Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of how the government creates these big blocks of money without any accountability or transparency. What is the point of scrutiny when the Liberals are just going to turn a blind eye again and again to mismanagement? This is one of the most dangerous things Parliament can do: grant billions of dollars without any metrics of success, without any capacity to see how the money is being used. This is not the way our democracy or public accountability is supposed to work. When we hear promises of new spending, new funds, new programs and new announcements, I am required to ask, will it be any different this time?
In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, these failures are not theoretical. They touch very close to home. In 2021, we experienced massive flooding that became one of the most expensive natural disasters in Canada. Later that year, Lytton, British Columbia, in my riding, was burned to the ground. No riding in Canada has ever faced devastation like Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did in 2021.
The CN Rail line was washed out throughout the province. The CP Rail line was washed out all across the province. The Trans-Canada Highway was washed out and flooded. The Duffey, which connects Whistler and Pemberton to Lillooet, was washed out. The Lougheed Highway was washed out. The Southern Railway line was washed out. The port of metro Vancouver was completely shut off from the rest of Canada. We had to bring in military assistance from Quebec because there was no equipment cache in British Columbia to deal with the devastation we faced. The Sumas Prairie was flooded, compromising B.C.'s food supply. Homes were lost. People died. Our infrastructure failed.
I remember walking up to the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. It was at the time when the senator from Saskatchewan was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for a while, when Erin O'Toole was our leader, and some journalist asked me, “What do you think about this?” I had just come from a meeting with Bill Blair, now the high commissioner to the U.K. I said, “I can't believe you're asking me this. British Columbia is cut off from the rest of Canada, the port of metro Vancouver can't move any goods, and you're asking me about a senator?”
B.C. is often overlooked in this chamber. It is not an understood place. Since 2021, I have stood in this chamber and in committees and pleaded with ministers of housing and infrastructure to help British Columbia, to help our farmers and to help the government achieve its own objectives of doubling exports to Asia-Pacific markets. None of that can happen unless the government pays attention to my riding.
Most members in this chamber do not know that 37% of the oil from Trans Mountain goes through the Sumas transfer station in my community to the United States. Without that money, the Government of Canada would be bankrupt. Most members do not know that the Enbridge expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station are right in my riding. Canada cannot function without Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. My riding has one of the highest farm gates in all of Canada, and we are a key producer of berries, poultry, dairy and vegetables, on less than 1% of the land in B.C. We are an agricultural powerhouse, and we are also the confluence of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans‑Canada Highway, all three major rail lines in Canada, a border crossing and an international airport where the government just announced it is going to build Canada's new firefighting fleet through one of the best companies in Canada, Conair.
There is so much happening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and in the Fraser Valley that is essential to what the government needs to do to complete its objectives.
I ask the government when the dollars that Justin Trudeau promised at the photo ops in Abbotsford, in 2021, will come to fruition. I saw the high commissioner at the airport last week. I said, “Bill, I am still fighting.” He said to keep fighting, because they did not fulfill their promises to Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.
My number one duty in the House is to get that member who spoke before me to come clean and support my community, to support Canada, to support our export objectives and to support renewed interest in supply chains.
The Prime Minister went to New York and talked about looking to the future, about Canada's place in the global economy. We can agree that our future is not just a new trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It is westbound, through British Columbia, because the next chapter of Canada's prosperity will be written in our relationships with the Asia‑Pacific markets, which are growing faster and demanding more food, more energy and a more reliable trading partner with expertise in engineering and services, with one of the most educated workforces in the entire world.
We cannot do any of that if we do not take the $3.83 billion in national economic activity through agriculture in my riding, the role of our international airport, the site of our firefighting fleet, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, our international border crossing, the major arterial roads that connect British Columbia with all of Canada, our rail lines to the south, our rail lines to the port, and the breadbasket of British Columbia in my riding.
Every container heading to Asia, every shipment of agricultural product and every export moving through our Pacific gateway depends on the strength and reliability of the supply chains in the Fraser Valley. If Canada wants to be a serious player in the Indo‑Pacific and if we want to seize the opportunities of growing global demand, we must ensure that our gateways work.
I am going to repeat this time and time again. The government cannot accomplish its goal to double our exports abroad if it does not protect and maintain this critical infrastructure, not just on sunny days but in the face of floods, extreme weather and these growing infrastructure pressures.
It is worth noting that our competitors are not standing still. Other countries are investing heavily in trade routes and in climate‑resilient infrastructure. We are seeing it in Washington state, where they are going to start exporting more potash and other goods that Canada has, because we are not moving fast enough. Canada has to do the same.
The question before us is simple: Are we prepared to invest in the infrastructure that will define Canada's future, or are we willing to leave one of our most critical trade corridors vulnerable at the very moment the world is looking to Canada and the Pacific to provide some stability in light of global conflicts?
The Fraser Valley is not just about the past. It is about the future that the Prime Minister spoke about in his remarks in New York. It is about a future where Canada can feed global markets, power economies with responsibly developed energy and strengthen its place as a reliable trading nation. Everything the Prime Minister wants to do happens in the Fraser Valley.
However, to my key point, none of this is possible without resilient infrastructure, without protected corridors, without a federal government willing to act with urgency and ambition in a way it has not done yet. Yes, let us build homes, but let us also build the foundation of a country that can compete, that can trade and that can lead. When we invest in the Fraser Valley, it is not just about investing in a region. We are investing in Canada's future on the world stage.
This is an odd bill. It was not in the budget, and it does not appear to be part of a coherent plan based on the information before the House today. It feels more like a last-minute talking point, so the Liberals can say that the Conservatives voted against housing, rather than a serious effort to address the legitimate things the minister is trying to solve. Canadians do want to see investment in housing and infrastructure, but they also want to see improved processes, because what I will outline in the coming hours will show that the Liberals have not done that to date.
