Finance Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

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

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses for their expertise in their presentations, as well as their patience with the committee, which is never dealing with just one thing. I do hope my colleagues on the committee are going to find a good way to proceed that will maximize the time we have to hear from you.

Mr. Guénette, in your opening remarks you were talking about the vast requirement for housing supply across the spectrum. I know that Scotiabank has said that Canada's social housing supply sits at about 3.5%, which is half of the OECD average, and that Canada needs to increase its social housing supply. Is that included in the advocacy that you're doing today for housing supply across the spectrum?

[Jasmin Guénette]

We focus essentially on our members, who represent 85% of the construction workforce across the country, and how we can support small business efforts to build more housing by helping small businesses have access to more labour and by helping them cope with the increased cost of borrowing. Businesses are also facing red tape challenges and many other challenges. We are here today to speak about the different challenges our members are sharing with us and ensure that small businesses can contribute to building more houses more rapidly.

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

Do you agree that if Canada had an ambitious social housing building program that would create more opportunities for small businesses in the business of building housing?

[Jasmin Guénette]

Potentially. To have the position of our membership, we would need to ask them questions on their views of different programs to build more social housing, but the issue remains the same. It's one thing to have a program, and it's another thing to have the people to build the houses that are needed.

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

Ms. Niles, I know you were talking about the role that pension plans have been playing in the acquisition of housing and what that's meant for housing costs. I just wonder if you have some policy recommendations for the committee that you really want to emphasize or single out as being important in trying to ensure that the money Canadians invest in their pension plan isn't working at cross-purposes with the needs of the housing market.

[Emily Niles]

Yes, I think it's important to understand that pension funds exist to maximize return in order to provide lifetime retirement income for their members. There is no other altruistic means. I think it is often a mistaken belief that funding projects through pension funds would lead to better outcomes. There are a number of examples. Here in Ottawa, for example, hundreds of low-income, largely racialized tenants in the Heron Gate neighbourhood were displaced by a company that's partly owned by the Manitoba teachers' pension fund. That is one of many examples.

I think it's important to recognize that this isn't the proper forum for delivering affordable housing for the core housing need. It's not through workers' pension funds.

There are a number of ways that the governments could address this. I think the most important one would be requiring human rights outcomes for housing projects. If there were greater protections for tenants, this would combat some of the profit-maximizing behaviour that we see from financialized actors and attempt to restore some balance into that equation.

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

We've heard some talk around this table about the use of federal Crown lands in order to be able to incent new housing development. I am wondering if you have some guidance for the committee around what kinds of rules you think would have to be in place around the use of federal lands for new housing in order to ensure that we're maximizing the return on investment for Canadians themselves. We would expect to see their public resources used in a way that benefits the public interest.

[Emily Niles]

Our union's position would be that Crown lands, for the purpose of housing, should be targeted toward those in core housing need—through public housing, through co-operatives, through non-profit housing. We really think that the core housing need is being lost in the public conversation around housing right now. Those are folks for whom, really, the consequences are the most dire. I think that would be the best, most effective use of Crown lands.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Demers, are you considering using public land for housing construction?

What kind of rules do you think should be put in place to make sure that really benefits the public?

[Isabelle Demers]

That's an excellent question, Mr. Blaikie. Thank you for raising it.

Yes, we haven't addressed that today, but the use of public lands is a concern for us.

We have to consider various models and think differently about this so we can respond to the current crisis.

Under one of those models—and there are many—housing could be built on municipal, provincial or even federal property. You could adopt approaches involving emphyteutic leases or the possibility that people might own the built environment but not necessarily the underlying land. That would certainly make it possible to lower prices and to access ownership. It would also undermine all efforts at speculation. It could definitely be considered as one of the measures that might be encouraged.

Obviously, if housing were a simple issue, a single measure would already have helped to resolve the crisis. In actual fact, it takes many measures to promote housing construction, housing access, access to ownership and especially choice. What concerns us right now is that Canadians don't have choice. They are either renters out of necessity or owners, but just barely. As we previously mentioned, there's a housing deficit. Some 3.5 million units will have to be built by 2030, and that number will only increase.

In short, all measures that can be taken to resolve the situation should be considered.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I also want to thank the witnesses.

You probably heard the discussion. We are going to have to go back to the motion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I just want to apprise the witnesses of what is going to be taking place right now.

