It's certainly recognized that municipalities are going to play a key role, especially as enablers and implementers. But there's no question that our position is that the property tax is not really the most efficient or effective way of raising revenue for services to people, especially redistributive services like housing. So yes, it is asking for provincial and federal engagement in such a strategy.
What it's really saying—and I think Mr. Shapcott made the case very well, and so did Mr. Lyman—is that billions and billions of federal and provincial dollars are already being spent. The problem is that the commitments are made over short-term periods and there's not always coordination between the federal and provincial commitments. So really, what our national action plan is saying, which is why I think we can be here in support of this bill, is that we need some coordination between those two. We need to move towards a long-term footing. But most importantly, we need the four orders of government and also the other key actors on this issue to come together and look at this problem, partner together, and agree on a solution that is going to include very clear targets.
I think that is going to address some of your previous questions to Mr. Shapcott around accountability. You're right that political accountability is a tricky one to harness, but setting some clear targets is going to help with that.
So our strategy isn't saying that the federal and provincial governments have to just come up with the money. It's more like, hey, you're spending a lot of what we need, and we just need to figure out how to spend it more efficiently.