Madam Speaker, of course, the House has been seized with debate over another scandal in the NDP-Liberal government for a number of days now. It has been seized with a question of privilege because the government is refusing to hand over documents that the House has ordered it to hand over.
Tonight, we are proceeding with concurrence debate; this is debate on whether the House should agree with the 31st report of the public accounts committee. This is a very important report that deals with the issue of homelessness.
Before getting into the particulars of the report, I think it is important to reflect on where we are as a country. For a long time in Canada, we had a deal, we had an understanding that if we worked hard, played by the rules and worked to serve our community to advance the common good, we would be able to live a healthy, happy and comfortable life. Sadly, as a result of policies pursued by the NDP-Liberal government over the last nine years, that deal is now broken.
As we turn to the issue of homelessness tonight, and to the issues of poverty that surround homelessness, more and more Canadians are struggling who never would have expected to be in this position before. People who spent their lives giving to food banks are now receiving from food banks as a result of changes in their situation because of decisions, actions and policies by the NDP-Liberal government.
The public accounts committee has a mandate to study and review reports of the Auditor General. The Auditor General analyzes various programs and policies of the government to see if they are meeting their stated objectives. It is not the Auditor General's role to make a priori determinations of the good, of what a particular policy should be. Rather, the Auditor General's role is to determine whether particular programs are lining up with the stated objectives, doing the things they are supposed to do and measuring the things they are supposed to measure, as well as whether actions of government accord with policies and objectives that have been put in place.
I have had the opportunity to serve on the public accounts committee. I am not currently a regular member, but I am there often nonetheless, and I was a member of it previously. Reviewing reports of the Auditor General, we found her consistent disappointment with the government failing to measure up to its stated objectives in its actions. The members talk a good game about a lot of things, but they fail to follow through and to deliver results. We see this time and time again with reports that come before the public accounts committee, in the fact that the government is not meeting its stated objectives, and it is not measuring or following appropriate policies in the process.
If we take a macro look at what the government is all about, what the problem has been over the last nine years, it is that we have a government that fundamentally believes it is the thought that counts. They want to express that they care. They want to put in place policies and frameworks with names that sound good, that exude a sentiment of solidarity. However, they are uninterested in whether these programs actually deliver results. They believe that it is the thought that counts. We believe that it is the results that count. We can have a policy that sounds good, but if it does not actually deliver positive outcomes, then what is the point? It is not the thought that counts.
Moreover, we often hear from the government members that we can read whether they care about an issue from how much money they spent on an item. They will tell us they are spending more on this and more on that. I think that is supposed to be a demonstration of their concern for a particular issue. They are spending a bunch of money on something under a particular policy heading, and we are supposed to read into this that they care about those kinds of issues.
What Canadians are really interested in are the results. If the government is spending more on something but the results are worse, then quite obviously people are worse off than they were before. I think what Canadians care about, particularly now when so many people are struggling, are not the good thoughts or the good intentions, or even the amount of money that is spent. They care about the concrete results and how they impact their lives.
As Canadians are struggling, they are reflecting on the fact that one cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement. A good intention will not keep them warm at night. This is the problem with the situation presided over by the NDP-Liberal government. Despite its desire for Canadians to conclude that it is the thought that counts, Canadians are realizing that they cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement, and that good intentions will not keep them warm at night.
That brings me to the particulars of the 31st report of the public accounts committee, which is extremely damning in its assessment of the government's performance when it comes to the issue of homelessness. I will just read, from the beginning of the report, the key findings of the Auditor General. The first is that “Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada did not know whether their efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness were leading to improved outcomes”. They did not know whether what they were trying to do was actually leading to better outcomes. That is incredible.
The next finding is, “Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know who was benefiting from its initiatives.” The third key finding was “minimal federal accountability for reaching the National Housing Strategy target to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by the 2027–28 fiscal year”. That is incredible.
That is the government's much-vaunted housing strategy, and we find that the government literally does not know whether its efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness are leading to results. It has no idea. It cannot claim that it is producing good results because, according to the Auditor General, it simply does not have that information. It is not tracking it. CMHC did not know who benefited from the initiatives, and there was minimal accountability for reaching the targets in the national housing strategy. That is extremely damning.
The government loves to talk about the fact that it has a national housing strategy. It says it has a great announcement, a great statement and a great framework, but it is not even assessing or measuring the results. It does not have basic information. It is not tracking whether its efforts actually produce good outcomes.
We can only conclude, from hearing the way the Liberals talk and then looking at the Auditor General's report, that they really believe that it is only the good thoughts that matter. They think it is the thought that counts instead of the results that count. It is time we have a government in this country that is authentically concerned about the well-being of Canadians; is concerned about the results of policies; is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling; and is focused on what happens to Canadians, not on wrapping itself in the aura of showing it cares through announcements and through expenditures, yet not tracking the results.
There is a damning report from the Auditor General after nine years of failure on housing. Of course, Canadians did not need to hear the report to know that the government is failing on housing. Canadians know that the deal that has defined our country, the deal that hard work leads to opportunity, has been broken under the government. Canadians know that the price of rent, the price of housing and the price of food are way up, and that life is becoming less affordable as a result of policies pursued by the government.
There is a failure to support the construction of new housing. The carbon tax has made food less affordable. Inflationary government spending far outstrips anything we have seen in this country before, more than doubling the national debt. These are concrete policies that are having concrete negative impacts on our national life.
