Bill C-520 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to increase the eligible amount for the Home Buyers’ Plan to $25,000.

Income Tax Act

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

moved that Bill C-520, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-520 will increase from $20,000 to $25,000 the amount of money first time homebuyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs. This will be the first adjustment in the borrowing limit since the home buyers' plan was created in 1992.

This increase in the $20,000 loan limit to $25,000 will help first time buyers in every region of the country and will allow couples to withdraw up to $50,000. This increase will allow new homebuyers to maximize their down payment.

The home buyers' plan was proposed by finance minister Don Mazankowski to allow homebuyers to have access to their own retirement savings. Mazankowski viewed it as a win-win. In the 1992 budget he said, “The Plan will stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risking retirement savings”. It was a win-win in 1992 and it is a win-win in 2008.

Canadian homebuyers like the plan. According to the Department of Finance, Canadian homebuyers have used the plan more than 1.6 million times since 1992. They have borrowed more than $16 billion from their own savings.

Clearly, homebuyers prefer to borrow from their own savings rather than borrow from the banks and pay interest. As popular as the home buyers' plan is with homebuyers, its value has been eroded since 1992 by the dramatic increase in the cost of housing in many parts of Canada.

Home prices have climbed 152% in metro Vancouver since 1992, severely eroding the value of the original home buyers' plan put in place by Don Mazankowski. If the home buyers' plan were to keep pace with the rise of home prices in metro Vancouver, the plan's borrowing limit might have increased to well over $50,000.

The increase proposed in Bill C-520 is a very modest proposal that builds upon recent tax measures, such as the reduction in the GST from 7% to 5% and the creation of the new tax-free savings account, all which give Canadians an increased opportunity to buy their first home. This is the least we can do for aspiring homeowners in British Columbia and, indeed, throughout Canada.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association told the finance committee earlier this year that the borrowing limit should be increased to $25,000. It was a laudable recommendation, worthy of our support today.

The finance committee agreed. In its February report on the budget it recommended that the Minister of Finance:

--increase the amount that can be withdrawn from a registered retirement savings plan to purchase or build a qualifying home for the holder of the plan or for a related person with a disability.

Bill C-520 will enact the increase recommended by the B.C. Real Estate Association and supported by the Canadian Real Estate Association. While a recommendation to increase the borrowing limit to $25,000 may have come from British Columbia, it also has widespread support throughout the country.

The actions that will flow from this private member's bill will address one of the most fundamental desires shared by most Canadians: to own a home. A home is more than just a roof over one's head or a place to hang one's hat. It is a symbol of permanence, an investment in something bigger than one's own property. It is a connection with the community.

The privately owned home is perhaps the strongest keystone in the building blocks of a community and the strongly shared values that flow from being part of a community. We are often buoyed when we hear that the housing market is booming because we know that housing construction is a huge economic driver. In some parts of the country, it is the only economic driver.

We have also welcomed news in the last decade that has pointed to the growing rate of home ownership. In fact, some would argue that the home buyers' plan introduced in 1992 helped to drive the expansion of home ownership with a rate of home ownership increasing from 62.3% in 1992 to 66.1% in 2001.

However, we must dig deeper into the statistics to see an alarming trend that runs contrary to the positive results I have just quoted. Statistics show that young people are struggling to meet the promise of home ownership. Home ownership rates in the first time homebuyer age groups are well below the level of two decades ago.

According to research by the Vanier Institute of the Family in a 2004 report entitled “The Current State of Canadian Family Finances”, the home ownership rates for those households aged 34 and under fell from 44% in 1981 to 41% in 2001.

Among households aged 35 to 44, home ownership rates plummetted from 72% in 1981 to 67% in 2001. The report reveals that both of these groups had flat earnings for almost two decades.

The lower home ownership rates are confirmed by a Statistics Canada analysis which indicates that there was a slight increase in the proportion of young adults living with their parents and 41% of Canadians aged 20 to 29 were living with their parents in 2001 compared to 33% in 1991 and 28% in 1981.

