Brad Vis
Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on nicotine pouches. This petition is being presented on behalf of small businesses, including convenience stores.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first is petition e-7198, which has 5,746 signatures. It calls upon the Minister of Fisheries to not remove the recreational access to chinook and coho salmon in the allotment of salmon allocation.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets?”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is with regard to the elimination of the federal apprenticeship incentive. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the apprenticeship incentive grant for Red Seal trades, index it to inflation, link it to the successful completion of technical training…”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 contains proposed new provisions under the Privacy Act and the Canada Transportation Act to assess the full value of our publicly owned airports. Rumours in British Columbia dictate that part of the new security agreement with China would allow Chinese companies to buy airports in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Mel Zajac, a remarkable British Columbian whose compassion and generosity left an enduring imprint. Mel's life was marked by a profound tragedy that ultimately inspired a legacy of extraordinary philanthropy. In July 1986, he lost his son Mel Jr.”
The complete record
Every one of 622 lines we hold for Brad Vis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets? He could not answer that question. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Chinese companies buying Canadian airports would pose security threats to Canada's security intelligence regime?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 contains proposed new provisions under the Privacy Act and the Canada Transportation Act to assess the full value of our publicly owned airports. Rumours in British Columbia dictate that part of the new security agreement with China would allow Chinese companies to buy airports in Canada. Can the member confirm or deny this?”
“Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on nicotine pouches. This petition is being presented on behalf of small businesses, including convenience stores. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to remove the restrictions on the sale of nicotine pouches to only pharmacies in order to allow convenience stores to sell the product as well. The petitioners also note that the actions of the government have led to an illegal online trade and that it would be better to tax the product in Canada, versus allowing American producers to reap the economic benefits.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is with regard to the elimination of the federal apprenticeship incentive. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the apprenticeship incentive grant for Red Seal trades, index it to inflation, link it to the successful completion of technical training and ensure timely, predictable payments to support apprentices during their training.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first is petition e-7198, which has 5,746 signatures. It calls upon the Minister of Fisheries to not remove the recreational access to chinook and coho salmon in the allotment of salmon allocation. The petitioners note that they want to respect the rights of first nations and the conservation policies of the government, but they would like to maintain common property resource access for recreational fishers as well. They also note that commercial interests do not supersede those recreational interests.”
“Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on behalf of veterans in the Fraser Valley. They note that the absence of an office in Abbotsford limits access for a large and growing veteran population, which can lead to delays in processing disability benefits. They call upon the Government of Canada to open a veterans office in the Fraser Valley.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadians living with long COVID who are concerned that federal programs do not adequately meet their needs. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to launch a national inquiry into Canada's pandemic response and the long-term impacts of long COVID.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to present my first petition on behalf of the petitioners in Mission who are concerned about the proposed telecommunications tower at 32935 Cameron Avenue. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to review the proposed location and work with the proponents and relevant authorities to identify alternative sites that better reflect community interests and appropriate land use.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence badgered the CFIB as to why his own government's policies were not reaching Canadian small businesses. The CFIB says three in four entrepreneurs do not feel supported by the government, and many would not start a business today. Why will the government not lower costs and give small businesses a real chance to compete, so we do not continue losing capital to other countries?”
“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are incredibly worried. Statistics Canada reported on May 29 that “business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline”. After years of policies that have left small business owners struggling, will these Liberals reverse their policies so businesses can get ahead?”
“Because of his vision, countless children and families, many of whom face major medical challenges, have been given opportunities that might otherwise have been out of reach. At the age of 98, we have lost a truly extraordinary Canadian. I extend my sincere condolences to the Zajac family and to all those who mourn Mel's passing while celebrating his remarkable legacy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Mel Zajac, a remarkable British Columbian whose compassion and generosity left an enduring imprint. Mel's life was marked by a profound tragedy that ultimately inspired a legacy of extraordinary philanthropy. In July 1986, he lost his son Mel Jr. in a tragic accident on the Chilliwack River. Just eight months later, his son Marty was killed in an avalanche near Blue River in the Cariboo. In their memory, Mel founded The Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation in 1987, dedicating himself to helping others. Through his work, including the creation of Zajac Ranch, he ensured that children of all abilities could experience the joy, inclusion and confidence that come from summer camp.”
