Finance Committee on June 14th, 2016

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Yes, and I'm not sure if it's been circulated, but could it be circulated now?

While it's being circulated I'll read the motion and provide a little bit of rationale after I have read it. Mr. Chair, here is the motion I'm putting on the table:

That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a comprehensive study of issues surrounding the Canadian residential real estate market;

That the Study focus on the impact of the housing market on the Canadian Financial System and challenges surrounding access to residential home ownership; and

That the Committee report its findings and recommendations before the end of February, 2017.

Mr. Chair, this is subject matter that I obviously have a very close connection to, given my background before politics. More importantly, the housing situation and home ownership in this country are in a very fragile situation, often going in many different directions very quickly. I think we're at a point right now in the scheme of things, particularly in certain markets, where I think this committee should take a look at it and try to write a report to the government that will give a better sense of the risks out there to the overall financial system. Indeed, it's often mentioned by economists and others that the bellwether for the economy is often housing and the multipliers of housing.

I won't go further on that, other than to say that it's a very important issue for this country, especially given that there's seemingly no end in sight for where prices are going in certain markets, which is affecting Canadians on many different levels—household debt levels, and interest rates—all of which factor into the financial markets. I think we'd be wise, as a committee, to study this. That's why I'm putting the motion on the floor, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The motion is on the floor.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. McColeman, for the motion.

As an individual from a riding representing the city of Vaughan, which has the largest housing developer in Canada, and probably a number of the other largest developers of housing in Canada, I'm quite familiar with how important these are to the economy of Canada and how important the housing market is to the economy of Ontario.

Mr. McColeman, I support this motion. I think I've received enough phone calls and emails from friends—be they Liberal, Conservative, or New Democrat—dealing with housing prices, and how a teacher these days cannot afford to enter the housing market, even though teaching is considered to be a good job with good benefits and good pay. I think it behooves us to undertake a study on the risks within the housing market and the bifurcation that's going on within housing markets in Canada, and to understand some of the trends that we're witnessing in terms of accessibility, prices, and so forth. So I support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I also support the motion and its intent. Could Mr. McColeman give us an idea of the number of meetings he thinks would be needed to cover the issue.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

To be honest, Mr. Caron, I haven't given that consideration. I would be happy to lay out a plan over the next short while and get back to you on that.

There are many players in the housing industry. Obviously, all of the financial institutions are involved, as are the many layers of people who provide housing, plus all of the associated ripple effects from that. It's said in the industry that there is a tenfold multiplier when someone buys a house. It affects the economy. People are buying furniture, they're buying all of these other things, and it is huge multiplier. That's why housing is characterized as a bellwether industry.

I will get back to you on that, but I would suggest to you that if we put this on our schedule, we will be able to do it by the end of February, for sure.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

We will turn to Mr. Caron's motion.

Ron, can you chair? I have to go to the Liaison Committee.

Mr. Caron, go ahead.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion reads as follows:That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study on the benefits and potential impacts of introducing a guaranteed minimum income, and that the Committee report its findings to the House by Friday, February 17, 2017.

By establishing February 17, 2017, as the date, the intent was first to set a date that would not be in conflict with the budget speech, which is usually at the end of February or at the beginning of March. This motion is similar to the one moved previously. I think there have been discussions to determine whether it was in order.

I would say this at least has to be accepted as something we can vote on. The reason is that when the initial motion I presented was voted down, it was with the understanding that a letter would be sent and that the human resources committee would take on the study of this issue. We haven't heard officially from that committee. I've spoken to members of the human resources committee. They haven't even discussed or officially received the letter as a committee. So it's problematic. It seems that the human resources committee does not have this issue as a priority, which I think makes it relevant to bring it back to the finance committee. We're talking about what impact a guaranteed minimum income, or basic income or whatever we want to call it, would have. It will definitely have a financial impact.

If we're studying issues of EI and issues of veterans affairs during the budget, which should have been discussed in those committees, this issue should actually be addressed by the finance committee.

