get development charges cut in half in cities where they are way too high. There is nothing in budget 2025 about that. The Liberals have failed Canadians. When the real costs and real delays in getting homes built are at the local level and government costs are over 30% of the cost of a home, we know the solution. It is not another bureaucracy. It is getting government out of the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that Conservatives do not believe in further unconditional grants to cities and provinces. We believe in funding infrastructure based on one result only, and that is the number of homes that get built. With regard to the days of just giving money and hoping for the best, that has clearly failed. That is from 10 years of Justin Trudeau. That is not what we need anymore. It is what we need to change and Conservatives will do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am not surprised about from the member is that he seems to believe that everyone should live in government-owned homes. Conservatives believe that it is a right of Canadians to own their own home. We think the government should get out of the way and not try to own everything, not try to control everything. In fact, the example I gave is what we did right after the war. It was a Liberal government that got out of the way, that got government out of the way, that got homes built and that built the middle class. I wish he understood that.”
“It fails an entire generation of young Canadians who dream of achieving what their parents and their grandparents simply took for granted. We have done it before. We can do it again. We must do it again.”
“Canada has beaten the housing crisis before, but budget 2025 does not even come close to the ambition required for the scale of the problem today. I would encourage the finance minister to look back in our history to the work of another era, at a time when Canada recognized the scale of the crisis in housing and took bold action to meet the challenge head-on. I would encourage the Minister of Housing to understand the scale of the crisis today and that it does call for bold, sweeping action. I wish he understood that his proposals tinker around the edges of the real root cause of the problems in the housing crisis. He is waiting to see if they work, and that time is over. I wish he understood that without bold action, today's housing crisis is quickly becoming a housing catastrophe. Budget 2025 does not meet the moment.”