Before I do that, I would be remiss if I did not cover, just to reiterate the point, some of the comments that my constituents made in a recent mailer about what happened to them in the flood. Sometimes in this House, we need to bring in that personal perspective. These people matter, and they pay a lot of taxes. Their voice needs to be heard. I am going to refer to them just by their initials to protect their confidentiality.
J. and T. wrote me and said the following: “Our family was seriously impacted when the dikes of Sumas River blew out in 2021. This flooded the Sumas Prairie where we live on a five-acre hay farm. We lost everything in our home. We had to rebuild the entire inside of the house, from floor to ceiling, including all appliances, windows, doors, furniture, flooring and personal items. We lost three vehicles, tools and equipment for the farm. Federal help is needed to deal with international disaster with the floodwaters.”
This is a funny one. P. in Abbotsford wrote, “Instead of wasting time trying to get the Liberals to do something for the west coast, why not build a berm along the border? They can keep their water.” That is fair.
D.S. wrote, “It appears to me the federal government is not taking the flooding issue seriously. Merritt, Princeton, Sumas Prairie, all their constituencies are not listened to by the Liberal government. Is it because they don't have their party's MPs in these ridings? Five hundred pages of reposting is not sufficient to approve funding for flood-stricken families? We pay equally into the tax system in Canada. Citizens should be first.”
C. in Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, our property flooded. We had a foot of water on the main floor of our house. We were displaced for six months from our home while we let it dry out. Gutted the main floor and renovated. We also have a barn, so animals, goats, horses and chickens, were relocated for a while. My husband has a landscaping business and his shop flooded, ruining equipment and storage areas. It has taken years to rebuild.”
C. from Abbotsford wrote, “I was unable to get to my workplace during the floods. My church took the opportunity to help Ripples Estate with their restoration, and the devastation to their land was exceptional. In a documentary recap I filmed, one of the owners makes the comment that, 'We receive alert messages all the time on our iPhones. How is it possible that there is a failure to use this kind of method to warn about the potential weather impact of flooding?'”
R. from Abbotsford wrote, “My wife with extreme Parkinson's and myself were evacuated for three weeks. We went to our son's in Calgary. I live in Sumas Prairie, where the dike broke. I helped move my neighbour as his barn flooded, as well as two homes past the bridge on Sumas River, which had to be replaced. My wife recently passed. This was an extremely difficult time. During the flood in 2025, I was stranded for three days, because all the roads around me were flooded. In this day and age, this problem must be resolved. Government, change. We need proper dyking in Sumas, Washington, and pump stations on Sumas River at Barrowtown.”
N. and L. wrote, “Our family has lived on this property since 1957, which my father and mother moved to because of the high location of the property. They lived in a lower area when they migrated here in the 1930s. They went through the 1948 flood threat and realized the situation back then, so until November 2021, our family felt confident that we did not have to worry, but to our amazement the dyke on the Sumas River breached, and that was that. We suffered water flooding in our basement, costing us over $8,000 and time away from home. At that time, I was suffering from cancer, which was very difficult.”
D. from Abbotsford wrote, “I used to live in Sumas Prairie in the flood zone, and the threat of flooding was a constant concern, so we moved to the Bradner area of Abbotsford, out of the flood zone. Our old house was badly damaged in 2021. The Canadian government must pressure the U.S. government to dredge out the Nooksack River to prevent flooding again. That is one of the only solutions, as I see it.”
R. from Abbotsford wrote, “Both the 2021 and 2025 floods cut off use of Highway 1 to the interior for a month. I lost access to my cabin at Hope, and what about the promised infrastructure? How come it is not happening? Let's get it done. Let's get it right this time. We can't go on like this.”
O. from Abbotsford wrote, “Yes, I saw many affected residents from the floods. We have to find a way to fix this from happening again by all means.”
E. from Abbotsford said, “We need the federal government to work constructively on the Sumas River watershed coalition and to work with our American partners to fix this issue. Where is the federal leadership?”
B. in Mission wrote, “I lived in Agassiz in 2021, near the fairgrounds. My crawlspace flooded. I had huge personal and material losses. I spent months sorting and paying for things that could not be saved.”
J. in Mission wrote, “Infrastructure needs to be built to stop this from happening again. We can't go on.”
T. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live on the Sumas flood plain, but do live on the hill above it. My lower level floods on occasion when our storm drainage system can't handle the extra water, because it has nowhere to go when the plains flood. When the freeway is flooded, my daughter can't go to work in Chilliwack.”
R. in Abbotsford wrote, “Thanks for pushing this, Brad. My friend's family's cattle were heavily impacted by the 2021 floods. There was incredible destruction and loss around Sumas Prairie.” He mentions the cattle, and in fact one of the few things people from outside the region remember is the cows swimming in the water during the floods.
G. and P. in Abbotsford wrote, “In addition to being cut off from the rest of Canada by the flooding in 2021, our region had to rely on shipments being rerouted through the U.S., Washington state, and then back into B.C. Given the trade tensions with the U.S. and our country's resolve to become less dependent on the U.S., do we really want to find ourselves in that position again when the flooding reoccurs? Please get the flood mitigation assistance that was promised in November 2021.”
S. H. from Abbotsford wrote, “We had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. We had to relocate our livestock. We missed work. Our property was damaged. The Trans-Canada Highway was flooded and closed. There was poor communication on road closures. We lost a lot of livestock due to the flood.”
S. in Abbotsford wrote, “While my property was not flooded, my friends had just recovered from the previous flood disaster. To have two floods so close together stinks of neglect and disinterest for the people of the Fraser Valley.”