The decline in home ownership among the young is due to factors which are not measured in traditional analysis of affordability. The latter generally concentrate on mortgage payments on a typical dwelling versus average incomes. Such analyses tend to exaggerate the effects of lower interest rates and do not take into account other important factors which together determine whether someone is able to afford to purchase a home. For many young Canadians, purchasing their first home is extremely difficult, particularly accumulating a down payment.

The challenges faced by first time homebuyers are not clearly understood by many housing analysts and policy makers. It is important to note that the decline in home ownership rates among the young is not a reflection of diminished desire to own a home. Research shows that this desire is as strong as ever. While most people wish to own a home, home ownership has become less viable for a large proportion of Canadians.

This bill takes direct aim at that decline. It helps young Canadians meet the challenge of coming up with a down payment. The home buyers' plan is unique in that it both encourages savings and it maximizes down payments available to homebuyers.

It addresses directly two important Canadian desires that strengthen the economic health of our nation by strengthening the economic health of individual Canadians: buying a home and putting away savings. These are worthy financial goals for ordinary Canadians and worthy goals for a nation that believes in home ownership and believes people are most able to care for themselves when they have cared for their long term financial success.

The program is only of value if it reflects the realities of the marketplace. Bill C-520 does just that. It raises the borrowing limit for registered retirement savings plan holders to a level that is close to its real value when it was introduced in 1992, when we compare it to the rate of inflation identified by the CPI. It recognizes that the average price of a home has risen more than three times as fast as the rate of inflation since the program was introduced.

By encouraging home buying activity we would be driving an important economic engine that produces many economic spin-offs. These spin-offs include increased tax revenues that will flow to government. I have not done the economic modelling necessary to verify any figures but my belief is that this measure in terms of its tax deferral implications should be revenue positive.

It is worthwhile to take a brief look at the history of the home buyers' plan. The home buyers' plan exists today because of the determination of two finance ministers, one Conservative and one Liberal, Don Mazankowski and the member for LaSalle—Émard, to let homebuyers have access to their own retirement savings when borrowing for their home.

Then finance minister Don Mazankowski, in his February 1992 speech, announced a plan to allow homeowners to use their retirement savings for down payments for first home purchases. Mr. Mazankowski told Parliament that the plan would stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risk retirement savings.

The Mazankowski plan was introduced as a temporary measure. As one of my first statements in the House, I rose on January 31, 1994, to ask the new government to extend the home buyers' plan. While I do not claim any credit for the extension of the plan, the new Liberal government made the plan permanent in the 1994 budget a short time later.

The finance minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, indicated that he made the program permanent so as to continue supporting the housing market and further encourage home ownership. In his 1998 budget, the former finance minister amended the home buyers' plan to enable persons with disabilities to have greater access to the plan by allowing existing homeowners to use the home buyers' plan to purchase a more accessible home or a home for a disabled, dependant relative.

It is worth noting that the regulatory impact statement printed in the Canada Gazette on January 6, 1999, when these changes were made, did not identify any cost to the federal treasury in extending the plan to persons with disabilities. I take this as another indication that Finance Minister Mazankowski was correct in 1992 when he said in the House that the home buyers' plan did not create any revenue loss for the federal treasury.

The House of Commons finance committee in February recommended to the Minister of Finance that the 2008 budget:

—increase the amount that can be withdrawn from a registered retirement savings plan to purchase or build a qualifying home for the holder of the plan or for a related person with a disability.

This recommendation had all party support.

The Bloc Québécois, in its own chapter in the finance committee's report, specifically supported an increase in the amount that a home buyer could borrow from a retirement savings account:

To make home ownership more accessible, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendation to increase the amounts available under the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP).

I would now like to address a number of questions that arise when we talk about increasing the borrowing limit from an individuals' earnings to $25,000, or $50,000 if both spouses have an RRSP.

