Greg McLean

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise what I have raised in this House many times: the problem with Canada's mounting debt. We talked about this back in the spring when I last asked a question about it. I have since heard throughout the summer about all kinds of spending the government wants to do that was not part of the $65-billion deficit that it indicated in last year's spring update. Spending is continuing to mount with the government. It is as if we have a new economist as our Prime Minister who has not understood the problem with the escalating debt we have in this country. Let me give some examples, because we are a basket case when we look at the total amount of debt that Canadians have, not just government debt in Canada. The national government debt alone is approaching $1.5 trillion. Provincial debts on top of that amount to almost $1 trillion at this point in time. Of course, there is always the other debt, and that is the one that Canadians hold. Canadian individual household debt amounts to about $3.2 trillion, and then corporately Canadians have about $3.8 trillion outstanding. This is an amazing amount of debt. Combined, as an actual function of GDP, Canada, government-wise, has about 100% of its debt to GDP at the government level, about 101% at the household level and about 118% at the corporate level. That means 318% of Canada's GDP is held in debt, debt that it has to pay interest on. We are concerned here about the federal government's debt, because I cannot argue about all the rest. There are impacts throughout the rest of the debt based on what happens at the federal level. The more the federal government spends, the more it goes into debt and the more it is going to have to pay in interest. The more it pays in interest, the more debt outstanding causes other interest rates to go up, including for all the financial debt outstanding to corporations and all the debt outstanding for mortgages and loans to consumers. This is a massive amount of money. We have all seen that around the world, central banks are increasing their lending rates right now. That means that the debt profile is going to continue to go up and the amount of interest paid is going to continue to go up. Why is this so significant for the federal government? It is because fully 29% of the Government of Canada's outstanding debt is due within the next year. If we think about how much money is going to have to be refinanced, 29% of almost $1.5 trillion is going to be refinanced within the next 12 months. That is an amazing amount of money, first of all, to go to debt markets. Some of that is expiring debt, and some of it is going to be new debt. I think there is going to be more new debt with the way the government is spending money, but that is just what is expected to be renewed at this point in time. That will mean that the $57 billion Canadians are actually paying in interest payments right now is going to skyrocket. Think about that. Think about the actual rate that the government pays right now, which is about 2.5%, as a debt profile across its full portfolio. Think about one-third of that falling off and paying 100 basis points more. This is fully one-third of $1.5 trillion, or $500 billion. Where we are paying 1% more, this is going to impact Canadians significantly. We are going to have higher debt payments and higher interest payments as a result of the government's profligate spending. The issue we want to get to is how we get to a better spending profile. Short-term financing is not taken by the provinces. All the provinces have a much more flat, low-impact duration for when their payments are due. The federal government is the one that is the most ramped up toward the front end of the repayment schedule. When I heard the finance minister for the government talk this summer about—

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the numbers he is putting on the table. We do need to address this. I know that the government has been very good at always pointing out that it has to do something because there is a crisis. The crisis happens because its members have not paid attention to what is in front of them. They are always responding to what has happened behind them. This is something that has already happened. Twenty-nine per cent of our debt has to be refinanced at the Canadian government level this year. It is going to have huge impacts upon Canadians writ large. The amount of interest going out the door is going to continue to mount. The government continues to run deficits as if there is no tomorrow. We have to get ahead of this. This is my putting on the table for the government, “Address this now before it becomes a crisis and you have to do something in the rearview mirror.” This was faced by the Chrétien-Martin government way back when. The result was, of course, to cut health care funding for Canadians. We want to make sure the government is ahead of it this time.

Mr. Speaker, working Canadians are doing their best in a K-shaped economy, where those with assets are doing relatively well, while those striving to buy their first home are seeing that dream move out of reach. The government has created a financial reality where Canadians are asked to take on more debt, pay more interest and accept a lower standard of living than the generation before them. Work harder and expect less is not the legacy we were supposed to leave our children, yet the Liberal government continues to manage expectations downward because its policies have led to a less prosperous country. That means lower results for everyone, including less food security, less shelter and lower expectations for health outcomes. A generation's future is being pulled back because that is the price of the government's choices. Where we are is clear. How we got here is evident. What Canadians need now is a government prepared to change course, restore opportunity and build a future where the next generation can contribute more and expect more.

Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and legacy of Philip Roderick MacAulay, a long-time president of the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch, who passed away on June 11. For more than 50 years, Phil dedicated himself to the Legion, serving veterans, supporting his community and working tirelessly to ensure that the branch remained a vibrant place. A proud navy veteran, Phil spent decades in service, including 20 years as branch president, and earned the Legion's Meritorious Service Medal. We remember Phil for his humour, his generosity and his unwavering commitment to keeping the Legion relevant for all. Phil's loss will be deeply felt, especially by his wife of 37 years, Susan, who continues her own service to the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch. I will miss Phil at Remembrance Day ceremonies and Legion events, for he was a constant presence. On behalf of this House, I extend our heartfelt condolences. May we all strive to carry forward Phil's spirit of service and remembrance. Lest we forget.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Calgary's Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 1 hosted and was addressed by the leader of the Conservative Party on the importance of building a strong Alberta within a united Canada. It was exactly the right place for that message. Built in 1922 as Memorial Hall, it was Calgary's primary tribute to those Canadians who served and sacrificed in the First World War. For more than a century, Branch No. 1 has been a gathering hall, as well as a place of remembrance, welcoming generations of veterans, families and Calgarians through its doors. Today that historical building needs our help. After decades of service, it is in urgent need of repairs, starting with its roof. This Canada Day, Calgarians are coming together to restore it, because this building is more than a hall. It is a promise kept to those who answered the call to defend the ideals of Canada, and it belongs to all Calgary. I encourage everyone to support this effort, honour our veterans and ensure that this landmark stands for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister, but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today. We want to make sure that we get to the bottom of everything that is happening in the House of Commons. Of course, we know it is springtime. It is actually a great time to be sitting in Ottawa and debating the business of the country, making sure we are moving forward in holding the government to account and making sure that the legislation we bring forward is the best it is going to be for Canadians. I beseech the minister, if he can, to actually take a look at the bill. This is his fourth Crown corporation, and there are no solutions so far. There is lots of money going out the door and there are lots of announcements, but no solutions have been put forth to actually aid Canadians and bring lower housing costs across Canada. What does the minister think he would accomplish with even more money and another bureaucracy that has not been accomplished along the way with everything else that has been done so far in this field? The lack of accomplishments is stark. Can he please address why he thinks it is going to be different this time?

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this because I met him when he first got elected here on the floor of the House of Commons, and when he was named the housing minister, I told him that the first thing he had to do was to get rid of the people who have led us into this trap in the first place. Those are the people in his department, the ones whose advice he is following now to spend another $1.7 billion of Canadians' money in accomplishing what they have accomplished so far, which is just spending money and not fixing the situation at all. He keeps referring to a crisis. This crisis is a crisis of his party's causing, along with the officials who have led him to this trap. Not getting this to committee means another $1.7 billion of Canadian taxpayer money going out the door without anybody seeing what it is about, what the accountability mechanisms might be or if the money is being spent wisely. It is just another cheque that the minister is trying to bring in front of the Canadian people. Will he please tell us if he is going to entertain any input on the accountability mechanism assigned to the $1.7 billion of new taxpayer money?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member if she can just tell us what the $1.7 billion would accomplish, because we have already thrown a lot of money at the situation. We have empty condos now that do not suit the market in Toronto. Now we would give the development industry more money when there are empty lots to be developed once the actual economics make sense. We keep aiming for these problems that we are creating, yet what the government suggests is a crisis is something of its own making. How is it going to square this by just throwing another $1.7 billion of taxpayer money at it, thinking it would solve everything that the government's last few billion dollars thrown at it has not solved so far?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits. For each household, that amounts to $3,400 a year in federal government debt and $3,000 a year in provincial government debt. That money is being thrown down the drain. We are paying more in interest. Is supporting this government bill a waste of money?