“Instead, this bill proposes a broad framework with uncertain implications for businesses, consumers, provincial jurisdictions and the marketplace as a whole. At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability, Parliament should be cautious before advancing legislation that risks increasing costs and pushing business out of Canada.”
“Effectively, with natural health products, the government's approach has essentially meant that businesses are saying they do not have a future in Canada anymore. People are still going to be able to buy the products they were offering locally, when they were paying taxes in Canada, but people will have to buy the products on Amazon from an American supplier, because that is still legal to do anyway. The government needs to take another look at this legislation. It needs to find better ways of ensuring that the electronic products we use do not impact Canadians' health, and focus on those issues, but ultimately leave the choice to consumers as to whether they want to buy a certain product.”
“Rather than creating another federal framework and empowering our public service with more tools to look at certain products, we should focus on policies that encourage competition, support innovation and reduce barriers for businesses operating in Canada. Finally, I think we should draw some parallels when we see the public service trying to over-regulate in the Canadian context, and that would be with natural health products. Across Canada, we have natural health food stores practically on every main street. They are a staple of Canada's economy. Small business owners across Canada, for the last number of years, have been decrying the government's desire to intrude and impose new regulatory frameworks that would push their business out of Canada and into online markets.”
“One of our primary concerns with this legislation is the risk of federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction as well. Consumer protection, property rights, repair services, commercial regulation and many aspects of marketplace oversight traditionally involve provincial responsibilities. Several provinces have already been examining right to repair measures and consumer protection frameworks that reflect their own economic circumstances and priorities. The federal government should be cautious before establishing a national framework that could duplicate, overlap or conflict with provincial authorities. Canadians are frustrated when governments create multiple layers of regulation that accomplish the same objective while increasing complexity and compliance costs. Unfortunately, Bill C-267 risks doing exactly that.”
“The result will be fewer choices for consumers, not more. The result could also be higher prices, particularly for low-cost products that many families rely upon. Canadians are already facing affordability challenges. Many families do not have the luxury of purchasing premium appliances or high-end electronics. They depend on affordable options that fit within their household budgets. If new regulatory requirements increase manufacturing, certification, distribution or compliance costs, those costs will inevitably be reflected in the price consumers pay at the checkout counter. Conservatives believe that consumers are best served by competition. Competition encourages innovation and quality. When consumers have choices, manufacturers must compete to earn their business.”
“Supporters of this bill argue that it would help consumers, which is the opposite of what I said. However, regulations often produce those unintended consequences. (1815) When governments impose additional requirements on products entering the marketplace, manufacturers face higher compliance costs. Some companies absorb those costs, others pass them on to the buyers, and some simply choose not to offer certain products in smaller markets. Canada is not the largest consumer market in the world. We represent a relatively small share of global demand. If regulatory requirements become too complex or too costly, some manufacturers may decide that offering particular products in Canada is no longer worthwhile. I can only imagine the number of attempts by manufacturers who might try to circumvent any new regulations in Canada as well.”
“Adding another layer of federal regulation might satisfy bureaucratic ambitions, but it would not help Canadian consumers or business competitiveness and, ultimately, I do not believe it would help the consumer. In fact, it would risk limiting consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products to the Canadian market. The Conservatives believe the government should focus on enabling competition and innovation, not expanding bureaucracy through yet another framework. Before imposing new obligations on businesses, Parliament should have clear evidence that those obligations would produce meaningful benefits that outweigh their costs. That evidence has not been demonstrated in the bill before us. Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential impact on consumer choice.”
“At the same time, the slowdown in the housing market is reducing domestic demand, further tightening margins for Canadian producers. The result is a concerning trend of increased import penetration, declining domestic production and the early stages of business closures across the sector. Without intervention, any future growth in the industry will likely be driven by imports, rather than by Canadian manufacturing. This is especially concerning at a time when Canadian businesses are already facing significant economic pressures. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and small businesses are navigating inflationary pressures, labour shortages, supply chain challenges and increasing operating costs.”