First, has the home buyers' plan been successful? Over the last five years, almost 600,000 Canadians have made withdrawals from their RRSPs under the home buyers' plan, totalling over $16 billion. Since the introduction of the home buyers' plan in 1992, about 1.6 million Canadians have borrowed from their savings accounts for their first-time home purchases. On the average, first-time home buyers borrow $10,000 from their retirement savings accounts, for a total of $16 billion. That is $16 billion borrowed without any cost to the government and without any cost to home buyers, because home buyers borrow from their own savings. It is a program that first-time home buyers absolutely support. Clearly Canadians prefer to borrow from themselves rather than borrow from the banks and pay interest to the bankers.

Second, is there a negative impact on the government's tax revenues? There is no impact. The former minister of finance, Don Mazankowski, who introduced the home buyers' plan, advised Parliament in February 1992 that the $20,000 would have no impact on government's tax revenues:

The Plan will stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risking retirement savings.

If the $20,000 limit had no impact on government tax revenues in 1992, then $25,000 would have even less impact on government tax revenues in 2008.

Third, does the home buyers' plan assist retirement security for Canadians? Yes. Before the home buyers' plan, Canadians had to make a choice, either save for retirement or save for a house. The home buyers' plan allows Canadians to do both. The home buyers' plan is a means to strengthen home ownership at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Borrowed savings are invested in a principal residence, which is a pillar of security for retirement.

Since the home buyers' plan was introduced in 1992, the rate of home ownership has increased from 62.3% in 1991 to 66.1% in 2001. The home buyers' plan is unique among support programs for home ownership in that it encourages savings and maximizes down payments. By emphasizing the down payment, the home buyers' plan helps the home buyer to minimize the level of indebtedness over time.

Fourth, what has happened to home prices since 1992? Residential home prices rose 85% nationally between 1992 and 2006. Since 1992, home prices in metro Vancouver have increased 152%. The 152% increase in home prices in metro Vancouver has eroded the value of the home buyers' plan. Nowhere in the country is the need for an increase in the borrowing limit in the home buyers' plan to $25,000 greater than in metro Vancouver.

In closing, let me reiterate that there are no negative consequences to increasing the amount that first-time homebuyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs from $20,000 to $25,000. Rather, this increase would result in a greater number of young Canadians being able to participate in the dream every young person has, to own their own home, which would be very positive both for young people and for Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill because, in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, we stated that we wanted to make some changes in this respect. I thank him for mentioning this in his speech.

Since the ceiling has not been raised since 1994, it is important that we make it easier for young couples to purchase property more quickly.

Would my colleague be open to amending the bill to allow for the indexing of the amount, so that we will not have to come back year after year to increase the maximum? This would avoid another situation like this one, where we want to increase the current amount, which was set 14 years ago in 1994.

Would my colleague be open to such an amendment if the Bloc Québécois or the committee decided to put it forward? I will repeat that we support this bill. We think it is a good idea, and the sooner it can take effect, the better.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we did contemplate putting the indexing factor into the bill. The reason we left it out was simple. It simplified the matter. We felt it was an issue that could be dealt with in this Parliament, for this Parliament and by this Parliament, so we left it at that one figure. However, philosophically, I have no difficulty whatsoever with agreeing to that sort of amendment.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I think it is a very well-intended and needed bill to help young couples buy their first home. However, I have a question that I hope the hon. member can answer.

By increasing this limit, it might reduce tax revenue for the government. With the RESP bill, we heard the Minister of Finance say that it would have put us into deficit. Have any calculations been done? Will this bill put us into deficit or not?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend raises an interesting point, and it is one which we addressed. We think the bill is revenue neutral. People contribute money to their RRSPs. It is an ongoing program. The government has every indication just how much money on average Canadians will put into the RRSPs and gain a tax benefit from it in any one particular year, and the bill would not alter that. All the bill would do is allow people to take that money out of their RRSPs and use that money to purchase a home.