moved that Bill C‑269, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (heat recovery tax credit), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me acknowledge the help I have received in the conception, analysis and presentation of this bill. Janice Tran, the CEO of Kanin Energy in Calgary, provided me with the inspiration, and numerous alternative energy experts have provided their input to this bill since it was first introduced in the House. I thank them all, and I note the importance of having a channel to bring forth great ideas from Canadians for consideration in Parliament for how we help grow our country and help it prosper. The best way to start this speech about this private member's bill, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, heat recovery tax credit, is to first say what the bill is intended to do. To illustrate that effectively, some context is required. First off, for the sake of those who have little background in tax incentives with which we attempt to motivate business investment in this country, let us illustrate how an investment tax credit works. A non-refundable income tax credit allows a company to deduct the amount of the credit from the taxes it has payable to the federal government in any year. Let me give an example. Let us say that a company earned pre‑tax profits of $10 million in one taxation year. Assuming an effective federal tax rate of 15% on those earnings, that would mean the company would owe the government $1.5 million for that taxation year. Their after‑tax profit, in that case, would be $8.5 million before other taxes payable to other jurisdictions. If we look at an investment tax credit of 30%, and we assume an investment in that equipment equal to $10 million, then the 30% tax credit would mean that the company could take a credit against its taxes equal to $3 million. Note that in this case, this amount would be more than the amount payable in the year's taxes, so a portion of the credit would still be available for credit against future years' taxes payable. For the company's sake, when management makes decisions about how it would invest, it would effectively reduce the capital cost by that 30%, predicated upon the fact that the company would be taxable, and any amount due in tax credits in future years would also be time‑valued. The result is that the cost of the $10‑million equipment, in the company's estimation, would be reduced by 30% or thereabouts, so the investment could meet an “investment cost of capital” analysis. The company could take actual cash flow from the taxes it would have otherwise paid to justify why it would be spending $10 million up front. There are other complications, such as the half‑year rule, that I will not address here, but I hope this illustrates the case. The reason governments allow investment tax credits for selective purposes is because they are trying to motivate investment in sectors or uses that, all other things being equal, would not occur. In the illustration I presented, the government will not be collecting $1.5 million in taxes that year and a similar amount the following year. Governments cannot do that always and everywhere because it would then not have corporate income tax collection as part of its revenues. That tax collection line in 2025 amounted to about $97 billion, 19% of all the revenue the Government of Canada collected. Therefore, we need to be selective about how we apply investment tax credits in order to have a functioning taxation system and in order not to worsen our escalating deficits and unsustainable debt situation that Canadians are facing. That should lead listeners to the next question: Why should we apply an investment tax credit to waste heat recovery? Put differently, what is the problem we need to solve and how does this approach fit the solution? Let me provide some background. In Canada, the industrial sector amounted to 54% of Canada's end‑use energy demand in 2021. The main use of energy in the industrial sector is heat production, which is used in various industrial processes. By application, the sectors with the greatest opportunity are chemicals and primary metals, followed by cement and glass production and pulp and paper. In these industrial processes, approximately 30% to 50% of heat is lost. That is from a study undertaken by Polytechnique Montréal in 2021. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the equipment available today would capture 13% to 18% of the unused heat resources. The equipment exists to turn waste heat into power. The economics alone are still slightly challenging; however, with a 30% investment tax credit, it would drive the levelized cost of electricity, which is the power derived from the waste heat, down to levels competitive with wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal, most of which receive generous tax incentives to add to our energy supply. In the end, what we are aiming for is energy efficiency. First, Canada needs more electricity. Last month, the Prime Minister announced a national electricity strategy to double electricity production by 2050, which included financial incentives of various sorts. The irony is that electricity production is a provincial jurisdiction and the policy‑makers who are trying to wedge the federal government into Canada's electricity markets are the same people who made an absolute mess of Ontario's electricity system over a decade ago. The problem energy consumers face is that they do not know what their electricity costs, between the various levels of government that are subsidizing power production in many non‑obvious ways. However, what the ratepayer does not see on their electricity bill, they see on their tax bill, or it is added to the fiscal deficits we are passing on to the next generation to pay. Let us accept that, in the modern construct, producing new electricity production facilities is time consuming and expensive. Therefore, getting electricity from power sources that are producing waste heat may be the most efficient source of new electricity. Second, Canada needs to further reduce emissions. The lower our emissions profile per unit of output, the better the outcomes for the environment and society. New electricity would have an emissions profile. Some of that profile would be in the capital equipment and some would