Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member. He is a good member, and I know he cares a great deal about his community. He talks about families in his community and across the country. What he does not mention is that the Conservatives would, right away, if they were to assume office, cut child care support, which has now moved in many parts of the country to $10 a day. Where it is not at $10, it will soon be, which will make life much more affordable.
The Conservatives would get rid of the school food program, which we have seen tremendous progress on. Recently, the provincial government in Ontario came together with the federal government. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are also moving forward. What about support to help people living with diabetes? The Conservatives would get rid of free insulin.
To the point at hand, the Conservatives would also get rid of support for housing. The member talks about the so-called big, bold idea the Leader of the Opposition has put forward to lift GST off the purchase price of a home. How would they pay for that? They would do so by getting rid of the housing accelerator fund, which unfortunately my friend has not characterized correctly here today.
I do not discount at all the importance of development charges; they are an impediment to getting more homes built, and municipalities have to find a way to lower them as much as possible. However, what the member does not talk about is the systemic changes that come as a result of the federal government's attaching conditions to federal funding for municipalities, so that, for example, zoning changes can become possible.
Throughout too much of Canada's history, certainly into the modern day, the building of certain types of homes has been outright illegal in this country. In some neighbourhoods, it has been outright illegal to build duplexes or triplexes or fourplexes, or row houses or mid-rise apartments. All of those would add tremendously to affordability to help the families in the member's community. I especially have on my mind the young couples, for example, who have a tough time, if they can put together a down payment, finding a home that is affordable for them. They cannot do it right now in so many instances. Zoning changes would allow for that.
What the federal government has done is said that we recognize that restrictive zoning is a huge impediment to getting more homes built, and we have attached conditions onto municipalities that if they want federal dollars for housing and infrastructure, they agree to make zoning changes. Many are doing so. At this point, there have been 178 agreements, and the number will grow.
Finally, the member also fails to mention that the GST proposal of the Conservatives would lead to the cancellation of the government's infrastructure support for communities. We cannot have housing unless we have infrastructure, for example to connect water systems and roads to homes, and to make neighbourhoods possible.
We have said there is a need for infrastructure, and we have attached a condition for it too: that development charges be frozen to April 2024 levels to ensure that development charges in that issue are in the first instance dealt with, but also to ensure that municipalities are doing what they need to do to build more homes. This is why the condition exists, and the Conservatives want to get rid of it.