Finance Committee on Sept. 25th, 2017

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'd like you to explain a little bit more recommendation number two, which is again to get to that first 100,000. Maybe you can explain why you're advocating for that end of the industry.

[C.J. Helie]

Spirits Canada does not have a lot of small producers today because they're all relatively new and they're just getting into the business. We recognize that they bring tremendous value to the category. They bring excitement and innovation and a buzz to the business.

How do you in a trade-legal fashion provide proportionately more support to a smaller producer than a larger producer? This is the best way to do it. You give everybody the same value rate; i.e. let's say 50% reduction on your first 100,000 litres of absolute alcohol. If you're a small producer making 100,000 hectolitres or less, you get that benefit on your full production. If you're a 10-million litre producer, you only get that value on your 5 % of your business.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It encourages people to hire and to really go for it. Eventually though it does pull it back where the taxpayer is receiving the full amount.

[C.J. Helie]

And you don't have that fiscal cliff problem of coming up to an arbitrary limit like $100,000, and then having to go from this great rate to the full rate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Boulerice, for seven minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Ross and Mr. Wong.

I simply want to say that, in my riding and in Montreal in general, we have had the luck, historically, of having several housing co-ops. They are highly valued, and are beautiful living environments. The families that live there are generally very good and are very satisfied.

In your presentation, you mentioned that the agreements, or the so-called interim financing program, that were extending the operating agreements will end in March 2018. For a number of years, many people in co-operatives that were built and founded 20, 25 or 30 years ago are living in uncertainty and are still wondering whether there will be a massive increase in their rent if no action is taken by the federal government.

A new deadline is coming. What will your demands be on this? For many people, and especially for many people living in poverty, housing is the main expense. A fluctuation in the cost of housing will have a tremendous impact on the ability of families to buy clothes for their children, buy groceries, and so on.

What specifically are you asking the Canadian government in order to reassure these families?

[Timothy Ross]

It's certainly becoming more time pressing. Low-income households, housing co-operatives, residents of social housing across the country need certainty about the future of assistance that's offered to low-income households, so they can continue to remain in place, and continue to enjoy the benefits of living in a housing co-operative.

Through our ongoing engagement with officials at CMHC and with the Government of Canada, we're very optimistic that we're moving in the right direction. Specifically, what we're looking for, and what we're hoping to see very soon, is a very clear declaration that there will be continuity of assistance to low-income households living in housing co-operatives.

It's important that this is announced soon, so that the implementation or renewal of this assistance is delivered in a timely and seamless manner, because as you can appreciate, if you're a low-income Canadian living in a housing co-op, you know your co-op will no longer be receiving a subsidy as of March 31. You need to start thinking about how you're going to pay for your housing charge if there's a significant increase. Do you need to move? Do you need to move into your parent's home? It's important that it's timely, seamless, and is offered at the same breadth and depth of support as before.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ross. I would like to ask you another question, which will be quick.

In your presentation, your third recommendation is to build new housing.

In your opinion, if we were seriously in favour of social and affordable housing, how much housing should be built over the next five years, whether it's housing co-ops, social housing or affordable housing?

[Timothy Ross]

That's a good question. It's difficult to say how many units we necessarily need on the market, because by ensuring continuity of assistance, or delivering assistance directly to households you may be able to alleviate some of that core housing need, but certainly, there is a shortage of low- and moderate-income housing in Canada. There are 1.5 million Canadian households in core housing need. The need is quite significant, and hopefully, the census figures in October will give us a stronger indication of where we need to focus.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

I will now move on to Ms. McLachlan and Ms. Biss.

Obviously, given my political persuasion, your recommendations are music to my ears. I'm also very pleased that you are in favour of restoring a federal minimum wage. We, like many other partners, think it should be about $15 an hour. Is that what you are recommending?

[Michèle Biss]

One of the recommendations we developed through the Dignity for All model national anti-poverty plan—which was a plan we developed in collaboration with a number of organizations, academics, and people with lived experience of poverty—was the negotiation of a living wage amount. We didn't land on whether that would be $15, but we said it would be a living wage that's indexed to the consumer price index, so that it could move throughout the years due to inflation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Many of your recommendations are very interesting. You also agree with us when you say that the issue of housing concerns you. We consider housing a right. I am glad to see that you are looking at it from a human rights perspective. As a member of the G7 and a relatively wealthy society, Canada should do better and lead by example.

I'll be the bad guy. It's funny that I'm the one asking the question, but how do you plan to pay for all of this?

[Michèle Biss]

That's the million-dollar question, or perhaps the billion-dollar question.

One of the pieces that we've learned going through United Nations treaty body reviews is that Canada has an obligation to ensure that we are dedicating a minimum and adequate amount of resources towards our human rights obligations.