We have to go back to the motion. Depending on how members work their way through this, it may be quick or it may not be so quick.

I have a list. I have MP Blaikie, then MP Ste-Marie and then MP Chambers.

MP Blaikie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to hearing what the product of the conversations between Mr. Hallan and Ms. Bendayan was. Hopefully, we can resolve this issue quickly and still have time for testimony.

I won't say any more, in the interest of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

MP Ste-Marie, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I have a point of order.

I would request unanimous consent to allow the witnesses to leave the meeting, if they so wish.

I repeat that I have a point of order and request unanimous consent to release the witnesses immediately, if they wish to leave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, is there unanimous consent to release the witnesses?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There is no unanimous consent.

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

That's fine.

It sends a message that there's hope.

Now I'm going to use my turn to discuss the motion for a minute.

First of all, I commend the sensitivity shown in Ms. Bendayan's motion with regard to Quebec. I acknowledge it, and I commend Ms. Bendayan for it. I'm going to vote against this motion, and that's a very strong and well supported “nay” designed to recall the positions of the Bloc Québécois.

I want to note that the logic underlying the division of powers in the Constitution Act, 1867 was that, when something concerned the system, it was federal, and, when it concerned people, it was provincial. As a result, the cultural differences between Quebec and Canada would not prevent the country from functioning. That was the compromise contemplated in Confederation.

Under an amendment made in 1951, section 94A of Canada's Constitution Act gave the federal Parliament legislative authority respecting pensions but acknowledged the preponderant authority of provincial statutes in the matter. Parliament may therefore legislate unless a province decides otherwise and prefers to do so itself. That is a right of the province.

When the federal government introduced the Canada pension plan, Quebec was enabled under section 94A to refuse to participate in the plan and to create the Régime de rentes du Québec and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. It was up to Quebec, and Quebec alone, to make that decision. It has not been Parliament's decision since the Constitution Act was amended in 1951.

The same is true for Alberta. Whether you agree or disagree with the province's choice is of no importance; it is up to Alberta alone to make the decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

MP Chambers, go ahead.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I know you said that time is short and runs fast, but you missed the second half, which is that this is also where logic comes to die.

We have some great witnesses here today. I'd love to talk to Mr. Keith Dicker and let him know that we're maybe both wearing our “no central bank digital currency” shirts underneath our tie and suit jacket. There's Mr. Blair, who actually has a proposed project in Orillia. I think we should be able to get back to the witnesses. There is some very good testimony to be had here.

I won't take very long, Mr. Chair, other than to say that if the motion is the way it is currently written, we won't be getting a vote on it. I'll just put the position out there. If we want to try to pass the motion in its current form, we're not voting on it today. We'll talk until midnight tonight or until whenever we have resources for. People want to go home, and I understand that, but that's our initial position.

We have proposed some language, which I think is being considered right now, that would allow us to bring this motion to a vote. Since it's a report to the House, anybody can stand up in that chamber and say whatever they want about any premier in the entire country, but we cannot approve the way the motion is written right now, with the third bullet: “Stands with the majority of Albertans who are opposed to Premier Danielle Smith's dangerous plan to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan that threaten the pensions of millions of seniors and hard-working Canadians from coast to coast.”

We cannot approve that, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that nobody even knows what Albertans think right now. They're going to be asked what they think. I personally believe they should be encouraged to stay in the CPP. I have other colleagues who may have different views. That is up to Albertans to decide. There's a whole process by which provinces can consider whether they would withdraw from the CPP.

My personal belief is that I don't think the methodology underpinning what assets are to be given to the CPP makes sense. That being said, I don't actually know what Albertans believe now. I would prefer that we encourage them to stay in it so that we can secure the CPP for all Canadians who are currently part of the program, including those people in Ontario.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think there are some discussions going on. We have the witnesses here.

Mr. Cooper, Kellie Leitch says hello. We should maybe have MP Michael Cooper come question Mr. Cooper and confuse the translators.

Since there are still some discussions going on and we have the witnesses here, I will move a motion that we have another six-minute round while the discussions are still happening, so we can use the time with our witnesses well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chambers, did you just move a motion?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes. I propose a six-minute round. I'd love to get some more great insights from our witnesses. We can let the conversations happen behind the scenes.