This House of Commons committee meeting on June 4, 2026, studied housing starts in relation to federal programs, hearing from Jennifer Keesmaat of The Keesmaat Group, Mike Collins-Williams of the West End Home Builders' Association, Isabelle Demers and David Goulet of the Association des professionnels de la construction et de l'habitation du Québec, and Richard Lyall of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario.
Jennifer Keesmaat emphasized that housing delivery takes a decade from acquisition to occupancy, making housing starts a lagging indicator that captures only one moment in a longer process. She argued that government should minimize uncertainty by providing stable housing programs, clear policy direction, and alignment between immigration, infrastructure spending, and housing strategies, noting that programs like ACLP, MLI Select, and HAF are working but risk being replaced too quickly. She recommended measuring homes delivered and starts enabled rather than dollars spent, and urged certainty around policy and financing tools to give industry confidence to build.
Mike Collins-Williams stated that if buyers cannot buy, builders cannot build, and that housing starts for ownership have declined significantly while purpose-built rental construction has increased, supported by federal programs. He noted that taxes, fees, and charges account for 25% to 30% of a new home's cost in Ontario, and that approval timelines are growing longer, with Hamilton ranked last among major Canadian municipalities for development approval timelines. He recommended reforming the mortgage stress test as a zero-cost policy measure, reducing taxes and development charges, and ensuring mortgage policies help qualified buyers access the market, while emphasizing that federal programs are most successful when they unlock private sector investment.
Isabelle Demers identified three priority areas: increasing supply through simplification of regulations and programs, promoting home ownership by relaunching the CMHC first-time homebuyer incentive with enhanced eligibility, and maintaining existing housing stock through renovation incentives tied to energy efficiency. She noted that the definition of affordability varies between federal and Quebec programs, causing confusion, and that CMHC's financial capacity review for large borrowers lacks transparency and predictability. David Goulet added that the apartment construction loan program is popular but that CMHC's opaque assessment process limits builders' ability to plan, and that Quebec faces a looming crisis for seniors who will need rental housing.
Richard Lyall stated that Canada is running at roughly half the pace needed to meet housing targets, with Ontario delivering 86,000 starts in 2025 against a 125,000-unit benchmark, and that federal programs like the housing accelerator fund and apartment construction loan program have supported permits and units but are often isolated from provincial and municipal cost structures. He recommended tying federal infrastructure transfers to development charge reform, making the HST removal on new housing permanent, modernizing how starts are measured by tracking excavations as the U.S. does, and giving Build Canada Homes measurable accountability with published KPIs. He disagreed with the notion that modern methods of construction alone can solve the crisis, noting they represent only 2% to 6% of the market and require long-term investment.
During questions, witnesses agreed that housing starts are a lagging indicator and that the industry faces a downturn, with Collins-Williams warning that skilled trades are leaving the sector and may not return. Keesmaat noted that Build Canada Homes is on the cusp of receiving royal assent and could keep trades working by building non-market housing on public land, while Lyall argued that federal programs are band-aids without permanent solutions and that a housing affordability target is needed. Demers highlighted that Quebec has 1,100 municipalities with different interpretations of the building code, and that prefabricated components are sometimes ineligible for federal programs, creating a dichotomy for builders. The committee did not debate procedural motions or votes during this session.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.