In fact, in many of our discussions with organizations like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives—which, as you are likely aware, create an alternative federal budget—we've looked at different ways we can increase both revenue and the way we're conducting our social spending. One of the ways is, of course, through tax reform and ensuring we're getting the income we need.

The one piece that is really quite interesting that's come out of a number of these United Nations treaty bodies is the fact that when you look at the fall fiscal updates and the numbers that came out, our social spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product is at its lowest level since 1949, believe it or not. If we were to increase that by 1%, then a lot of revenue gets created or a lot of money becomes free to be spent towards our human rights obligations.

Under our international human rights obligations, we are required to spend an amount of resources that is adequate towards our obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We're out of time, but just spinning off that question of Mr. Boulerice, you have 11 recommendations here. May I ask which one or two of those recommendations pops out at you as a must?

[Harriett McLachlan]

One that includes a number of the others is recommendation number two, which is the Canada poverty reduction strategy, with a human rights approach that would address the comprehensive picture of poverty and human rights. It would include housing, food insecurity, and those types of things, so recommendation number two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus, you have seven minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses here today.

The documents you submitted are very interesting and raise many important questions. Some overlap more than others, but I found them very interesting.

My questions will be for the representatives from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and Canada Without Poverty because their recommendations are somewhat similar.

However, I must declare a slight conflict of interest with the federation. When I started working 25 years ago, I shared the same position as my wife on a housing co-op. I saw with my own eyes how important it was to have a mix of housing, especially affordable housing. It gives people dignity, but beyond that, there is a very clear economic benefit.

I'm going to pick up on what Ms. Biss said or the question asked by my dear NDP colleague, Mr. Boulerice: how do we address these issues? Conversely, how can we not address the issue of housing, especially in a country like Canada?

Mr. Ross and Mr. Wong, you mentioned the certain value of having quality housing in a mixed environment. Some will pay the market price, while others will pay a certain percentage of their annual income, if it isn't very high.

Could you speak more about your experience and the importance of providing good housing for everyone?

[Timothy Ross]

The mixed-income model is certainly something that helps create more cohesion in a community. It ensures that households that may face typically systemic barriers to social and economic participation have a conduit to inclusion by virtue of having neighbours they can rely on for some support.

Oftentimes what's also advantageous about this model is that housing co-operatives are often very well placed in neighbourhoods and in a community, so residents of a housing co-operative are not segregated in any form from the mainstream of community life. By virtue of the model being inclusive and well placed in a community, we tend to see better housing outcomes for Canadians.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In your recommendations, you mention that it is important that CMHC allow co-ops to repay mortgages at rates of 8% to 10% to take advantage of the very low current rates.

How much savings would that generate? This money could be reinvested in housing co-ops and ensure that they would be sustainable.

[Timothy Ross]

In terms of prepayment options for housing co-operatives so that they can reduce the financial burden of high-interest mortgages, it allows housing co-operatives in today's low-rate environment to regenerate their housing stock. It's important to keep this issue separate from the continuity of assistance to low-income households. Under current operating agreements, all the supports are kind of jumbled together, but moving forward, we're looking for new models. Keeping the buildings separate from the assistance to low-income households is a very important dimension of looking at prepayment options for housing co-operatives.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Ms. Bliss and Ms. McLachlan, you have surely recognized the importance of housing in reducing poverty and in making sure that people do not fall through the cracks. When people have no access to clean and adequate housing, it is very easy to become poor and end up on the margins of society.

Can you talk a little about your experience in showing how important it is to have rental housing available to all Canadians?

[Michèle Biss]

That's a very important question, because we know that housing is critical to people's dignity. It's critical to participation in the community. It's critical to all aspects of life. For people who don't have access to housing, temporary or stable and long-term housing, the cycle of poverty continues. Many of our board members could tell you, as they've all lived the experience of poverty, what those realities of housing insecurity are.

Really critically, when you don't have housing, when your rights are violated, the violation of dignity that exists is often overlooked. I think that's why the rights-based approach to a national housing strategy is so critical, to make sure that people can access housing and can access their right to housing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll go now to five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate all the witnesses today and the information they've brought.

Turning first to the construction industry, Mr. Atkinson, you were talking about recruiting and employees' mobility. I just need to clarify, are you talking about the process of interviewing for a job or the process of moving somebody to a new work site? Those are two different things, and I think you said a little bit about both. Could you clarify that?

[Michael Atkinson]

The particular suggested change to EI would be with respect to people who are currently on EI, so it would be to look for a job. In some cases, although not all cases, as you probably well know, once somebody is employed, often the employer will pick up the relocation costs. But we're talking about a situation where somebody on EI can't find work in their own market, and about the expense to go to that next market to try to line up some interviews and look at potential employment. That's the kind of expense we're trying to see—