Mr. Speaker, a couple in their thirties here in London both work hard. They did what they were told to do. They saved. They planned. They imagined buying a home and starting a family in the city where they grew up. However, over the past several years, home prices surged far beyond what they could realistically keep up with. The down payment required moved further and further out of reach. The life they pictured for themselves, a home, stability and children growing up near grandparents, began to feel uncertain. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair shot.
The government's own housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its latest housing market outlook, projects that prices are expected to continue rising in the years ahead because we are not building enough homes to meet demand. That is the reality facing families in London, and that is what this bill must address. The housing crisis did not happen because the Liberal government failed to expand its role in housing enough. It happened because housing supply did not keep pace with the surge in demand created by government policy.
Over the last decade, the government dramatically increased immigration levels without ensuring that the housing supply could keep up. The result was predictable: Demand surged, supply lagged and prices were pushed beyond the reach of young Canadians. Housing capacity was never aligned with immigration policy. This is a supply and demand problem driven by inadequate housing construction and immigration levels that were never aligned with housing capacity. Any economist will tell us that what happens when demand rises while supply lags behind is that prices go up.
On top of that, the cost of building has risen sharply across the country. According to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, government taxes and regulatory costs now make up nearly one-third of the price of a new home. That was not always the case. Over the last 25 years, those taxes and regulatory costs have increased by more than 700%. Development charges, fees and regulatory levies are not marginal add-ons. In many communities, they represent a substantial portion of the final sale price before a family ever receives the keys.
Layer upon layer of government-imposed costs and approval delays are built directly into what buyers are forced to pay. Builders are telling us clearly that current cost pressures and regulatory burdens are making it harder, not easier, to bring new homes to market. Housing starts are projected to decline in the coming years, and the share of homes intended for ownership has fallen.
For years, Conservatives warned that the housing market was heading in the wrong direction. When the Liberals finally acknowledged that there was a housing crisis, their default response, under the previous prime minister and with the support of the NDP, was the same response we have seen time and again when challenges arise. It was to expand the role of government, with more programs, more spending and more federal control. However, affordability declined, home ownership fell and confidence was eroded. Canadians do not need more announcements; they need more homes.
Now we are presented with Bill C-20. At its core, this legislation would significantly expand the role of the federal government by turning it into a direct participant in the housing market, acting much like a national developer with broad authority to finance, acquire and manage housing projects. Instead of focusing on removing barriers so that builders can build, it places the government deeper into the business of building itself. This approach is not unique. We are hearing similar arguments from voices within the NDP leadership race, suggesting that government should enter other sectors as well, whether that is grocery stores, banking or telecommunications. It reflects a growing faith that whenever a market struggles, the answer is for government to take over.
After seeing first-hand how overwhelmed and inefficient parts of the federal system can be, I can tell members that this faith is misplaced. Since I took office, our constituency office has helped thousands of residents navigate basic federal services, many of whom come to us as a last resort after being unable to get timely answers or assistance through the system itself.
That experience has made one thing clear: Expanding the size of government does not improve its performance. Canadians do not need government-run grocery chains, and they certainly do not need government acting as a national housing developer. Canadians need conditions that allow supply to increase, competition to work and costs to come down.
The central question is this: Will expanding the federal government's role as a developer lower the cost of building homes in London and increase supply at the scale we need?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that Build Canada Homes will add roughly 5,000 homes per year. The minister has confirmed there are no top-line production targets set. Meanwhile, the government's own outlook projects that housing starts will decline over the next several years.
There is a gap between rhetoric and results. When something is not working, adding another layer does not fix the underlying problem. After nearly three decades working in information technology, something I learned first-hand is that when a system fails, it is not solved by adding more complexity. One needs to troubleshoot what is broken, remove the bottlenecks, correct the misalignment and then rebuild it so that it works. That mindset is why I entered public service. What fixes the problem starts with identifying what is actually broken and then fixing it. Conservatives want to work with anyone in the House to restore affordability, but that has to start with an honest look into why young Canadians have been priced out of home ownership.
That begins with first principles. If housing is unaffordable because supply is constrained and costs are inflated by policy, then the solution must be to remove those constraints and reduce those costs. Federal tools should be used to align incentives with results. Infrastructure funding can be tied to measurable increases in housing approval so that municipalities are encouraged to speed up permitting and reduce unnecessary obstacles. Development charges and other local levies that are driving up final sale prices must be addressed. That goal should be simple. When more houses are approved and barriers come down, communities see tangible benefits.
At the federal level, tax policy also matters. Reducing the GST on new homes would directly lower the cost to buyers and improve project viability for builders. Unlocking private capital and removing disincentives to reinvest in housing would allow the market to respond at scale. Affordability is not only about the price of a home but also about the ability to save for one. When families face rising daily expenses driven by punishing policies such as the industrial carbon tax, it becomes harder and harder to put money aside for a down payment. High energy, transportation and input costs ripple through the economy and the cost of building as well. Restoring affordability means tackling both sides of the equation, increasing supply and lowering the policy-driven costs that make homes and everyday life more expensive.
Housing is too important for structural experiments that do not confront the underlying drivers of unaffordability. The young couple in London does not care which department holds the file. They care about whether they can put down roots, plan for the future and raise their children in the city they love. Let us fix what is actually broken. Let us remove the barriers holding back supply. Let us deliver results, not just rhetoric, because families in London deserve more than another expansion of federal control over housing. They deserve a home.