“I think this bill would open up a world of unforeseen problems for Canadian manufacturers. The bill would direct the federal government to develop a framework touching on numerous aspects of product durability and repairability. While supporters may view this as a simple exercise, businesses often experience such frameworks quite differently. Frameworks frequently become regulations, and regulations create reporting requirements. For years, Canadian manufacturers have contended with the surge of low-cost imports. Rather than alleviating this imbalance, existing tariff structures have exacerbated the strain on domestic firms. Many Canadian companies are now forced to absorb things like tariff costs or share them with customers, eroding their competitiveness and limiting access to key markets.”
“Bill C-267 , however, takes a different path. Instead of removing barriers and empowering consumers through targeted legislative changes, it proposes to create a broad national framework that would require federal intervention in product design, product durability, repairability standards, information disclosure requirements and supply chain considerations across numerous industries. The difference is significant. Bill C-294 sought to remove obstacles. Bill C-267 seeks to create a new regulatory framework. I cannot help but outline the significance this legislation would have in the context of electric vehicles, based on some of the debate that took place earlier today. Is the government really proposing to tell China how to regulate its battery production when we just conceded 30% of our market share? I do not think so.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this legislation. Bill C-267 is an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. At first glance, the bill may appear straightforward. Canadians want products that last longer, they want affordable repairs and they want to get the maximum value from the products they purchase. These are reasonable goals. However, this bill represents a significant departure from the practical, targeted approach that the Conservatives and the Liberals have previously supported when it comes to consumer choice and the right to repair without imposing broad, regulatory structures. In the last Parliament, there were two bills. We had Bill C-244 , from Wilson Miao, and Bill C-294 , from the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley .”
“The Prime Minister cannot complete his objectives in the Asia-Pacific region until the problems in my riding are fixed, so to that end, I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by: (a) replacing paragraph (d) with the following: “(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.”; and (b) deleting paragraph (e). I reference this, because I want to see amendments at the committee stage that would put in flexibility for the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing to apply some of this funding—”
“Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I plead with the federal government in good faith. As I mentioned, I respect the Minister of Emergency Management , who has shown up in good faith so far. I ask that she comes to our consultation periods, held in conjunction with officials from the United States, to hear what we are proposing. I ask the Minister of Infrastructure to provide the same level of flexibility he provides for the bill to the infrastructure funding commitments we need in the Fraser Valley. Canada needs this. British Columbia needs this.”
“The Minister of Emergency Management , in good faith, sent the parliamentary secretary to support it after I requested it. I will say that in good faith, and I invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to come and hear what people have said and about the suffering we have gone through. Our only request is to help Canada build, help improve those exports and help Canada meet its objectives. We are in British Columbia. I know many Laurentian elites in Ontario and Quebec see it as just this place where they go on vacation and ski, sail and golf in a single day, but it is more than that. It is the export opportunity to the Asia-Pacific region. It is the future of Canada's economic prosperity and it completely aligns with all of the trade objectives set by the Prime Minister , so again, I plead with the government—”
“I invite the minister to come to my community in good faith. I have never politicized this issue, because it is about Canada first, about the Government of Canada meeting its export objectives. Those export objectives run through the Fraser Valley. Canada cannot build if the Fraser Valley is not protected. (1350) We are also the breadbasket of British Columbia. We are the heartland of dairy farmers, blueberry farmers and immigrants who have built their livelihoods supplying Canada with fresh produce, fresh vegetables and the best agricultural products we can find anywhere in this province, and we need help. I plead with the government to help us. This June, we are launching the review process for the transboundary commission.”