The former prime minister, when he was finance minister, and Mr. Mazankowski, agreed that this would not be a net cost to the government. I see a former finance minister across the way who may concur with that notion, that the bill would not be a cost to the government. Therefore, I do not see how it could impact on the budget.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on this file and, particularly, for bringing this legislation into the House.

Could he share with us some of the stories has heard with regard to the rising costs of housing in certain parts of the country, perhaps specifically in his region, the Lower Mainland of B.C.?

Finally, would my colleague comment on how certain measures that our government has brought forward help Canadians lower the cost of home ownership? I am thinking specifically of our cut to the GST.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, both the cuts to the GST and the savings account, introduced by the finance minister in the last budget, will help young people to acquire the down payment for a home. That is the bottom line on this bill.

In my area of the country, acquiring a down payment for a house is a very difficult for young people. I am sure it is a major challenge for young Canadians across the country. The bill would allow Canadians to do just that, to utilize the RRSP—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Sorry, I have interrupt the hon. member at that point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It is an excellent idea. It barely keeps up with inflation since the idea was first introduced. It is good to take this action. I agree with the hon. member that there will be little, if any, implications for government revenue. It is the kind of action that is very helpful for first-time home buyers, particularly where the member comes from in Vancouver with the huge housing inflation. Indeed, across Canada house inflation has been much greater than the amount of the increase since 1992. It is a good bill and I am very happy to support it.

As well, if we look at housing more generally, I am concerned about other Canadians in the housing market. I am particularly concerned about lower income Canadians. Three programs were introduced by the previous Liberal government for which I gather the funding comes to an end on March 31 of next year.

Those programs include the rehabilitation housing funding program, which involves a subsidy paid by the federal government to lower income individuals occupying co-ops. It happens that the co-op people came to see me this morning. They expressed great concern that the funding for these lower income Canadians might come to an end on March 31 of next year.

Second, is the whole homelessness file. I understand that funding may come to an end as well on March 31 of next year. There is great concern on the part of those who are homeless, or who advocate for the homeless, or who care about the homeless that this funding might also end.

Finally, in budget 2005, funding was provided to provinces to help in the provision of affordable housing. I understand that too comes to an end March 31, 2009.

Under the former Liberal government, Claudette Bradshaw, in particular, took a passionate lead in favour of homelessness programs, in favour of support for social housing. She and all of us on the Liberal side would also be very disappointed and critical of the government should these three important programs, addressing lower income Canadians in need of housing plus the homeless, come to an end.

We should be under no illusions. I refer members back to the “Advantage Canada” booklet, which came out with one of the government's previous budgets. It talked about federal-provincial jurisdictions. The government has a very narrow definition of federal and provincial jurisdictions. There were two examples given in the booklet of areas which were entirely provincial, according to the government. Perhaps not coincidentally the two areas mentioned were precisely housing and homelessness. According to the government's budget documents, these were considered provincial areas, not federal areas. The implication being that it would be just fine if the federal government washed its hands of any kind of support for social housing, or homeless, or low income Canadians in co-ops. I would not be terribly hopeful as to continuation of support for these programs on March 31, 2009.

On the Liberal side, we believe in these programs. We were the ones who initiated them. This is not to say that the federal government should necessarily be involved in the construction of new houses, but we think the federal government should be there to support cross-Canada initiatives, possibly led by the provinces, to deal with issues of homelessness, social housing and housing accommodation for lower income Canadians.

While I support the bill and I congratulate the member on bringing this forward, and it is very appropriate, as worthy as the bill is, there are far more pressing needs in our country by lower income Canadians, by desperate people who are homeless and by those agencies which have come to expect some funding from the federal government to support housing initiatives for low income Canadians.

Given the government's very narrow interpretation of the Constitution and its disdain or disregard for homeless or lower income Canadians, whom it does not see as its voting core, I think all of us in the House, at least on the opposition side, should be very concerned that these funds for these three important programs may be allowed to lapse on March 31 of next year.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Delta—Richmond East for introducing this bill, which will increase the amount of money people can borrow from their RRSPs to buy a house from $20,000 to $25,000. For a young couple, that means the limit will increase from $40,000 to $50,000.

