Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to add the NDP's perspective on this condo conversion developer bailout scheme.
Fundamental to today's discussion is whether public housing dollars are being used to serve Canadians struggling with housing affordability or to protect private interests from market losses. Canadians are facing the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. Renters are struggling. First-time homebuyers are locked out of the market. Homelessness continues to rise. Non-profit housing providers, co-operatives, indigenous housing organizations and municipalities are all calling for sustained investments in affordable housing, yet the government's response is to use public funds to purchase unsold condominium units from developers.
While the federal and B.C. governments continue to speak about creating pathways to affordable home ownership, their decision to purchase existing distressed condominium units raises important questions about whether their public policy is addressing the root causes of housing unaffordability. The Carney government's rollout of affordable housing policies was fundamentally flawed in its design from the outset. In fact, virtually every announcement to date betrays Carney's election promise of “build big, build bold, build now”.
Make no mistake: This latest announcement of the condo conversion is a massive bailout for developers, even though the Prime Minister wants to pass it off as affordable housing. No one is buying it. The truth is that the Prime Minister betrayed himself when he admitted as much during the announcement when he said, “developers are stuck. They don’t want to sell at a loss, they can’t afford to hold those empty units indefinitely.” He sounds like a board member from Brookfield Asset Management rather than a Prime Minister when he uses his inside voice out loud.
This comes just months after shovel-ready project proposals from non-profits were stopped in their tracks by the B.C. government. I don't agree with my Conservative colleagues very often, but this scheme has major problems, and it does not pass the public smell test. Every dollar spent on buying existing private inventory is a dollar not spent constructing new social housing, co-op housing, supportive housing, indigenous housing or non-profit housing. This is particularly grating when affordable housing providers have shovel-ready projects waiting for funding in B.C. Canadians deserve to know how and why this option was chosen.
In the final week of the sitting of the House, the Liberals wielded their hammer and forced closure on Bill C-26, the legislation that approved spending authorities. At the time, I voiced my concerns that there are no affordability criteria, no measurable outcomes and no clear accountability mechanisms. The bill didn't even say what funding formula was used to determine how much would be allocated to each province and territory. Instead of calculating it on a per capita basis, the government refused to say what secret formula was used. Based on what has been announced to date, I would venture to suggest that it is based on how much overpriced condo glut exists in each province.
If I were an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec or Alberta, I would want to know why my province was being shortchanged by tens of millions and why we were not getting our fair share. If it had been done on a per capita basis, Alberta should have gotten $208.5 million, but instead it got $119 million; Manitoba should have gotten $62.2 million, but instead it got $10 million; Saskatchewan should have gotten $52.3 million, but instead it got $10 million; New Brunswick should have gotten $35.8 million, but instead it got $10 million; Newfoundland and Labrador should have gotten $22.7 million, but instead it got $10 million; and Quebec should have gotten $373.1 million, but instead it got $320 million.
Perhaps Liberal MPs were never told how much was allocated to their province. After all, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, they are just seat warmers for votes. Given the centralization of the Carney government, not one Liberal MP said boo about this inequity. This right here speaks to the whole problem of this scheme—how Carney is governing and, yes, why we're here today.
Bill C-26 is a piece of legislation that authorized the expenditure of $1.713 billion of public funds. It contained no meaningful safeguards, no measurable outcome, no affordability requirements and no clear accountability mechanisms. It is not a plan to support home ownership for first-time buyers. Rather, it is an investment banker's plan.
At the heart of this condo conversion bailout program are the interests of investors and financial institutions. That is precisely why there is a housing affordability crisis in Canada. For years, ordinary people saw housing prices soar as developers, speculators and foreign investors raked in huge profits. Renters were renovicted and demovicted. First-time homebuyers were priced out of the market. Seniors were forced to leave the communities they helped build.
The Liberals' and Conservatives' mantra that the market will eventually solve the affordability crisis has been a colossal failure. Decades later, working families, renters, seniors and young people are still being priced out of their communities.
In the face of an affordable housing crisis and a glut of overpriced condos that can't find buyers, governments rush to step in with billions of taxpayers' dollars to bail out developers. Developers took risks during a period of speculation and soaring prices. Taxpayers should not be expected to absorb those risks when the market bottoms out. The federal and provincial governments should be prioritizing investments in permanently affordable public co-op and non-profit housing.
There are alternative approaches that deserve greater attention. For years, New Democrats have called for housing policies that treat housing as a human right—as homes first and not as investment vehicles. We have called for action on speculation. We have called for measures to discourage excessive investor activity in residential real estate.
The NDP wants to end special tax treatment for housing profiteers, such as real estate investment trusts, and to change tax policies that currently favour large institutional ownership of residential real estate. We want to see action to discourage the speculative accumulation of multiple investment properties and to see such measures as progressively higher down payment requirements for the purchase of additional residential properties beyond a primary home, as is done in other countries, including Singapore. These types of reforms prioritize the treatment of housing as a primary home, discourage housing profiteering and create a level playing field for first-time homebuyers.
Canadians deserve a housing strategy that addresses the causes of unaffordability, not just the symptoms. They deserve answers. Why are governments using public funds to purchase existing condominium units rather than focusing those resources on increasing overall affordable housing supplied? Did the government compare the cost of condo acquisitions with the cost of constructing new social or co-op housing? How many units could be created through new construction or partnerships with non-profit housing providers for the same concept and level of public investment? Why are shovel-ready non-profit housing projects not receiving equivalent priority? How will the government determine which developers' overpriced condo glut will be the chosen ones for this bailout? Is it the people who attended the special meeting with the Prime Minister in secret?
How will the purchase price be determined? By how much will developers benefit from this bailout? What performance indicators will be used to evaluate this program? What analysis has been conducted on the impact of these purchases on local housing markets and first-time buyers? According to the premier, most of these units will be out of the metro Vancouver region. What is the government's plan to deal with an affordability crisis in Vancouver, one of the most expensive and populous parts of the province?
Why has the government prioritized purchasing unsold private inventory rather than pursuing stronger measures to reduce speculative demand? Why did the government eliminate the underused housing tax? Why has the government not committed to extending the foreign buyer ban? What measures is the government pursuing to discourage excessive investor activity in residential real estate?
Why were there no affordability and accountability requirements in Bill C-26? Officials said housing market conditions data was used to formulate the allocation of funds to provinces and territories. Will the government publicly disclose the data used? How can the government justify per capita inequity in funding for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and so on? How can Parliament assess value for money without clear benchmarks?
How will the government remedy this lack of oversight? Will the government commit to ensuring that the parliamentary budget office has the opportunity to conduct an independent analysis of this proposal? Instead of negotiating one-off deals to absorb unsold, overpriced condo inventory, governments should be building a new generation of public co-operative and non-profit housing at a wartime scale, which the Prime Minister actually campaigned on during the last election.
It is critical that a study be initiated and that answers be found for Canadians. It is a critical task for parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this. Was there shady business behind how this deal came about? Who is to benefit? How is it really going to benefit everyday Canadians in an affordable housing crisis?
Finally, I would say this. While I support the motion put forward, I would suggest other witnesses, such as Jill Atkey from the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, Andy Yan from SFU and Susan Tatoosh from the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre Society—people from the non-profit sector who have been working hard to build non-profit housing and address the affordability housing crisis. They deserve a seat at this table for this conversation and for the answers to be sought. We all do. Canadians deserve answers from this government to get to the bottom of this situation and to ensure accountability for the government going forward.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.