“As I outlined for over an hour in this speech, we have received no federal supports, no flexibility and no accountability from the previous prime minister, who said that he would help us. Even today, High Commissioner Bill Blair said to me the other day, “Yes, we broke the promises we made to you.” It is my responsibility to continue fighting for that and to continue saying in this House that the status quo is not okay, if the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can come forward with Bill C-26 , a two-paragraph bill, to say that he needs $1.7 billion in additional housing funding, after a fund of $80 billion over 10 years has already failed every metric pointed out in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports. Why can the federal government not support Abbotsford?”
“The Government of Canada has chosen the Abbotsford International Airport and an amazing Canadian company, Conair, to build the national firefighting fleet for our entire country. Conair already hosts one of the largest fleets of any aircraft provider in the country. We are using De Havilland aircraft built in Canada to supply that fleet. We have the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Sumas transfer station, which transfers 37% of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline to the United States. The Enbridge pipeline expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station that the government just approved are in my riding. We have the arterial road connecting British Columbia with the rest of Canada.”
“After years of soaring home prices, rising rents, growing housing needs and repeated missed targets, Canadians have every reason to question whether the same government that helped this crisis can be trusted to solve it. Canadians do not need more announcements. Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford does not need more announcements. That is why, in the first hour of my remarks today, I related Bill C-26 to the flexibility the government was showing and the lack of action we have had in the Fraser Valley region. It bears repeating, before I conclude today, that my riding is the confluence of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the National Pacific Railway and the Southern Railway. We have a border crossing.”
“What is most concerning is not simply the scale of the crisis, but the Liberal government's record. Canadians have heard the promises before. They were promised that the national housing strategy would improve affordability. They were promised that billions of dollars in spending would deliver results, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded that housing needs continue to grow despite increased federal spending. Even the government's flagship housing accelerator fund deserves scrutiny. The PBO noted that very little funding was spent in its first year and that many of the housing increases observed in participating jurisdictions may have been driven by initiatives already under way before agreements were signed. Trust is earned through results.”
“In other words, household growth vastly outpaced housing construction. The result is exactly what Canadians have experienced: rising prices, rising rents and fewer attainable housing options. The same report estimates that Canada will require an additional 1.3 million housing units by 2030 above current projections simply to close the national housing gap. That means Canada would need, on average, roughly 436,000 completed housing units annually between 2024 and 2030, far beyond current construction levels. For renters, the situation is equally troubling. CMHC reported that affordability remains a major challenge. With turnover rents increasing by 23.5% in 2024, young Canadians, newcomers and working families are finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing they can afford.”
“In conclusion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada now has approximately 2.4 million households in core housing need, and that figure is projected to rise to 2.6 million by 2027. That would mean nearly one million more households in core housing need than when the national housing strategy was launched in 2017. The very strategy that was supposed to make housing more affordable has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians struggling to find suitable, affordable homes. (1345) The Liberals have announced program after program, funding envelope after funding envelope, yet the results continue to move in the wrong direction. The PBO found that in 2023 Canada added approximately 460,000 new households while completing only 242,000 housing units.”
“The result that we have today, therefore, is the worst of both worlds. Canadians are told that housing remains a top priority, yet the strategy that was supposed to deliver results is being hollowed out. Parliament is asked to approve new funding, but without the guardrails that ensure effectiveness. The core problems, such as affordability, access to affordable homes for low-income households and the growing gap between need and supply, remain unaddressed. In short, Bill C‑26 does not represent a fix to a failing strategy. It represents a workaround. Workarounds are what governments turn to when they no longer believe their own plan can succeed. The conclusion is unavoidable: The strategy is not working, and Canadians are paying the price.”
“It is shifting away from the strategy through re-funding allocations while pursuing ad hoc spending through Bill C‑26 that is disconnected from its own commitments. This is not coherence; it is fragmentation. If the national housing strategy were working, there would be no need to bypass it. If the act's frameworks were delivering results, new spending would logically flow through it, reinforced by clear targets, timelines and accountability. Instead, we see the opposite: declining support under the strategy, combined with new spending requests that avoid its constraints. That combination strongly suggests the government knows that its current approach has failed but does not want to formally acknowledge that failure or undertake the difficult work to redesign what is necessary to help build affordable homes in Canada.”