I think there was a need to fix the existing situation. This is a good program, and this measure helps give people access to property. In my riding in particular, many young couples will have a greater incentive to become homeowners thanks to this measure. They will vacate housing that can be occupied by other people, because in some of the municipalities in my riding, there is a real housing shortage. This change will have a positive ripple effect.

I would also like to thank my colleague for the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance's prebudget consultation report recommended doing something like this. The Minister of Finance did not follow that recommendation this year. However, let us hope that the situation will be improved by the progress of this bill, its adoption, or some other measure.

In its supplementary opinion, the Bloc Québécois explained why it supported this measure and why the party thought it was important to make the proposed improvements to the program.

It is clear that this whole issue is also about encouraging people to save money. I think that adopting this bill will solve the non-indexation problem that has been around since 1994 and will also create a ripple effect to improve access to housing. I think we will all benefit by making this happen.

Following my colleague's speech a few minutes ago, I also got the impression that he would likely be open to the possibility of an amendment so that in the future, that amount can be either fully or partially indexed so that in five or ten years, the amount will still be realistic with respect to housing prices.

These types of actions, which have already been around for a number of years, as well as the other conditions under which homes are being built, have certainly helped Quebec and Canada avoid experiencing all of the difficulties being faced in the United States, where interest costs are fully deductible. I think that the actions that were taken in Canada were the right ones, and this bill only improves the situation. That is why the Bloc Québécois will certainly support this bill.

As I was saying earlier, the maximum amount for the home buyers' plan has not been increased since 1994, and is set at $20,000 per individual and $40,000 per household. Bill C-520 would increase that to $25,000 per year, to a maximum of $50,000 per household. Thus, individuals who have contributed to their RRSPs will have be able to have a larger down payment and therefore a smaller mortgage payment. This is a real and direct incentive for home buyers.

We know that couples often put a large part of their expenditures towards rent. With this measure, couples will have financial security while they are getting older and establishing a family.There is definitely a positive incentive in the existing program and even more so in the improvement provided by the bill.

This increase is justified by the spectacular rise in the cost of homes over the past years. Paradoxically, the cost of homes is not rising only in large cities. In my riding, along the shores of the St. Lawrence, the baby boomers are arriving, wanting to retire in the country with nice surroundings. And this has increased the costs of homes all along the St. Lawrence. This often means that young couples who have just moved to the area do not have access to these properties. However, in a number of towns not on the river, houses are becoming available. Often, as is the case with young couples, while two people work in a factory or in their first job, they have student debt to pay back.

They need more time to save the money they need to purchase a home. This program makes it easier for them to become homeowners.

In a way, the program aids regional economic development. In many communities where the population is aging, more homes are coming on the market as seniors leave their homes to live in residences or, sadly, die. The program encourages young people to settle in these towns and villages. Ultimately, families with children will justify keeping schools open. Obviously, this is not the only factor to consider, but it is one of the reasons we support this bill.

The assistant chief economist at RBC said:

Nationwide housing affordability deteriorated in every quarter throughout 2007 to end up at the worst level since...1990. Back then, soaring interest rates and a recession sparked much of the trouble. Today, however, a long upward trend in house prices, driven by sounder macroeconomic fundamentals such as job growth, is primarily responsible.

Passing this bill will send a clear message that legislators have the will to tackle the negative effects and move forward with a positive measure. Many people have asked why this situation has not already been indexed. If it had been, we would not have had to take this step now. The hon. member must be congratulated for taking the initiative to move forward to correct it.

Nonetheless, as I was saying, the Bloc Québécois would like the indexing to be incorporated into the bill during review in committee. Depending on the testimony we hear, we could study the possibility of doing so. Ultimately, we should have seen this type of measure in the last budget, but that was not the case. The hon. member's initiative can help correct the situation. Let us hope this bill is passed quickly.