R. in Abbotsford wrote, “The recent flood disrupted my work for most of a week. I head up construction for farmers, fresh mushrooms, these last 12 years. My work stopped because I had no access to gravel on Sumas Mountain. Three of my crew lost a week's worth of work, because all the roads were cut off.”
J. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live in the flood plain, but a percentage of our city does. It is terribly disruptive when the floods take place. I am only inconvenienced, but there are people in our city fighting for their homes, land and way of life. Do we have to have another fatality for Ottawa to notice? Thank you for your efforts.”
D. in Abbotsford wrote, “Again, Brad, you're looking out for your people. Thank you. Not impacted by the flood except by higher prices and groceries and other necessities because freight was held up. The poor farmers affected have been most heartbreaking. We knew the prime minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, would not keep his promise to help. He gave hope in one hand and snatched it up with the other hand. Typical of him. Also, go very hard on SOGI in our schools. God continue to give you strength.”
M. in Abbotsford wrote, “I haven't been affected personally, but my uncle was flooded in the 1975 flood. It has only gotten worse in the 1990s and in the 2020s. My dad had a friend who was a diking commissioner in the Nooksack in the nineties. He was hamstrung by bureaucracies there. It was an international problem that affects the local Americans as well. It missed federal government action on both sides of the border. The Nooksack needs dredging, and we need to improve our dikes. I agree. This problem can only be fixed if the federal government gets involved.”
P. from Abbotsford is a professor at the university, and she said they had to cancel exams and that the university was shut for a week because of the floods. She encourages the federal government to take leadership and dredge the Nooksack.
K. from Mission wrote, “I'm going to be 85 this spring. I have a caring heart. We've got to get this fixed. This is not acceptable.”
B. from Abbotsford wrote, “I received your letter, ‘Fix the Flooding Failure, Hold Ottawa Accountable’, in the mail this week.” This was a few months ago. “You asked how the 2021 and most recent flooding have affected our lives. Well, the Sumas Prairie flood was truly an experience for us. After spending the evening of November 15, 2021, and well into the morning moving files from our office into the shop and into the house, we tried to save our daughter's art studio, furniture and artwork, our other daughter's piano studio, located by the back of our garage, and anything we could from the basement by moving it to the main floor. We never expected the water to rise as much as it did.
“We moved items and mopped up water for 26 hours straight. By 4:30 a.m. on November 16, we were completely exhausted and cold. We rested until 6:30 a.m., when we heard police telling us to evacuate. In that short time, the water had rushed in and was already four feet deep in the basement. We couldn't reach the breaker panel or turn off the water or gas. We had only minutes to leave. The water continued rising faster.
“We waded through dirty, freezing water to reach our truck on the road. The road had disappeared, and the surrounding area looked like we were in the middle of a lake. Water was entering the cab of the truck. We were very fortunate to get out when we did. Trying to drive when no road is visible and avoiding deep farm ditches was extremely challenging.
“We headed south along the mountain, driving through the mudslides and downed branches, and made our way to Chilliwack. With the flooding and landslides, it felt like we were in a movie.
“Cold and wet, we were instructed to register with emergency evacuation services in Chilliwack. Our two daughters had stayed at their grandparents the night before because they couldn't make it home once flooding began at Whatcom Road. My husband and I ended up in Chilliwack.
“Chilliwack became chaotic as people panicked to get gas and food. Gas stations ran out of fuel, and fights were starting because of the long, frantic lineups. We were able to get clothes and food at Superstore since we had left many essentials at home, but later the store closed as shelves were emptied.
“Sumas Prairie and Highway No. 1 were closed, as were Highway No. 1 East past the Agassiz exit and Highway 7 due to mudslides. Exhausted and considering sleeping in the back of the truck, we searched for a place to stay, but nothing was available. It was November, and daytime temperatures were around five degrees. Thankfully, my mum made some calls, and we ended up staying with a distant relative.
“On Thursday, November 19, we were finally able to head back to Abbotsford via Highway No. 7. It took three hours, but we still couldn't reach our house. Flooding was everywhere, even though the water had receded three feet.
“By Sunday, we were able to pull up to our home and assess the damage. Wearing boots, we entered the house and quickly packed what we could from the main and upper floors. The smell permeated everything. Clothing and bedding that could be washed were washed, but it took a lot to remove the odour. We lost all of our office equipment and furniture, the furniture and appliances in our basement and anything we had placed on our shelves, thinking the water wouldn't reach the ceiling.
“We lost all our RV, our chickens and both coops, the art studio, the piano studio and four vehicles. Our business trailers were flooded, and we worked with ICBC to have them repaired.
“Seeing the damage was tough, but we had to move forward and do the hard work to get back to normal. We gutted, dried out and repaired our shop. We bought new tools and threw out damaged equipment. Our construction company's head office had to be relocated off the property.
“With the help of family and friends, the cleanup began. We ended up with six and a half feet of water, contaminated water containing septic waste, manure, chemicals, oils and gas. Anything touched by it had to be thrown out. Our house needed to be rebuilt, so we lived elsewhere for two and a half years.
“We are still dealing with the aftermath. Damage to the outbuildings is yet to be repaired because our focus and finances had to go towards the house and shop. Our older farmhouse had water up to the main floorboards, and after sitting in water for almost a week, the mould and structural damage made rebuilding necessary.
“Unfortunately, we had no insurance coverage for overland flooding. Intact Insurance had sent us a letter a year earlier stating that due to failing infrastructure, they would no longer cover floods. I tried to get insurance elsewhere for this, but no one would offer it.
