Bill to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made Out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the Purpose of Improving Housing Supply

Moved third reading of Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. I will be less brief with this one than I was with the other two.

At the outset, let me say that no one in this chamber needs to be convinced that Canada is facing a housing crisis. Canadians know it because we are all living it. Young families who did everything right and young Canadians who went to school, got educated, learned a trade and are working hard and saving still can’t afford a first home. Renters are watching more of their paycheques disappear each month, all of it going into paying more for rent or mortgages they just can’t afford. New Canadians arrive in communities where there are simply not enough homes for them — new Canadians coming to what they thought was a country that offered promise that those from humble beginnings could rise to great achievements through hard work. Seniors who wish to downsize often find the alternatives are too expensive or too far from the communities they know or simply not suitable for their needs.

Canada needs more homes, and we need them built faster than ever before. We need unnecessary costs reduced, and we need governments at every level to stop adding delays, red tape and expenses to the process of putting shovels in the ground.

Therefore, to the extent that Bill C-26 is intended to improve housing supply, that objective is a worthy one. However, the role of this chamber is not to simply applaud worthy objectives. Our role is to examine the legislation before us and ask whether it is well designed, respects Parliament, protects taxpayers and is likely to achieve the results the government claims. If there is a likelihood of achieving those results, it needs tangible benchmarks and targets. On those tests, Bill C-26 raises serious concerns.

Honourable colleagues, this is a remarkably short bill. In substance, it does one thing: It authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments to provinces and territories totalling $1.7 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. The amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister, and the money may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at times and in a manner the minister considers appropriate.

Honourable colleagues, the Consolidated Revenue Fund is there for emergencies — specific emergencies when you can’t go to Parliament in order to seek leave and have it granted for that fund to be used. It is really for extenuating circumstances. You will all be very hard-pressed to find circumstances other than national emergencies where any government would go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

That is essentially the entirety of this bill. Like so many bills before it, Bill C-26 provides unfettered discretion for the minister and increases the power of the executive branch. This is a concerning pattern with this government. Out of curiosity, I asked AI to provide me with a list of instances where the Carney government has increased the power of the executive since taking office. After thinking for 48 seconds — not that long, even for AI — it gave me 60 examples. Senator Harder, that’s remarkable, actually. When I responded, “Are there more?,” it thought for 17 more seconds and gave me 20 more examples.

Colleagues, Bill C-26 is not an anomaly in this respect. Under this government, it is a norm. Consider the fact that, despite the bill’s stated intent of improving housing supply, there is no definition of improving housing supply. There is no allocation formula for how the money will be divided. There are no eligibility criteria. There is no requirement to publish federal-provincial agreements. There are no requirements to report how many homes will be built, where they will be built or when. There is no requirement to demonstrate that the provinces are reducing development charges, accelerating permitting, cutting red tape or lowering the costs of construction. Also, there are no clawbacks if the money fails to produce results.

These are not minor omissions; they go to the heart of the matter: Why is the government asking Parliament to approve $1.7 billion when the bill does not tell Parliament, with any precision, what that money will buy you?

Another blank cheque.

In yesterday’s committee of the whole, we asked the minister that question multiple times. He didn’t have an answer. We asked him how many homes could be built in Canada with that $1.7 billion. He didn’t offer any numbers. He talked about estimates for Ontario, but he didn’t supply a national target for Bill C-26.

We pressed him. He replied that the government did not want to impose rules or targets on the provinces and territories. We asked whether the provinces should lower construction-related taxes. He said there were no strings attached to the money. It’s a direct transfer. It’s free.

In other words, colleagues, this $1.7-billion bill is premised solely on the hopes of the minister and various levels of government. Governments hope the bill will make things better, but they don’t know if it will work. There are no metrics in place to measure the success of this $1.7-billion initiative.

That is a big number, even for the Senate.

In other words, colleagues, this bill is a $1.7-billion exercise in wishful thinking — in hoping, in dreaming. The government hopes and dreams that it will help, but it doesn’t know if it will. It is not implementing any metrics, measures or benchmarks for its success after we pass this bill.

This is quite alarming, not just because we are talking about $1.7 billion but because it is entirely possible that these measures could end up stimulating demand more than increasing supply, which would make housing affordability worse, not better.

Colleagues, Canadians need more than spending announcements that blur the distinction between activities and results. As I said at the beginning of my speech, our role is to examine the legislation before us and ask whether it is well designed, respects Parliament, protects taxpayers and is likely to achieve the results the government claims.

Bill C-26 fails on each and every front.