During this economic downturn we are currently experiencing, this is a small tool that could be used to help maintain growth through domestic consumer spending, which we are in great need of to respond to the decline in consumer spending in the United States and the huge number of homes available in that country. We are all aware of the ripple effect, the domino effect this situation has on the economy and the entire forestry industry.

Since this bill introduces such a tool to correct the situation, at least partially, the Bloc Québécois will support it in good faith. In the presence of positive and constructive measures, we are indeed capable of working together with the government or with other hon. members of this House to pass such bills that will improve the situation, especially for our young families.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate tonight in the debate on Bill C-520, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan), a private member's bill from the member for Delta—Richmond East.

As we have heard a number of times tonight, this private member's bill seeks to increase the eligible amount for the home buyers' plan from $20,000 to $25,000. That is the amount one would be able to take out of RSP savings to put toward a first home purchase. For couples who both have RSPs, that would mean from $40,000 to $50,000 to put toward their first home.

The money borrowed from the RSP has to be repaid over 15 years. If the yearly minimum is not paid, that balance has to be added to one's taxable income in that time. Also, if one defaults on the yearly repayment, that money cannot later be repaid into the RSP. It is lost to the RSP if there is default on the repayment plan.

The current limit was established when the program was created in 1992 and has not been adjusted for inflation since then. The $25,000 proposal is almost the adjustment for inflation. It would have been slightly higher than $25,000, but that is the overall intention of this legislation.

I have to say that it seems to be a reasonable proposal from the member and it is supportable. Over its existence, this has been an important program for millions of Canadians. It has helped many people enter the housing market for the first time. In fact, the Canadian Real Estate Association has reported that 1.8 million Canadians have used this plan since it was first created. That has resulted in over 900,000 home purchases.

One of the concerns that has been raised, and the member from Delta—Richmond East raised it as well, is that upon analysis of the home ownership rate, one can see that it increased between 1991 and 2001, the year statistics are most readily available, from 62.3% to 66.1%. However, when one looks more closely at the statistics, one sees that it is older folks who benefited most in terms of moving into home ownership. People aged 55 and older benefited most from being able to move into home ownership in that period.

Therefore, it is hard to say that a program like this actually increased the ability of younger folks to purchase a first home, since the rate of first home ownership in all the other age groups actually went down, most significantly in the lower age group. It is of concern that this may not have addressed one of the intended purposes, which was to ensure that younger Canadians were able to enter the housing market for the first time.

There were concerns raised about this program when it was first implemented. A number of analysts saw it as a regressive program and said that it was in fact more helpful to wealthy Canadians, to people who are most likely to be able to set aside money for their retirement in an RSP, than it was for other Canadians of more modest incomes or low incomes. A lot of those folks are not able to put money aside in an RSP. A lot of those folks do not qualify for mortgages as easily as wealthier Canadians and therefore would not have the ability to access this program.

In a sense, then, as an affordability measure of increasing the availability of Canadians to participate in the housing market, it is not well targeted. It does not target the folks who are most in need in terms of ensuring they have a home and a roof over their heads. Other programs, such as tax credits or homeowner grants, would work much better in terms of targeting people and ensuring an affordable housing approach to this kind of program.

We also need to point out that younger Canadians, the original target group for this program, face significant student loan issues because student loans have risen dramatically in recent years. I think the average debt of most students after they graduate from university is $24,000, which increases their difficulty to take advantage of an RRSP.

Similarly, child care expenses for young families are rising. Many young families need to put significant resources into child care, which limits their ability to put money into an RRSP.

We also need to look at how people's ability to make repayments affects their retirement savings. Some of the information that I saw, albeit early on in the program, showed that almost one-third of the participants in the program failed to make their yearly required repayments and, by defaulting on the amount, the amount went into their taxable income. I think one-fifth of the total amount due was defaulted on back in 1995.