be in the consumable portion of the equation. We cannot ignore the carbon embedded in the capital equipment and just count the emissions from the variable inputs. That ignores the full carbon costing, which is one of the reasons the world's efforts to reduce carbon emissions are failing. Similarly, there is a footprint to the production of the equipment that would be required to produce power from waste heat. We must recognize that this equipment is an add‑on to an existing system, so its footprint per amount produced is less than any new build. In the case of capturing waste heat and producing electricity from that heat, the new variable emission amounts to zero, so the power profile has a near zero carbon footprint. This policy serves a great environmental purpose, one that gets results with respect to flatlining emissions and produces power with no new emissions. As we need power, the most environmentally friendly power would be that with zero net new emissions. Let us address the competitive landscape, because Canada is not the first country to undertake this exercise. The United States, in particular, instituted a similar 30% investment tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power investment in 2022. By 2023, 63 manufacturers across various industries had installed equipment resulting in the production capacity of 812 megawatts of power. For comparison, Canada's most recently completed hydro dam, Site C, in northern British Columbia, has a capacity of 1,100 megawatts. That dam cost $16 billion and took 11 years to build. If we scale back the U.S. experience by a factor of 10 roughly, therein lies the outcome we can target in Canada: about 80 megawatts of new electricity per year with no new emissions. I will note the importance of timeliness in our approach, because Canada is now a net importer of electricity, so speed matters, execution matters and cost‑effectiveness matters. What is missing in Canada's set of tools is a credit for waste heat‑to‑power, which is available and being deployed effectively in other jurisdictions. This seems like low‑hanging fruit with its cost savings, new electricity production and no new variable emissions profile for that electricity. It is probably the most cost‑effective and feasible way of accomplishing our goals, which is to produce more electricity with a lower emissions profile. Why have we avoided it? I am certain federal officials have seen this approach. The answer is in the mindset of the embedded decision‑makers. In Canada, our energy production system counts on three well‑built and necessary infrastructures. There is the electricity grid, for which various input sources make electricity. There is our natural gas distribution system, which is not just for heating homes, but used for many industrial processes as it is the most efficient source for generating heat, and many industrial processes will always require heat. There is also our mode of fuel distribution network, primarily fossil fuels. Think of each of these distribution systems as representing about a third, give or take, of Canada's power production and consumption. Think of the combination of the three representing an infrastructure asset base that has served as the envy of developing countries. Generations of Canadians have built an infrastructure on which we all depend. Doing away with any of these three power distribution infrastructures would weaken our power profile and increase the risk of an overall system failure. When I mention the embedded decision-makers, I am appealing to the new representatives on the government side of the House to overrule the entrenched ideology that has put our country in the box we are in. The ideological attempt to penalize Canada's hydrocarbon energy systems is misguided. That includes our natural gas distribution system, an essential tool for our continued economic advancement. Perhaps if we approached the most easily accessible solutions, we would get better outcomes. The Liberal government has represented itself to Canadians as having changed from the painful, divisive ideology that defined the former prime minister. Unfortunately, we see that the rot the government brought to our energy systems in Canada runs deeper than just the elected representatives. It is now entrenched in what seems like the actual decision-makers in the government, the embedded ideologues who are still driving the government's aimless policies. Five years ago, the Liberals voted down my last private member's bill to provide an investment tax credit for enhanced oil recovery. This spring, the Liberal government decided to put a form of that credit into the budget. However, the credit it has put forth is uncompetitive with our peers and it has caused confusion as to its stringency requirements. A policy that still leaves Canada as the least competitive among our peers in our approach to this technology is one that will continue to see capital allocated elsewhere. No data is more consistent than that which has shown the great egress of capital from investment opportunities in our country. In that sense, the Prime Minister is accomplishing his objectives. What one cannot get one way, one gets another way, in this case, pretending one has a credit, making a big announcement and ensuring it is functionally unviable. I sense the same approach with the investment tax credits for greener power production. For the ideologues, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The approach I am proposing in the bill would be very good for Canada. Let me appeal to those voices on the Liberal side of the House with whom I have worked to build goodwill in our approach to Canada's energy system. As was our mantra when I embarked on hearings across Canada for the Conservatives' economic growth council, I say to my Liberal friends to take our ideas, please. These are better for the country. In summary, the bill would provide an incentive, an investment tax credit, to motivate industrial power users to invest in equipment that would increase Canada's electricity production with no new emissions. That means more power without more emissions, energy efficiency improvements, productivity enhancements and lower business costs, making Canadian manufacturers more competitive. Let me appeal to all parliamentarians to see the obvious good in all of this.

