Finance Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think many of us want to hear from the experts we have here, who came to Ottawa to testify before our committee.

I listened, of course, with interest to the various political speeches that we've just heard from the Conservatives, but the reality is that witnesses are before us, and I find it ironic for several gentlemen, who claim that the housing crisis is important, to take time away from this panel of witnesses when we could move this debate to the end of the meeting.

Mr. Chair, I would propose that we adjourn debate for the moment to allow the panel of witnesses to continue providing their important testimony and continue to respond to questions and that we move debate on this motion until the panel of witnesses concludes at the end of this meeting.

Mr. Chair, I look to you and the clerk for advice on how best to do that.

Mr. Clerk, if I need to propose an official motion for debate on the motion to be moved to the end of the meeting, let me know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Bendayan.

I'll look to the clerk. He will answer.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Good afternoon, Ms. Bendayan.

If I understand correctly, you're proposing that debate on Mr. Hallan's motion be adjourned. This motion has to be put—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Clerk, what I'm proposing is that we move the discussion to the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Bendayan. What you have proposed is debatable. We will now debate in terms of moving MP Hallan's motion to the end of our meeting and to then debate it at that time. That is what you put forward, yes?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

What we are now debating is PS Bendayan's motion.

We have a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm just looking for clarification on what kind of motion this is. My understanding is that normally you can move to adjourn a debate but that we don't usually include a specific time and that adjournment debates are not debatable. I'm just wondering what kind of motion this is, exactly, and how it's in order.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I recognize that it is perhaps unusual, which is why I sought guidance from the clerk, and while I do seek to move the debate to the end of the meeting, it is with the intention of getting to our witnesses. If this is going to belabour the point, that is certainly the opposite of my intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I understand. We do want to get to our witnesses, so PS Bendayan, I'll allow the clerk to explain this to MP Blaikie.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Blaikie is correct. Usually when there is a motion, a dilatory motion to adjourn the debate, you put it to a vote right away without debate. However, when you add a condition to such a motion—that debate be adjourned “until such time” or “until the end of the meeting”—the committee can then debate that condition, which is what is currently being done.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could ask for unanimous consent, and that may ease matters.

Is there consent around the table?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No, we do not have unanimous consent for this, so we are on your motion, PS Bendayan. I don't know if you want to speak further to it.

Next on the list I have MP Ste-Marie and then MP Blaikie.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, that is the opposite of what I would like to do, because I would like to get back to the testimony, so I invite you to move quickly to further members. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will go to MP Ste-Marie and then MP Blaikie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Given what Ms. Bendayan just said, I think it would be best to keep hearing from the witnesses and to wait until the end of the meeting to debate the motion, which I will support and want to speak to briefly, if the majority of the committee permits.

I would also like the clerk to tell us how long we have the resources we need to continue the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have resources until 5:40 p.m.

We go now to MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

My comments are really in a similar vein to Monsieur Ste-Marie's. I'm happy to defer the debate and the vote on this motion if it's going to happen. If there's unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on the motion and have Mr. Ste-Marie and me reserve our comments until the end of the meeting, I'm satisfied with that. If we're going to back this up to the end of the meeting just to find out we're not having a vote, I think that would be a more contentious way of proceeding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I was just conferring with the clerk.

Would members be okay with allowing the last 10 minutes for addressing MP Hallan's motion and having the vote at the end of this meeting so that we can get back to our witnesses? We have amazing witnesses with us, and I'm sure they want to answer your many questions.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, just to confirm, I personally would be comfortable as long as we agree with unanimous consent to have a vote on allowing Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Ste-Marie to have an opportunity to intervene, and we commit to having a vote before we get out of this room. I think you'd have UC for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's what we're asking for. Do we have UC for that?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Yes, we do have unanimous consent.

We go back to our witnesses. Next up is MP Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair. It's amazing what can happen when we work together in this committee. Also, it's great that we have such amazing witnesses today.

I'd like to pick up on a line of questioning from earlier, and in particular something from Mr. Pomeroy.

You mentioned in your introduction a point in time in 1975 when the federal government took a role in looking at rental regulations. I am hoping you could explain that—given, obviously, the division of powers and the jurisdiction the federal government has—and what that looked like.

[Steve Pomeroy]

For members' information, I do have to leave at five o'clock. I have 24 students waiting for me. I deferred the class by half an hour because I thought I'd have enough time. It's not that they're more important than you.

In 1975, we had the wage and price controls legislation. We had massive inflation back then. Today's inflation dulls by comparison, as those old enough to remember will know. As part of that legislation, the federal government, because it didn't have jurisdiction, specifically asked the provinces to consider implementing rent controls. All provinces in Canada, including Alberta, implemented rent controls. They subsequently took them off in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, but they did heed the request from the federal government.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

Staying in the historical perspective, and given your time, Mr. Pomeroy, I will ask a number of questions of you before you have to leave.

In 2016 you co-authored a report. It found that over 800,000 rental units below $750 per month were lost during the decade of 2006-2016. I was hoping you could explain to this committee what market forces led to the loss of this deeply affordable housing.

[Steve Pomeroy]

I've recently updated that study to 2011-21. There were 550,000 in the 2011-21 period. Of course, the number is going down because there aren't enough units left under $750 to disappear in the first place, and we see a movement up to the next rent band of $750 to $1,000 where we're seeing that erosion as well.

What we're seeing there are a number of things. There's the absolute loss. In some cases some of those units are lost as a result of intensification pressures. Many cities are building in our inner city areas, which is where we happen to have built the old rental housing in the 1960s and 1970s, so they're being knocked down and replaced. It's one area of loss, although that's quite small.

Second, some is potentially lost—as in the discussion we previously had—to the short-term rental market.

The vast majority are not lost in absolute terms, as they still exist, but the rents have significantly moved upmarket. When we see rents going up by 18%, 19% or 20%, those units move very quickly.

We have seen some predatory behaviour with investors and various asset management firms trying to purchase low-rent properties specifically for the purpose of trying to increase yield by repositioning those assets in the market and raising the rents. It's a function of that kind of behaviour, and as I mentioned in my presentation, it's enabled by rent regulation that makes that perfectly legitimate and legal to happen through vacancy decontrol and turnover.