“The recent flooding only affected our backyard field and ditches.” That's the one last year. “The house was spared this time. My daughter and I were evacuated at 12:30 a.m. but returned in the morning before Vye Road flooded. Our daughter had recently undergone surgery and was still using a hospital bed, so staying elsewhere was impossible. My husband remained at the house. The stress was still there, knowing how easily it could happen again.
“One of our neighbours completely emptied their house, appliances and all, fearing a repeat of 2021. We monitored the water constantly to see how quickly the yard was filling. We were still able to reach Chilliwack via back roads but were cut off from Abbotsford due to closures at Vye Road, Whatcom Road and Whatcom Road to Highway No. 1 from our work.
“In 2021, when our dike filled, we realized most of the water that flooded our home came from that failure. This time, we watched the direction of the water from the Nooksack, which has flooded before and follows the same path towards Highway No. 1.
“As landowners in the Sumas Prairie, it is deeply concerning that so little has been addressed since 2021. Thank you for taking the time to read our story and share our concerns.”
C. from Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, we were greatly impacted by the flood. We lost many of our belongings and animals. We never received any relief funding or even dump fees waived because we were not put on alert. Our house was completely surrounded by water, but because it sits up high enough, we were able to stay. Not once did any first responders or law enforcement ever come to check on us. We continue to flood every winter, but the city refuses to help us in any way.”
R. and D. in Mission wrote, “I can't access the Fraser River from the Barrowtown boat launch anymore due to the level of gravel flowing through the Vedder Canal. The Chilliwack Lake watershed was overlogged decades ago but perhaps has recovered by now. However, the canal needs to be dredged. It's got nothing to do with the so-called climate change, as some try to suggest.”
I could go on, but those testaments are clear. My constituents have not received the type of federal support they deserve. They have not received the type of flexibility that the government is showing in Bill C-26 and in this programming motion to accomplish its goals. It has not done anything for the Fraser Valley region, which is integral to maintaining Canada's supply chains in 2026.
In my next hour, I am going to look a little more closely at what the government has done on housing since it was elected. It starts with the national housing strategy, which came out in 2016 or 2017.
The member for Québec Centre wrote a message as the minister of families, children and social development. He stated:
It is my great honour and pleasure to present Canada's first ever National Housing Strategy (NHS), an ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.
Bringing this Strategy to life has been a priority for the Government of Canada for the past 18 months. We are making historic investments in housing—and planning for transformational change—because we understand the value of home. Safe, affordable housing is a launch-pad for better socio-economic outcomes for our citizens, a more inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to be well and to succeed, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment.
But for too many Canadian families, a decent home is simply not affordable. Across Canada, 1.7 million people are in housing need, living in homes that are inadequate or unaffordable. Another 25,000 Canadians are chronically homeless. This needs to change.
Building on investments announced in Budgets 2016 and 2017, [this strategy] signals a meaningful re-engagement by the federal government in housing. It is a key element of our Government's plan to help strengthen the middle class, promote growth for everyone, and lift more Canadians out of poverty.
Important learnings emerged from last year’s Let's Talk Housing consultations, and our Strategy is stronger for it. Now the work of implementing these ideas begins.
He continued:
We have set clear goals for the [national housing strategy], including removing 530,000 Canadian families from housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by half over the next decade. We will track and report on our success, and adapt our approach as needed as the Strategy unfolds. Our primary focus will be on meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults.
The release of the [national housing strategy] marks the beginning of a new era for housing in Canada. We have a Strategy that all Canadians can be proud of and support. I encourage you to become part of this nation-wide effort to ensure that all Canadians have the safe and affordable housing they need and deserve.
I consider the member to be an honourable one, but I will note that every metric and group outlined in his introductory letter to the national housing strategy has failed, every single one. Not one thing has been done as they said it would be done when the plan was announced.
The first-ever national housing strategy went on:
The Government of Canada believes every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of inclusive communities.... Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy is a 10-year, $40-billion plan that will give more Canadians a place to call home.
Canada’s National Housing Strategy sets ambitious targets to ensure that unprecedented investments and new programming deliver results. This will include a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness, and as many as 530,000 households being taken out of housing need. The National Housing Strategy will result in up to 100,000 new housing units and 300,000 repaired or renewed housing units
Through new initiatives like the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and the Canada Community Housing Initiative, the National Housing Strategy will create a new generation of housing in Canada.
None of that has taken place.
Our plan will promote diverse communities. It will build housing that is sustainable, accessible, mixed-income, and mixed-use. We will build housing that is fully integrated into the community—close to transit, close to work, and close to public services.
Expanded and reformed federal homelessness programming, a new Canada Housing Benefit, and a rights-based approach to housing will ensure that the National Housing Strategy prioritizes the most vulnerable Canadians including women and children fleeing [from] violence....
I will note that since this strategy was implemented, violence against women in Canada has more than doubled. Cases of sexual assault and intimate partner violence have skyrocketed under the government. The Liberals said housing would fix it. They were wrong. They misled Canada. They misled our entire nation.
The statement continues:
The National Housing Strategy is truly a national project, built by and for Canadians. The success of our plan requires collaboration from many partners. The National Housing Strategy invests in the provinces and territories, so all regions can achieve better and more affordable housing. It invests in municipalities, to empower communities to lead the fight against homelessness. It also creates new opportunities for the federal government to innovate through [community] partnerships....
I could go on.
Page 5 of the report is about “A vision for housing in Canada”. It reads:
Canadians have housing that meets their needs and they can afford.
That vision has failed.
Affordable housing is a cornerstone of sustainable, inclusive communities and a Canadian economy where we can prosper and thrive.
I agree with that. The government has done the opposite.
The government notes in its strategy on page 5 that:
Housing is more than just a roof over our heads
It says:
Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home
I agree. They have not done it.