It is time we have a government that is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling, and that cares about good results over good thoughts. In that spirit, Conservatives have not only begun to plan for an alternative government but have also concretely put before the House, in this Parliament, proposals to address the housing crisis right now. A more wise and more humble government would have adopted these proposals, but sadly the government has not.
Conservatives put forward Bill C-356, a comprehensive plan to address the housing challenges facing our country. It was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Bill C-356 is the proposed building homes, not bureaucracy act. People following at home can actually find the key recommendations in Bill C-356 and in the Conservative supplementary report at the back of the 31st report of the public accounts committee.
They are common-sense recommendations that I think any reasonable person would find worthy of support, yet all other parties in the House voted against the bill. It does not make any sense to me that members of the NDP-Liberal coalition would reject this common-sense plan. Of course, if there were particular details that they wanted to adjust slightly, they could have supported it at second reading and proposed those amendments at committee.
However, they did not just vote against particular provisions at a later stage; even if they thought the bill was imperfect, they were willing to throw it out wholesale. I do not think the bill is imperfect; I think it is an excellent bill that could have been adopted in its present form. NDP-Liberal members who are quibbling about details could have supported it to go to committee at least, but they did not; they rejected the principle of the bill.
What is in Bill C-356? First, it calls for the establishment of “a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target”. Essentially, municipalities would have a target for new home construction, and if they exceed that target, they would get a bonus, but if they fail to meet that target, they would lose out on some federal funding. It would use federal funds to stimulate municipalities to take action to allow the construction of more homes in their community.
It would create an incentive for municipalities at the local level to remove red tape that prevents new home construction. It would not be prescriptive on how they do it. It would respect the principle of subsidiarity, allowing local decision-making around development, but it would set vitally necessary targets in order to move us forward in the direction we need, which is building more homes in this country.
The bill would “provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets”. That is about rewarding municipalities that exceed their target.
Next is requiring “that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects' stations”. In other words, if the federal government is putting money into a big transit project, it is common sense that we would expect that there be substantial new housing built around those transit stations.
That is a reasonable thing for the federal government to expect in the process of providing the funding. We would not want to see big new transit projects that were not associated with people's ability to actually live at and around where the transit stations are. The bill would also “make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing”.
The bill would:
[amend] the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to
eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met, and reduce executive compensation if applications for funding new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days....
Bonuses should be based on results, something that, again, the government does not seem to believe. It thinks that it is the thought that counts. Conservatives believe it is the results that count, which is why we would tie any bonuses to the achievement of real outcomes.
The bill would provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential property for which the average rent payable is below the market rate. This is a specific incentive around average rent being below the market rate. I think there was some confusion about that earlier in the debate, so it is important to clarify. Finally, there is the point that the NDP apparently took issue with, which is this:
Require the Minister of Public Works to table a report on the inventory of federal buildings and land, to identify land suitable for housing construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and all land that would be appropriate for housing construction, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report.
This is what the NDP objected to. Conservatives are proposing that we sell public land and public buildings for housing; the NDP said we cannot do that because wealthy people and corporations would then buy these lands, and we cannot have that. The point is not that we would give these lands away but that we would sell them and, in the process, promote the construction of new homes people could live in.
As part of the plan, we have to make more space available. We have the problem in this country that we are not building nearly as many homes as we did back in the 1970s, when we had far fewer people. We are not building homes in general to keep up with demand. Obviously, if we have supply not growing to keep up with demand, that is going to lead to higher prices, so we need to increase the supply overall.
The bill, as I read, contains provisions specifically around below-market rent, but part of the solution has to be increasing the housing supply in general. That is just basic economics, but other parties do not appear to appreciate or understand it.
If we had passed the bill, we could have begun the work of substantially increasing the supply of housing in this country right away. This would have led to more housing affordability. We did not wait for an election; we put Bill C-356 before the House, yet the NDP and the Liberals voted against the building homes not bureaucracy act.
As such, it is not the thought that counts; it is the results that count. Let us look not at the announcements or the spending figures; let us look at the results. Canadians are struggling. Housing costs and rent are way up. The price of food is way up, and crime is up as well. These changes are the result of policy decisions made by these governments.
Fundamentally, the Liberals are not working. Their agenda is not working. They are not attentive to the impacts that their agenda has had on Canadians, and this is why we need a new government in this country that will rigorously hold itself and the entire apparatus of the federal government to the achievement of results. It will focus not on good thoughts and good intentions, but on good results and on the common good.
We will replace the NDP-Liberal government, which has failed to deliver in so many areas, with a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will do this through such measures as Bill C-356, measures that make housing more affordable in reality; we can simply contrast the clarity of our common-sense legislation with the damning assessment by the independent Auditor General of the government's performance. They did not know whether their efforts prevented and reduced chronic homelessness; they did not know who benefited from their initiatives. There was minimal accountability for reaching the national housing strategy targets.
The government has failed. The Liberals have failed to even assess or measure the results. They have failed to show that they have any real concern about the outcomes for Canadians who are struggling. We need a new government that is concerned about outcomes. Since they insist on voting against the constructive proposals we put forward, the only choice now is to have a carbon tax election where we will bring about the change we need and give Canadians the homes they need. Let us bring it home.