“There are no statutory outcome requirements, no ties to reductions in housing need, no clear affordability thresholds and no measurable targets aligned with the act's obligations to focus on those in greatest need. In effect, the government is asking for more money now, while simultaneously retreating from the very framework that was supposed to ensure that money produced results. This suggests a partial acknowledgement by the government that its existing approach is not working, but a willingness to go all the way in admitting failure is beyond any Liberal, in my opinion. Rather than reforming the strategy to fix its structural flaws or aligning new spending with the legal obligations Parliament enacted in 2019, the government appears to be sidestepping the problem.”
“When the government promises to help 530,000 households in need and delivers only 78,000 units, when it plays around with its own budgets for housing and then, through Bill C‑26 , asks Parliament to authorize new, untied spending for housing supply without reconnecting that spending to the outcomes, targets and timelines it established itself, it bears further scrutiny in Parliament. Bill C‑26 and the programming motion I am debating right now reveal what Bill C‑26 does not do. It authorizes billions of dollars in additional payments to provinces and territories, but it does so outside the architecture of the national housing strategy.”
“The housing shortfall is not the result of building reluctance or market failure; it is the result of policy choices that have made building housing increasingly difficult. Until those structural barriers are addressed, no amount of new spending, whether under the national housing strategy or through ad hoc measures, such as Bill C‑26 , will deliver the scale of housing supply Canadians urgently need. We now have a law requiring better outcomes, a strategy promising transformation and data showing deterioration. (1340) The PBO's conclusion remains: The impact of federal housing programs is limited relative to the scale of need. That is our reality. This is not just a policy failure. It is a failure to meet commitments, targets and statutory obligations.”
“Critically, builders have also warned that federal programs layered on top of the system do little to address these fundamentals. Subsidies and incentives cannot compensate for regulatory systems that delay projects or for cost structures that exceed what the market can bear. As builders have repeatedly argued, supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not program criteria or slow-moving capital contributions. Without reforms that reduce approval timelines, lower non‑construction costs and align incentives across government, additional funding risks sitting unused or flowing to a limited number of projects rather than unlocking broad‑based supply. In short, the evidence from those who actually build homes reinforces the conclusion reached by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“While intended to reduce costs and provide affordability for homeowners or renters, those costs, in fact, are so great that government financing is outweighed by the regulatory requirements that have increased the cost of home production in the first place, so financing conditions have compounded these problems. Builders have also emphasized that higher interest rates and tighter lending conditions disproportionately affect construction projects with long approval timelines. When approvals take years, interest rate risks alone can erase already thin margins, especially for rental projects where revenues are capped for affordability expectations. In that environment, even projects that align with public policy goals are delayed or cancelled because they no longer pencil out.”
“Development charges, parkland levies and infrastructure fees, often imposed up front, can represent a significant share of total project costs, particularly for multi-unit and purpose-built rental housing. Builders have been clear that when these charges rise faster than sale prices or rents, projects simply do not proceed. If we look back on the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 housing construction policies outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we can also draw a correlation between rental construction financing and some of these constraints faced by home builders.”
“Supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not to complex program criteria or untied transfers, as we see in Bill C‑26 . Without reforms that fix approvals, fees and coordination across governments, additional spending risks flowing to a narrow set of projects or even, in some cases, sitting unused. The lesson from builders is consistent: Easing rents driven by lower demand is fragile and reversible; durable affordability requires making projects viable so homes actually get built. Canadian home builders have pointed to approval timelines that stretch for years, during which carrying costs accumulate and financing risks rise. Zoning constraints, repeated designs and overlapping municipal, provincial and federal requirements add time and cost without adding homes.”
“It signals that demand pressures ease when inflows of international students and temporary workers slow. (1335) Builders have been clear that absent faster approvals, lower non‑construction costs and predictable timelines, supply will not respond at scale. Approval timelines stretching into years amplify financing risk. Development charges and levies imposed up front erode feasibility. Repeated redesigns across jurisdictions, as Mr. Lee outlined through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, add cost without adding homes. When these factors combine, projects stall or are cancelled, even as governments point to headline spending or short‑term rent data. Canadian home builders have also cautioned that subsidies layered into this environment cannot compensate for structural barriers.”