Housing investments must prioritize those most in need, including: women and children fleeing family violence; seniors; Indigenous peoples...
I might read, later on, the Auditor General's report on the state of housing on first nations reserves. It is complete failure, again.
Housing policy should be grounded in the principles of inclusion, participation, accountability, and non-discrimination
I agree, but the government has completely failed on that, too.
Housing programs should align with public investments in job creation, skills training, transit, early learning, healthcare, and cultural and recreational infrastructure
I wish that were the case. It has not happened.
Housing investments should support Canada’s climate change agenda and commitment to accessible communities
I agree, but with regard to the impacts of natural disasters and what the government scientists have said about climate change in Canada and in my riding, there was never that alignment or prioritization, as I have outlined in the last hour. That is another big fail.
Communities should be empowered to develop and implement local solutions to housing challenges
I agree. I do not think it is happening, though.
Page 6 of the strategy outlines some targets, including “530,000 households removed from housing need”, “385,000 community housing units protected and another 50,000 units created through an expansion of community housing”, a “50% reduction in estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users”, “300,000 existing housing units repaired and renewed”, “100,000 new housing units created” and “300,000 households provided with affordability support through the Canada Housing Benefit”.
I do not think they have succeeded in any of those metrics.
On page 7, it says the $40-billion initial investment, which has since doubled, will be a “Once-in-a-Generation Joint Investment”. I find it sad that the government has spent so much money and has so little to show for what it said it wanted to do.
In chapter 1, the strategy outlines that:
Housing Rights Are Human Rights
Canadians deserve safe and affordable housing. That is why the federal government is taking these additional steps to progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing. Our plan is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination....
None of that has taken place. The plan talks about new legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, which I will get to in just a minute, and a new federal housing advocate. I will note, on a positive note, that at least the federal housing advocate has been willing to call out the government accordingly and hold it to account for some of its failures, like the 1,000-year statistic I gave earlier, which outlines that the plan is a complete failure.
The plan created a new national housing council, new initiatives, new public campaigns, new legislation and all sorts of new agencies and councils. None of it has made a difference. None of the metrics were met.
Chapter 2 talks about “Federal Re-Engagement Through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund”. I do not know what to say. It talked about 60,000 new units and new shelter spaces. Poverty in Canada has grown at such an exponential rate under the government over the last 10 years that even where the government might have made an incremental improvement, the foundation of our economy, our socio-economic status and the erosion of civil society that we have witnessed over the last 10 years have eroded any good that any of these policies could have completed. While more money was pumped, fewer results were achieved.
The plan talks about “Making Federal Lands Available for Affordable Housing”. The government is still talking about that. It still has not done anything. I do not think it has made any measurable difference. The only success we have seen on that is when we removed all federal barriers and granted federal lands to indigenous people, to the outcry of many residents in Vancouver. We have seen massive new housing developments take place. It is only when the federal government is not involved that we see results.
Chapter 3 talks about “Maintaining a Resilient Community Housing Sector”. I do not know what that means. I do not think it has made a difference.
Chapter 4 talks about “A New Canada Housing Benefit” for low-income people. The government is removing that benefit now.
Chapter 5 talks about “Progress Through Partnership: Enhanced Support to Provinces and Territories”. Again, what progress have we seen? The report mentions the same statistics I read at the beginning, over and over again.
Chapter 6 talks about “Letting Communities Lead”. I do not know what that means.
Chapter 7 is titled “‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’”. Housing starts for first nations have only eroded under the government.
Chapter 8 talks about “Evidence-Based Housing: Research, Data and Demonstrations”. They developed a research agenda around their own work. The research, as I will show, shows that the plan was an abysmal failure.
Chapter 9 is about “Improving Homeownership Options for Canadians”. In some of the debates, I will talk about how, in conjunction with this plan, the government's solution for that was allowing the Government of Canada to co-invest in mortgages or have a portion of Canadians' mortgages. That plan failed drastically.
Chapter 10 is about “Gender-Based Analysis Plus”. I do not know what that means or what it has done to improve housing affordability in Canada. I hope it has made some improvements but I do not think it has.
Chapter 11 talks about the government's journey to reinvest in housing. Great.
I could go on. There are more statistics, more failed investments, zero progress to date and a move in the complete opposite direction from the direction the strategy said it would go in.
The next document I will quickly take a look at is the National Housing Strategy Act. It was very big legislation for the government at the time.
I will outline what it says in the preamble:
Whereas housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities as well as a strong national economy in which the people of Canada can prosper and thrive;
Whereas access to affordable housing contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes;
Whereas improved housing outcomes are best achieved through cooperation between governments and civil society as well as the meaningful involvement of local communities;
Whereas national goals, timelines and initiatives relating to housing and homelessness are essential to improving the quality of life of the people of Canada, particularly persons in greatest need;
Whereas a national housing strategy would support a common vision, key principles and a coordinated approach to achieving...housing outcomes;
Whereas a national housing strategy would contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations;
And whereas a national housing strategy would support the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a party;
Importantly, the legislation includes a housing policy declaration. In section 4, it reads:
It is declared to be the housing policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law;
(b) recognize that housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities;
(c) support improved housing outcomes for the people of Canada; and
(d) further the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In section 5, under “National Housing Strategy”, on page 3 of the bill, it states:
5 (1) The Minister must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to further the housing policy, taking into account key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing.
Content
(2) The National Housing Strategy is to, among other things,
(a) set out a long-term vision for housing in Canada that recognizes the importance of housing in achieving social, economic, health and environmental goals;
(b) establish national goals relating to housing and homelessness and identify related priorities, initiatives, timelines and desired outcomes;
(c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need; and
(d) provide for participatory processes to ensure the ongoing inclusion and engagement of civil society, stakeholders, vulnerable groups and persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness.