Madam Speaker, I think, in my speech, I addressed that very clearly, but I will give another data point for the hon. member. All of the government's investment tax credits for clean energy production amount to the expected spending of $103 billion, between when it started a handful of years ago and 2035. In fact, because it is a misguided approach, only $22 million of that money has been spent, That is because it is misallocated. We have to go for the low-hanging fruit here first of all. The low-hanging fruit is the waste heat that is already being produced, which we can cost-effectively get into our electricity system. I hope my colleague looks at this from a cost-effective perspective. I have, and I think it is our best approach going forward.

Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that this is not a credit for oil and gas production. It is a credit for manufacturers that use mainly natural gas, but also other types of fuels and sources that can produce heat. They are the ones who would benefit from this bill.

Madam Speaker, the thing about this tax credit is that it is manufacturing. It is across Canada. I mentioned some of the industries across this country that would benefit enormously from this as it would reduce their costs and give them an electricity source they can actually gain some revenue from. Every tax credit should have a benefit as well, at the end of the day. With this benefit, there would be more power for the country and more revenue for the companies that use this tax credit, it would lower costs all across the country and it would make us more productive as an economy. Of the industries involved, pulp and paper is one that produces a lot of waste heat to power. Using this credit would give the companies more electricity to use on site, and they could potentially put it back into the grid if they use some other equipment.

Madam Speaker, that is a complex question, but I appreciate it, because we have to model this somehow. We talked about the credits that exist. The government expected $103 billion for its investment tax credits. Of that, only $22 million has been allocated so far. This one would bring about 83 megawatts of power into the grid. The production of extra power for this would probably offset the credit that the government would have to take out of its revenue.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty's loyal opposition, then it is mistaken. We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them. Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the time allocation was given correctly. How are we getting a minute and a half for the member? With everything going on, could the hon. member have the chance to actually deliver her speech, if she starts right now? We would appreciate that. There is too much noise here. We were not listening carefully.