When people default on their repayments, that money in their retirement savings is lost and it cannot be backfilled. People cannot go back years later and put that money back into their retirement savings. Their ability to contribute is lost for the year they defaulted on the repayment. That is something else we should look at. We should get more up to date information on the failure to make repayments and find out how that affects people's retirement income generally as a result of their participation in the homebuyer's plan.

Housing prices have skyrocketed, particularly in some urban centres. We have already heard that there is relatively more help for people who live in an area where the real estate market is not as hot as it is in a place like Burnaby. There is significantly more assistance to people in a real estate market that is a little calmer than the one in metro Vancouver for instance. This might be another issue for us to take a look at when we are examining this program and how it has worked.

The homebuyer's program has been important for millions of Canadians. Many people have been able to buy their first home partly because of the assistance they received through the homebuyer's plan and the fact that they were able to use some of their RRSP savings to purchase their first home.

This is only a piece of the puzzle when we are looking at the housing crisis in Canada. There is a significant problem with finding affordable housing. Far too many Canadian families are spending too much of their income on housing. Thousands of Canadians are homeless and many more are in danger of becoming homeless.

A measure like this, while it is important, does not address those needs in particular and certainly does not replace the need for a national housing program that would actually build affordable housing for people already spending too much of their income and who are at risk of becoming homeless. Nothing can replace that kind of participation by the federal government.

I was disappointed to see in the most recent budget that the federal government made no new commitment to a national housing program. The only measure in the budget is a very limited pilot project.

I am also very concerned that the government has made no commitment to extend the residential rehabilitation assistance program beyond next year, a program that helps people upgrade their homes and ensure they are still liveable.

As these programs are significant to Canadians, we need a commitment from the government that these programs will be in place in the coming year.

Nothing can replace those commitments: the commitment to build homes for the homeless and the commitment to programs that help Canadians stay in their homes now. We need to ensure those commitments are not forgotten as we address this specific measure that, undoubtedly, has been of assistance to many Canadians as they enter the housing market for the first time. This program is an important piece of the puzzle around housing in Canada but it is a small piece. We also need to ensure that other important and critical issues are addressed when we look at housing policy in Canada.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-520, introduced by my Conservative colleague, the member for Delta—Richmond East.

Before I continue, the member has long been recognized as a strong advocate on behalf of his constituents, effectively bringing their concerns to Ottawa since his initial election back in 1993, a stellar record. We applaud the member for Delta—Richmond East for his longevity and his ongoing contributions to Parliament.

We now turn to his latest initiative, a private member's bill that proposes an expansion of the home buyers' plan through amendments to the Income Tax Act.

For those unfamiliar with the home buyers' plan, this program allows a first-time home buyer to withdraw up to $20,000 from an RRSP tax-free to purchase or build a home, as long as the amount is repaid within a specified timeframe of the plan in equal amounts over 15 years. No tax is paid on the amount withdrawn.

The plan's intended objective has been to make home ownership easier for the first-time buyers, while still encouraging long term retirement savings. Since its introduction in 1992, it has helped approximately 1.6 million Canadians to purchase their first homes.

Bill C-520 would modify the plan by increasing the maximum amount a first-time home buyer would be permitted to withdraw from an RRSP tax-free to $25,000 per individual.

We all recognize that the Canadian housing market is extremely robust, especially in British Columbia and the rest of western Canada. Indeed, the number of new homes started in Canada was at the second highest level in nearly two decades in 2007. That trend is expected to continue into 2008. More relevant to the discussion on Bill C-520 is that since 2002, the average selling price of an existing home has risen by almost 10% annually.

I believe all parliamentarians would agree that encouraging a robust, free market economy, including the acquisition of private property, is a basic tenet for a healthy democracy. As the revered economist, F.A. Hayek, asserted “private property is the most important guaranty of freedom”.

The most important piece of private property for the most number of Canadians is a home. Additionally, for most, buying a home will be the single largest investment Canadians will make throughout their lives. For these and other reasons, encouraging widespread private ownership is a goal that we should all share. Make no mistake, the Conservative government has introduced noteworthy measures to ensure home ownership is more affordable for more and more Canadian families.