I'd also like to remind my Liberal friends on the committee that in both their 2012 convention and their last convention, Liberal members agreed to a motion to study a basic income and to implement a basic income pilot. So it might be something that would be welcomed by the Liberal members of this committee.

I've also seen the proposal.... I'll wait with this.

I just think that right now we should make a decision to discuss it in the finance committee, and if the members don't want to take the time in finance, we could strike a subcommittee to discuss the study outside of the realm of finance. I'm open to this possibility. I just want it to be addressed. I'm not even saying that I'm in favour of or opposed to it, but it is something that is being debated out there, and we should fulfill our responsibility to address this issue and give some of these questions the answers they deserve.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

There is a motion on the floor, and I'm told by the clerk that despite the earlier discussion we had, this motion is in order because it is different from the previous one. It needs to be put on the table, however, that the earlier motion, which was slightly different because it didn't include a date, has been referred to the committee on human resources. It is my understanding that the human resources committee has agreed to include the guaranteed minimum income as part of an overall study that it is undertaking.

With that background, we're open for discussion.

Mr. MacKinnon is up.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Finance decided to recommend to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to undertake studies and steps dealing with that issue. Like you, I was waiting for news from this committee as to its intentions. I think we now know that the members of this committee are ready to review the issue. It remains to be seen if it is done in depth or as an overview.

In light of the prebudget issues regarding housing and the price of housing in Canada, tax evasion, which we have discussed and will surely also discuss in other future studies, I am inclined not to support the idea of carrying out a study on such a broad topic. In addition, I don't think it is appropriate for this committee to take this approach and undertake such a study. As a result, I will be voting against the motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Are there any others?

Mr. Ouellette, then Mr. Caron.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The guaranteed income is important to people in my riding, and it's not simply because people want to get a free lunch. We often talk about government programs and how they benefit people, but often those government programs are hard to navigate in our system. We have so many different government programs. They're everywhere. The idea of a guaranteed annual income or a negative income tax is to simplify the process and give people the resources they need directly without their having to go through bureaucracy, without having to go through a specific application process to obtain those resources. They can then use those resources as they see fit as autonomous individuals within a collective society.

I hate having to explain to individuals who ask me what I am doing for them. They're autistic or have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Their mother was drinking, they're indigenous, they can't work, and it's really hard. What programs do I have for them? I have to say that we've got the child tax benefit, $540 a month tax free. If they don't have kids, we have some housing programs and dollars coming. A lot of people are looking for housing.

I have the floor and I can speak for a long time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

You can, unless I cut you off.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Really?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

I'd like to try to get this motion dealt with. All the points you're making are very valid, but can we determine first whether the motion proceeds or not before you make the case why we should have a guaranteed income?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So we're just discussing right now...?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Whether the motion proceeds or not.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, it should proceed. You've already made the decision that it's going to proceed.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

It's not challenging you, Chair, but having been in your position when a member has the floor, they have the floor. It's within Mr. Ouellette's parliamentary rights to speak as little or as long as he wants.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

All right. I'm asking Robert if he could try to summarize as quickly as he can so we can deal with this issue, or it won't get dealt with today.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This issue is not going away. We're going to have to deal with this eventually, because Finland is doing it, Brazil has been doing it, Namibia has been doing it, other countries have been doing it. This is an important issue around the world because people are asking how we can be most productive with our tax dollars. Switzerland recently talked about it, and had a vote on it.

When I think and I talk to my constituents about this issue, it's important to them because housing is $700, $800, $900, $1,000 in Winnipeg. It's not Toronto, it's not Vancouver, but a single apartment in downtown Winnipeg is expensive. When you only get welfare because you have disabilities, you don't always fit the requirements and receive the income that you have.

I sometimes become afraid that in this place we become disconnected from the realities faced by many Canadians. We can tell them to work hard, to pull up their bootstraps and get on with it and do it, and that if they work hard, they'll succeed. But unfortunately in life, we all come with different capacities, and not all of us have the same mental capacities to become a Bay Street lawyer and be successful like my colleague Raj, whose family came from....

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Punjab.