The act sets out a national housing council. It states:
6 (1) A council, to be known as the National Housing Council, is established for the purpose of furthering the housing policy...by
(a) providing advice to the Minister, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, including, among other things, on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy
This sounds familiar. Is it another bureaucratic body to do the job of the minister.
It talks about the membership of the council, which I will not go into, as well as ex officio members and the appointment terms. This was a very common thing under Trudeau. Every legislation had a corresponding council.
The legislation created a federal housing advocate on page 6, with specific duties to do the following:
(a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness;
(b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines...
(c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers...
(d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions...
(e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations...
(f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues;
(g) provide advice to the Minister;
(h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings...and;
(i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member.
The act established a review panel, and it goes on and on about the review panel.
It talks about accountability on page 10, which states:
The Minister must respond to the annual report of the Federal Housing Advocate.
I would be remiss as a member of Parliament to not note that we ask general questions on the state of housing in Canada every day, and we never get clear responses. We hear only that everything is okay and Canada has never had it so good. That is essentially the strategy.
During the debates, because this was part of the budget bill in April 2019, many Liberals spoke highly about what they were doing. Jennifer O'Connell, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at the time, talked about how the Liberal approach was going to help young Canadians who “want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.” That was never realized.
She talked about their approach to housing, and stated:
Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.
To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C‑97, budget 2019 proposes a new first‑time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.
I would note that the government scrapped that program pretty quickly. It was an abysmal failure.
She continued:
Through budget 2019 and Bill C‑97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade.
I will admit that was a good policy, but none of the Liberals' measures improved affordability.
Budget 2019 talked about job experience and employer-relevant skills. None of that panned out.
This is interesting: The parliamentary secretary at the time talked about attracting more foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-caliber places to study. One of the biggest and most negative impacts on housing affordability in Canada has been the immigration policies of the current government, where demand completely outstrips supply due to unfettered immigration targets. Just a few years ago, the members opposite praised the government for increasing those numbers. What a short-sighted policy idea that was.
Maryam Monsef, in May 2019, talked about more funding in budget 2019:
...we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home.
Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a...$55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country.
Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing.
She talked about the National Housing Strategy Act, which I just read from and which:
...would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With [these] amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible.
She talked about being very proud of the housing investments and about upholding the rights of Canadians.
The member for Surrey Centre also spoke about the 2019 budget with respect to housing. He stated:
By listening to the needs of Canadians and encouraging dialogue, I am proud to say this government has continued its commitment to improving housing affordability in this country, and this is exemplified in budget 2019....
The government is...committed to working in partnership with the province and the municipality to ensure a tri-levelled affordable housing strategy for Surrey residents. In conjunction with British Columbia's affordable...plan and Surrey's affordable housing strategy, the government's new homeowner incentive is a proactive measure to ensure that a future in Surrey is possible for young people and families.
He stated in his speech:
Our goal is to cut chronic homelessness in half, remove 530,000 families from housing need and invest in the construction of up to 100,000 new homes. However, our government knows that these changes cannot, unfortunately, take place overnight. This is why our government has introduced new measures in budget 2019 to help relieve the pressures on Canadians....
We will continue working hard to ensure that...middle-class Canadians [can afford a home, that] home ownership is not a pipe dream, but rather, an achievable goal.
The then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development talked about this, saying:
Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before.
In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Later in her speech, she says:
It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton.
We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them.
Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks.
I could go on. The member for Humber River—Black Creek, on June 4, 2019, said:
We are not just talking about the homeless. We are talking about seniors who cannot sell their houses because they have nowhere to go, and they are struggling as it is. There are a lot of people who are struggling and looking for housing. I hope that the way we are doing it, under our new national housing strategy, is going to help decrease the number of homeless people. More important, it is to help people find alternative forms of housing compared to what they currently have.
The member for Humber River—Black Creek went on to prop up the first-time homebuyers incentive. She said that it:
will certainly help a lot of young people in their mid-thirties who are having significant difficulty just getting into the housing market. Once they can get into the housing market and stay employed, they will have lots of opportunity to build equity in that house and then can later on move into a larger house as their family grows.
The then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, a member from Quebec, talked about many measures in budget 2019 as well. About Bill C-97, he said:
In concrete terms, it will require the federal government to give priority to the housing needs of the most vulnerable Canadians.
The government will also be required to report back to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the strategy and in achieving the desired results with respect to housing. These targets, such as cutting homelessness in half in this country and building 100,000 new units, as well as repairing and renovating another 300,000, will make a real difference in the lives of many Canadians....
I think it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for housing and make a bold, ambitious comeback. That is what the national housing strategy does.
The Liberals' housing agenda, first articulated in 2017 through the national housing strategy, was framed as a historic and transformational shift in federal policy. The quotes I just outlined from the budget debate in 2019 reinforce that.
The former minister from the Quebec region presented the strategy as a long-overdue correction to decades of federal withdrawal, promising not only significant new investment, but a reorientation of housing policy toward affordable, equitable and measurable outcomes. Housing was to be treated as a human right. Vulnerable Canadians would be prioritized, and hundreds of thousands of households would be lifted out of housing need.
The rhetoric was expansive and ambitious, setting expectations for systemic change rather than incremental improvement. However, when these promises are compared to the current trajectory of housing policy, particularly as outlined in the 2025 report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a significant gap emerges between what was promised and what is now being delivered.