“Builders have consistently warned that the primary barriers to increasing housing supply are not a lack of willingness or the capacity to build, but an accumulation of policy-driven costs, delays and uncertainty that makes projects financially impossible to proceed. As Mr. Lee outlined in his remarks, just the regulatory additions from 2025 alone add over $100,000 to the cost of a 2,500-square-foot home in Canada. How is that a good thing? We have to also look at these building code requirements in the context of the rental market, which is now showing temporary easing during our reduced population inflows, but where we still need to see more rental construction. In other words, recent moderation in rents does not signal that builders suddenly found projects viable.”
“It also bears mentioning, reflecting on earlier words in the House of Commons today, that the minister responsible, when demanding $1.7 billion, unchecked, from the federal government, could not have referenced this very important letter outlined to him about what he needed to do to address housing affordability in Canada. It is from the very people the government depends on to build homes in the first place. Getting back to my speech and the failure to enable private sector construction, it is not because builders refuse to build, but because conditions made projects unviable. This point has been repeatedly underscored by the Canadian home builders, and it aligns with the broader demand-side story now being mis-characterized as policy success.”
“Canada must act quickly to avoid the same problems identified in Australia and ensure our codes system supports safe, affordable, and climate-resilient housing. CHBA remains committed to working with government towards a more effective and inclusive code development process. We would be happy to meet with you and your officials at your earliest convenience to continue this important conversation and inform immediate action. That was written by Kevin Lee. That letter was cc'd to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure , the minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development , the Minister of Internal Trade and minister responsible for One Canadian Economy , and the president of the National Research Council of Canada.”
“pause all 2030 code development until critical reforms are made to the development approach, such as restoring transparency, accountability, and meaningful stakeholder engagement within the codes system adding an ex-officio seat for CHBA and other broad sector stakeholders at all CBHCC meetings (including in-camera meetings) to properly inform the development from an industry perspective reinstating a coordination committee dedicated to NBC Part 9 (which deals directly with housing) rather than spreading it across 13 committees with nonresidential construction reducing the priorities for the 2030 code cycles, focusing only on essential, cost-neutral requirements making housing affordability a core principle in code development along with a robust structured process to assess and limit individual-change and cumulative costs for each future code edition establish a National Building Code Interpretation Centre to achieve consistent local application of harmonized national construction codes, and work with the provinces to make published solutions binding.”
“The pause is intended to provide stability, reduce red tape, and help the industry focus on building more homes. The parallels between Australia’s housing challenges and Canada’s are extensive, making a similar move for Canada justified and essential. (1330) To that end, Canada should follow Australia’s lead and immediately stop the adoption and implementation process of the 2025 National Construction Codes, and assess them, with a plan to only put forth for adopting cost-neutral changes for housing in Part 9 of the 2025 national codes...”
“The roadblocks confronting the residential construction industry, such as rising costs, reduced transparency, and fragmented code interpretation will inevitably hinder the government’s pursuit of doubling housing starts, including affecting the government‑supported housing to be built under the Build Canada Homes initiative. Without urgent reform, these systemic issues will undermine all efforts to deliver housing Canadians can afford on the accelerated timelines needed. Facing very similar challenges, the government of Australia recently paused changes to its National Construction Code until 2029, following a report from its own Productivity Commission. The report found that frequent code changes were slowing housing delivery and increasing costs.”
“This barrier to more housing faster has not been recognized by governments. As the government continues to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers, it also needs to resolve the fragmented interpretation of building codes that not only vary from province to province but also municipality to municipality. To that end, CHBA recommends a National Code Interpretation Centre be established at the National Research Council to publish code interpretations—provinces can in turn reference those interpretations, making them binding, and helping to end the endless variations on code interpretations that are a major barrier to industry productivity.”