First and foremost, we did something the previous Liberal government refused to do. We cut the GST, reducing it down to 5%. This one measure alone is having a major positive impact for those who have purchased or will purchase newly built homes. The Canadian Home Builders' Association heralded the GST cut as “great news for both home buyers and owners”. The Canadian Real Estate Association cheered the lowering of GST as “savings to new home buyers”, adding it would also “help Canadians pay for their home renovations”.

Indeed, our GST cut will translate into more than $1 billion in annual savings for the housing sector, returning money back where it belongs into the pockets of Canadians. For instance, an individual or family looking to buying a new $250,000 home will now save $3,200 because of our GST cut.

A lot of Canadians, especially new home owners, are very happy with the GST reduction because it is making a big, positive difference in their lives, people like the newlywed couple building a house in the riding of Fredericton, or that young professional woman who just bought a condominium in the riding of North Vancouver, or that family of new Canadians purchasing their first home in the riding of Oakville.

Unfortunately, each and every one of those individuals and families is currently represented by a Liberal MP in the House, an MP who is not really happy that those people are happy as the Liberals are strongly opposed to our GST cut. What is worse, all of the Liberal MPs support a Liberal leader who keeps saying he might raise the GST.

In effect, Liberal MPs want to go to those new homeowners, that newlywed couple, that single professional woman, that family of new Canadians, and reach right back into their pockets, grab the money that they saved through our GST cut and funnel their money back to Ottawa to pay for the boondoggles and scandals that would inevitably result from another Liberal government.

To those Liberals who say to Canadians that the Liberals would never raise the GST, I ask them to explain the words of their own leader who, when asked if he would raise personal taxes like the GST, said, “We will consider that”. I would ask them to explain why the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, when asked specifically if the Liberals would raise the GST, revealed, “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with“--the Liberal--“approach”.

What has Canadians nervous, especially present and future new homebuyers, is the current Liberal leader and Liberal Party who subscribe to a tax and spend philosophy, including advocating for a huge hike in the GST. Even some--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. This is private members' business, which is about this particular private member's bill. I would just caution the parliamentary secretary to try to stay relevant and not bring too much government versus opposition stuff into private members' business, as this is not what it is for, or we will be moving on soon.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the suggestions that I was referring to were simply reiterating what has been said. I would like to continue, if I can, and I will try to bring more relevance to it. There are other Liberals I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, but having been chastised by you, perhaps I will leave some of those quotes to another day. I am sure they will be raised as reminders.

I am proud to belong to a Conservative government that does not support the pro GST stance of raising the GST. We also do not care for the tax and spend philosophy. Indeed, that is why our Conservative government has slashed the tax bill for Canadian families and businesses by nearly $200 billion since forming government just two short years ago.

In budget 2008, moreover, we introduced the new landmark tax-free savings account, TFSA. This has a lot of Canadians very excited, regardless of political affiliation. Indeed, even the well-respected and non-partisan C.D. Howe Institute has called it:

--the most significant advance in Canada's tax treatment of personal savings since the registered retirement savings plan.... TFSAs will become a mainstay on the Canadian financial landscape, providing new savings options and flexibility for people of all ages and incomes.

Indeed, the TFSA will be a new tax efficient savings vehicle that provides an additional way to meet the challenges of home ownership, allowing Canadians to put more money aside, an additional $5,000 every year, and watch their investments grow tax free to use for whatever purpose they wish, including the purchase of a new home.

While TFSA contributions will not be deductible, there will be no tax on investment income earned in the plan or on withdrawals. These new savings accounts will give Canadians full flexibility in terms of how they use their savings and how quickly they replenish them.

Take, for example, a young woman who begins to save $100 a month in her TFSA as she starts working.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you admonished my hon. friend about the partisan nature of his speech, which has little relevance to his colleague's bill, which many of us think is a very good idea. I wonder if it might be time to move on, like you said you would do.