One of the most striking divergences lies in the trajectory of federal spending. The national housing strategy was built on the premise of sustained, long-term federal investment. In 2017, the government emphasized that consistent funding over a decade would provide stability, enable planning and ultimately improve affordability outcomes, yet according to the PBO's 2025 analysis, federal housing spending is not being sustained. It is actually declining sharply. Planned spending falls from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to just $4.3 billion by 2028-29. It is almost as if the government is afraid to admit the fact that its strategy was not working.
The implication is clear: Despite earlier commitments to long-term leadership, the federal role in housing is set to diminish precisely when demand for intervention still remains incredibly high. This decline in spending is closely tied to the exploration of key programs under the national housing strategy. This creates some structural problems. The policy architecture that supported the government's original affordability goals is being dismantled faster than a new policy can be approached. As a result, the overall footprint of federal housing policy is changing without direction.
The flagship initiative under budget 2025, Build Canada Homes, exemplifies this shift. Rather than providing immediate relief to households struggling without housing costs, it focuses on financing construction, developing assets and encouraging new housing supply over time. In principle, increasing housing supply is an essential component of any housing strategy. However, the effectiveness of the shift depends on both the scale and the timing of the resulting construction.
On both counts, the PBO's assessment raises concerns. The report estimates that Building Canada Homes will generate approximately 26,000 new housing units over a five‑year period. While this is not insignificant in absolute terms, it is modest relative to the scale of housing shortages. The PBO notes that this output would increase housing completions by only 2.1% and addresses just 3.7% of the projected housing gap. These figures underscore a key limitation: The program's contribution to overall supply is incremental rather than transformative.
The government has also stated an ambitious goal of doubling the pace of housing construction, yet the PBO explicitly states that no detailed plan has been provided to achieve these objectives. This disconnect between stated targets and concrete policy mechanisms weakens the credibility of the government's approach and raises questions about its capacity to deliver meaningful results. The limited scale of new supply is further compounded by issues related to affordability targeting. Of the 26,000 units expected to be created under Building Canada Homes, only about 13% are projected to be affordable for low-income households. This represents a relatively small contribution in the context where millions of Canadians face affordability challenges.
More concerning is the definition of affordability itself. The PBO highlights that some units classified as affordable under the program may have rents significantly higher than historical market benchmarks. For example, illustrative calculations suggest that rents deemed affordable for median-income households could be substantially higher than the national median market rent observed in previous years. This raises a critical concern: The policy risks conflating affordability with relative pricing metrics that does not reflect the lived reality of low- and moderate-income households. In effect, units may be labelled as affordable without being meaningfully accessible to those most in need.
Another important aspect of the current policy direction is the trade-off between short-term support and long-term investment. By shifting resources toward capital development, the government is prioritizing supply over immediate affordability, which warrants more discussion. However, this does create a timing mismatch. Housing construction takes years to complete, and its impact on prices and rents is gradual. In contrast, affordability challenges are immediate and acute for many households. Renters facing high costs today cannot wait for long-term supply responses necessarily to materialize.
It is something to consider. The reduction or expiration of direct supports, many have argued, leaves a gap in the policy framework. The PBO explicitly notes that the addition of new units will only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support.
Compounding these issues are plan reductions in funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal agency responsible for administering many housing programs. The report identifies $2.4 billion in cuts to CMHC funding over several years. This raises concerns about the system's capacity to deliver effective housing support. Reductions in funding for programs, administration, financing tools and sector development can weaken the overall effectiveness of housing policy.
Taken together, these trends point to a broader pattern, a contraction in federal housing policy combined with a reorientation toward long-term supply measures. That is not all bad, but the national housing strategy is still the official policy of the government on the books and should be taken in the context of these changed policy metrics.
When viewed in the context of the government's original promises, the divergence becomes even more pronounced. In 2017, the Liberals committed to prioritizing vulnerable Canadians. These commitments implied not only increased spending but also a sustained focus on outcomes for those most affected by the housing crisis. By 2026, however, the policy framework appears to be moving away from these priorities.
This does not mean that all elements of the current approach are without merit. Investments in housing supply are necessary, and efforts to modernize construction methods or leverage public land can contribute to long-term improvements. However, the scale and design of these initiatives are critical. As the PBO analysis shows, the current measures are insufficient to address the magnitude of Canada's housing challenges. Ultimately, the gap between promise and reality reflects a deeper issue in policy design.
I think that warrants us to look at some of the PBO reports that have been issued by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on federal program spending on housing affordability. The first one was on June 18, 2019.
The executive summary, on page 1, states:
Canada’s 2017 National Housing Strategy...provided new funding for housing affordability programs over its ten-year term from 2018-19 to 2027-28. Taking into account existing and subsequent commitments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) plans to spend an average of $2.8 billion/year on assisted housing programs over the [ten years] of the NHS. This represents a $0.4 billion/year (15%) increase in nominal spending over the 10-year historical average. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plans to spend $225 million/year on homelessness programs, which represents a $86 million/year (62%) increase in nominal spending over the five-year historical average.
In the overall allocation of funding between CMHC’s core responsibilities, there is a $325 million/year (14%) reduction in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs intended to help low-income households compared with the 10-year historical average. Within the Assistance for Housing Need portfolio, there is a $167 million/year (12%) reduction in funding for transfers to the provinces and territories and a $175 million/year (30%) reduction in funding for federal community housing. These reductions are partially offset by $200 million/year in new spending on rent subsidies. The decline in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs is offset, in terms of aggregate spending, by a $664 million/year increase in funding for Financing for Housing programs which are not necessarily targeted to low-income households.
It is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels. Overall, Canada’s National Housing Strategy largely maintains current funding levels for current activities and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of NHS outputs on housing need do not reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.
From chapter 1, the introduction, under “Purpose of Report”:
This report is intended to help parliamentarians understand federal spending on affordable housing and the results that spending is likely to achieve.