Honourable senators, we had the minister here yesterday. The government again — because of timelines and time constraints — put a barrel to our heads and told us we had to get this out quickly. We had the minister before this chamber, and other than the fact that this bill spends $1.7 billion, which will be spread out at the discretion of the minister across provinces and territories, with no strings attached, to continue to — and, by the way, this is what the minister responded yesterday at Committee of the Whole when he was asked to give the precise way this would function; he said that we’re giving the money to the provinces, and we trust they are going to do the job, using the same structures they have been using over the last decade. They are not changing anything.

What do you think the odds are that just spending more money will solve the problem when the provinces will continue to do the same things over and over? We have seen zero results. It is not as if we have seen some good results over the past decade and that a priming of the wheel will give us better results.

One comes to the conclusion when you hear the minister answer that. Yesterday, when we asked the minister what his benchmarks and expectations are on a national basis — I think you all heard multiple questions in English and French — it was hope. It was pie in the sky, where you spend more and eventually receive less. Of course, we have seen the example there that spending more doesn’t always get more.

Colleagues, I’m very concerned because I have been engaged in the political process for a long time. I have been in politics for decades. Senator Carignan, where I come from, when a government goes to a discretionary fund, pulls out $1.7 billion with no checks or balances and sends that money across the country on a hope and a whim, we call that a political slush fund. At the discretion of the government and the minister, they will give that money in envelopes — oodles of it — to the levels of government and the regions they want, fulfilling certain politically expedient objectives.

Even the sponsorship scandal that brought down a Liberal government once upon a time had more parameters, objectives and goals — and involved far less money — than this.

Honourable senators, on that logical basis — while there are some bills that come from the House that I find constructive and even some that have hopeful objectives, there are some that affect the core of my belief in fiscal and legislative responsibility. This particular bill really offends the core of my fiscal point of view on our fiduciary responsibility as senators.

For that reason, the opposition will oppose Bill C-26.

Yes.

Was that a question?

Senator Batters, I will not call into question the various reasons senators have for voting for or against various legislation. Probably the only way I can explain it is to say that some senators are more hopeful than others and some are more optimistic than others. Maybe after many years of being in this Parliament, you and I tend to be a little more skeptical and pragmatic regarding how the government approaches expenditures of this nature.

Also, in all fairness to Senator McBean, I thought you did a very good job handling many tough questions yesterday, senator. Congratulations on that. We cannot blame any sponsor or colleague in this place for the fact that the government and the minister did not have answers to those critical questions. The truth of the matter is that yesterday, we asked for the minister specifically to provide more information. It was not forthcoming.

I only assume there will be enough pressure in the months ahead and oversight by both the Senate and the House to make sure the government is diligent in dealing with the $1.7 billion. For certain, the opposition will be keeping an eye on this from coast to coast to coast.

Would Senator Housakos take a question?

Of course. Today, I think I’m being paid by the word.

Today, the government and the Province of B.C. announced a one-time transfer of $284 million to British Columbia to reduce barriers to new construction. This would flow directly from the passage of Bill C-26. Do you not agree that this is important funding going to the Province of B.C. to improve housing?

There is no doubt it is important. What I would love to see, though, is more concrete deregulation from the provinces already putting into place housing projects. I would like to see that deregulation meet investment from the federal government. I would love to see the targets when the investment is going out to these provinces, which we have not really seen so far.

More importantly, if we really want to tackle the cost of housing, we would also like to see the government get rid of the commercial carbon tax that is currently driving up costs in terms of construction and transportation products. All of these things are related. We would also like to see the immigration system fixed; it has been broken now for a decade. We have seen an influx of immigrants, though the government has curtailed it. They have made announcements about reducing the number of immigrants over the past 12 to 14 months, but this was more of a knee-jerk reaction.

We still have a labour shortage in the country, and we have an immigration system that is not corresponding to our needs. That has to be addressed because we have seen over the past decade that the runaway immigration system has caused a scarcity crisis.

There are many things the government should be doing in a thoughtful way, in a more deep-dive policy way than they are, rather than just sending money to provinces. The provinces will argue — in terms of a public relations exercise — that all these hundreds of millions of dollars going to the various regions will be helpful to accelerate housing starts.

Looking at the actual number of housing starts per province over the past two years — as someone who comes from the business world — I would be looking at the structural system we have in place provincially more than the amount of money they are getting from the federal government.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

Is there an agreement on the length of a bell? If there is not an agreement, it will be one hour.

Is leave granted for 15 minutes?

Leave is granted. The vote will take place at 6:02. Call in the senators.