Mr. Speaker, when the current Parliament started, I had the opportunity to meet in the middle of the floor with the new housing minister to talk about what his new portfolio would entail. At that point in time, I told him very clearly that he should just throw out what he had and start over anew, because all the advice he had been given, and what I have seen over the last six years since I have been in the House, has been a bunch of garbage and a bunch of non-results from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The entire bureaucracy that he is in charge of at this point in time has just layered on more and more spending but has accomplished nothing. That is a preamble to my speech about where we need to go in this country. Since 2019, the federal government has introduced or expanded roughly a dozen major housing programs and initiatives, layer upon layer on top of its existing strategies. Today we have a system with overlapping funds, loan programs and agencies, and now there is a brand new Crown corporation added to the mix. All of this sits within a $100‑billion‑plus national housing strategy that was designed not as a single focused solution but as a collection of complementary programs. The problem is not a lack of federal activity. It is that this growing web of programs is not translating into the number of homes Canadians actually need, but instead of focusing on why that is happening, the proposed bill would take us in the wrong direction. Bill C‑20 is not really about building homes. It is about building another federal bureaucracy. We have to be honest about what is driving housing costs in this country. The number one factor is not a lack of ideas or a lack of programs. It is the cost of building, and that cost is increasingly driven by government: taxes, fees, regulations and constant changes to the rules of the game. We heard this across the country when I was chairing the economic growth council. Every time the government changes a building code, adds a requirement or delays a permit, it adds costs, and those costs do not disappear. They get passed on directly to the homebuyer or the renter. We have seen what happens when governments overreact with broad, top-down policies. In Ontario, there are now entire segments of the housing market dominated by 500‑square‑foot condo units. They were being built not because families were demanding them but because policy decisions pushed the market in that direction. That is what happens when government tries to centrally shape outcomes instead of enabling the market to respond to real demand, and we are seeing a similar lesson play out in my hometown of Calgary. Over the last four years, the municipal government in Calgary took a blanket rezoning approach, promoted as a solution to affordability. What actually happened? A recent assessment showed that the primary beneficiaries were not homebuyers. They were land speculators and developers who captured the increased value. Communities suffered, while affordability did not materially improve, and Calgarians took notice. That is why there was a political reset at the municipal level. Politicians were thrown out for their false start and what they said they were trying to do versus what they were actually accomplishing. People understand that simply changing zoning everywhere without addressing costs and implementation does not automatically result in affordable homes. This brings us to Bill C‑20. Instead of addressing the structural cost drivers in the system, the government would be expanding its footprint. Build Canada Homes would have sweeping powers in financing, land acquisition and development authority, and it would come with a significant price tag: another $13 billion over five years. However, the question Canadians should be asking is simple: What would we be getting for that money? The evidence suggests that it would not be very much. Even government-backed analysis shows that the program would deliver only a fraction of the homes that are promised: 5,200 projected homes per year. At the same time, we would be expanding the size of government, with more administrators, more overhead and more layers. That cost does not build homes. It builds bureaucracies. We must also consider the cost per unit. When the government steps in as a developer, costs tend to rise, not fall. Projects take longer, risk increases, accountability becomes less clear, and ultimately, taxpayers are left carrying that burden. We would, effectively, be asking Canadians, who are already dealing with high housing costs, to also fund an expanded federal structure that has no clear targets for delivery. Experts have already warned about this. They told the committee that Build Canada Homes lacks clear goals, lacks targets and lacks accountability. We would not only be expanding government; we would be doing so without a clear measure of success. It is clear that the cost of housing is too high in Canada, but it is also important to be clear about the causes. Those are the taxes, fees and regulations that drive up construction costs. Every new regulation, every delay, every change to the National Building Code creates additional costs, and those costs are paid for by Canadians. Bill C‑20 does not resolve those issues. On the contrary, it expands the size of government and creates more bureaucracy. As the experts said in committee, there is neither a clear target nor an accountability mechanism. What we need is not more bureaucracy. We need an environment where builders can build faster and at a lower cost. How do we stop the cost escalation? We bring discipline and stability to building codes, reduce delays and uncertainty in approvals, limit the growth of government structures that add costs without adding supply, and ensure that public money actually delivers measurable results. Canadians are already under significant financial pressure. There are rising debt levels, and more households are stretched to their limit. Canadians cannot afford policies that increase costs, whether directly through housing prices or indirectly through higher government spending. At the end of the day, this is all about outcomes. Would we be building more homes? Would we be lowering costs? Would we be improving affordability? On all three counts, the bill would fall short. Bill C-20 would expand government, increase spending and avoid the real work of addressing the cost drivers that are holding back supply. I will continue to support solutions that focus on what actually matters: lowering the cost of building homes Canadians need and making home ownership achievable again for Canadians, including the people of Calgary and across Alberta. There are many ways we can get involved in this from the federal perspective, but as I told the minister when he first took the housing portfolio, the main thing he can do is second-guess the people who have been giving the government advice for the last 11 years, because all they have done is added cost to the system, cost to the building of homes and cost for Canadians, including more debt. A ridiculous amount of money is continuing to be spent in the sector for housing. People need housing. It is the number one expense for all Canadians now across the board. We cannot continue to add more cost to the basic needs of shelter in our society, not to mention what is happening with food inflation in this country. Housing inflation is definitely something we have to get under control. The bill would do nothing of the sort. It would add costs, and those costs would be borne by Canadians. Let us think about the cost of debt per household in society. The cost of paying for debt is about $3,400 per household. The average rent in Calgary for a two-bedroom house is $1,700 per month, so every Canadian family in Calgary is actually paying two months' worth of rent to cover the interest being paid on the federal debt right now. This is an atrocious amount of money that adds to the cost of everything we have to pay in society at this point in time. It continues. This is just the federal level. Of course, there is provincial debt, municipal debt and corporate debt. There is also personal debt. The bill would do nothing to reduce the debt level that Canadians are facing. It would make things less affordable. It would make things worse for Canadians. We oppose it strongly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the narrative that we are denying Canadians a solution. The Liberal government, for 11 years now, has made several attempts to resolve this issue by addressing the problem that they see with homelessness and with housing in Canada, and they have only made matters worse over the last 11 years. The Liberals have to accept failure at some point in time and realize that the best thing to do is probably to get rid of the infrastructure we have for housing here in Ottawa and transfer the funds to the province, which would be more adept at solving the problem than the government has proven to be.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. That is exactly the issue. If an application comes from a Province of Alberta or City of Calgary organization, it has to have support from the provincial government. After that, there is another form at the federal level. It requires the organization to put in a lot of time, effort and money. It is a waste of time, human resources and money. It would be better if there were a single process for applying for housing grants in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting a great deal of great questions on the subject today. Answering the question goes a little deep into the weeds, so I apologize ahead of time to my colleagues on both sides of the House. The reason the government is setting up all these Crown corporations right now is that Crown corporations have their own balance sheets at the end of the day, and those balance sheets are not included in the government's balance sheet, believe it or not. The government is $1.4 trillion in debt right now. However, it has borrowed almost $2 trillion. Where is the other $600 billion? It is on the balance sheets of and borrowed by all the Crown corporations, which have a lack of accountability practices. We have proven in the House many times that there are a whole bunch of expenditures that should have been written off by those organizations that continue to rest in their balance sheets. The cost to Canadians, at the end of the day, is going to be huge. The actual debt we are paying interest on is $2 trillion. This is going to make that even higher still.