[The] report is undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officers’ mandate to prepare reports concerning the government’s budget and estimates. It was also undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate to estimate the financial cost of a proposal over which Parliament has jurisdiction upon requests from a parliamentarian. In this case, a Member of Parliament requested an estimate of the incremental [financing] costs arising from Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the cost to achieve the targets of that strategy.
Then, under “Scope of Report”, it states:
The National Housing Strategy was announced in Budget 2017 and elaborated upon in a subsequent policy document.
This is something I have already read.
It was presented as an “ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford” by making “unprecedented investments” in housing. The National Housing Strategy Act, found in clause 313 of the 2019 Budget Implementation Act...would require the government to maintain similar strategies and national goals.
The National Housing Strategy focuses on program expenditures by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). CMHC administers most program expenditures relating to housing affordability, while ESDC provides transfers to communities and service providers to help address homelessness. The focus of this report is direct federal expenditures by these two organizations outlined in the Strategy.
This report does not include federal tax expenditures. Details regarding federal tax expenditures related to housing can be found in the Department of Finance’s Report on Federal Tax Expenditures.
Expenditures by Indigenous Services Canada and Crown Indigenous-Relations and Northern Affairs Canada are not covered in this report. Expenditures of Infrastructure Canada were not examined since it does not provide significant funding for housing
Chapter 2 is called “How Much Does Canada Spend on Housing Affordability?” It states:
From 2008-09 to 2017-18, CMHC spent [on] average...$2.4 billion/year on the activities now included in its “Assisted Housing” business segment. From 2018 to 2027-28, CMHC plans to spend $2.8 billion/year on these same activities.
Under “National Housing Strategy Breakdown”, the chapter continues:
As noted previously, the National Housing Strategy was marketed as a “$40- billion plan” or as a “$40-billion federal investment”. In reality, the Strategy committed...$16.1 billion in new federal planned spending....
As shown in Figure 2-4—
This is on page 6 of the 2019 “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability” report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
—the “$40 billion” headline commitment in the National Housing Strategy policy document includes...loans..., new loans..., existing planned spending...and required Provincial‑Territorial cost matching.... Together with the $16.1 billion in new planned spending, this exceeds the “$40 billion” headline commitment. A full breakdown is attached as Appendix A....
CMHC’s total planned spending from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28 is $27.9 billion.
As we will note in future reports, it has gone up significantly since then, but in the interest of time, and having so many of these reports to get to, I am going to jump ahead to some of the findings they found in 2019.
Under “What will the [national housing strategy] achieve?”, the report states:
The primary outcome target of the National Housing Strategy is “530,000 households removed from housing need” or “up to 50% reduction in the housing need of renters.” However, it is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels.
As shown above, the [national housing strategy] largely maintains current funding levels for current activities in nominal term and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. Furthermore, CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of [the national housing strategy] outputs on housing need [to] reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need.
This is something the report aptly does.
On to the report “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability in 2021”, this is a continuation of the review of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment of the national housing strategy. It reads:
The Government of Canada’s current plan to address housing affordability is the 2017 National Housing Strategy (NHS), which runs from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28. This plan is primarily administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). These department’s planned spending under the National Housing Strategy is $3.7 billion each year.
As we have noted, it has gone up from $2.8 billion in the 2019 examination already.
Average planned spending is driven up by time-limited programs implemented in response to COVID‑19, like the Rapid Housing Initiative.
Of the $3.7 billion per year in average planned spending, $221 million per year...is dedicated to indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern areas.
Since [the] 2019 report...Canada’s federal government has allocated $672 million per year in additional funding to address housing...and homelessness.
The report continues:
First, despite the increase in overall spending, funding for CMHC’s assistance for housing need programs intended to help low‑income households increased only by $192 million per year...in nominal terms, which represents a 15% decline in the real purchasing power of federal spending.
Second, a significant portion of the community housing supported under CMHC’s bilateral agreements with provinces reached the end of their operating agreements. This caused a [42%] reduction in the number of low-income community housing units supported under bilateral agreements between 2015 and the baseline established by CMHC’s new bilateral agreements.
These were outlined in the National Housing Strategy Act.
Third, CMHC’s capital contribution programs have faced implementation delays. Over the first three years of Canada’s National Housing Strategy, CMHC spent less than half the funding allocated for two key initiatives, the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and Rental Construction Financing Initiative. As of 30 October 2020, CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 4,270 units of affordable housing committing [on] average [a] maximum of 52% of median market rent under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 7,960 units of affordable housing committing to charge an average maximum of 72% of 30% of median household income under the Rental Construction Financing Initiative....
Finally, we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3 billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025‑26. Over the period of 2021 to 2025, incremental CMHC spending averages 16% of the projected affordability gap and about $63/month per household in housing need.
I am going to go on to the 2024 report because I have not even gotten to my analysis yet, after I read all of these reports last night, and that is the most important part.
In 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights:
Spending on programs to address housing affordability averages $6.1 billion...over the term of Canada’s 10‑year National Housing Strategy (NHS).
This is a massive increase, we will note, from the 2021 numbers.
This represents a 50% increase in the purchasing power of federal spending compared with the prior 10 years.
Additional [housing] program spending has been primarily allocated to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations’ Financing for Housing programs, which received a $1.3 billion per annum increase in funding.
Total spending on housing affordability is estimated to be $17.5 billion annually, with 65% attributable to tax expenditures.
After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies, [the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects] that 2.6 million households will be in housing need by 2027. This represents an increase of about 926,000 households in core housing need compared to the start of Canada’s [national housing strategy] in 2017.
Already, in 2024, we saw that the strategy was not working.
