Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[Timothy Ross]

Well, I would implore all parties to depoliticize the housing crisis and take action on housing. I'm not familiar with the quote, so all I would say is that housing co-operatives in Canada are independent and autonomous from government and are owned democratically by the members who live there.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Houle, we hear a lot—and there's some truth to this, for sure—that wherever you are on the housing spectrum today, there's a need for more supply. However, I think the danger is that certain types of supply are more likely to emerge organically, particularly various forms of market housing, and then there are kinds that require government investment to make them work. Those are various types of affordable and social housing.

I think sometimes when we hear, as we did earlier, “supply, supply, supply”, any type will do and we should not worry if we build more supply at the high end as the benefits will trickle down to the people at the bottom, there's the potential that we don't really address an important aspect of the housing crisis in Canada. I wonder if you can speak a bit to that supply question. Do you think it's adequate just to say we should build more supply, no matter what kind, or do you think there has to be discrimination within the types of supply, particularly for the focus of public policy?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

First of all, we're sitting on an $82-billion national housing strategy fund. These are taxpayers' dollars, and this is precious. It really does need to reach the people who need it the most.

We are talking about affordability. Affordability, no matter where that investment is put, needs to live beyond the first buyer or the first renter. For everything I've known around housing and housing affordability, non-market housing is the best bang for the buck. Yes, $82 billion is a lot for federal investment. It's the most we've seen in about 30 years—well, ever. Relatively, with inflation, it is a lot but it's certainly not going to meet the need, so we need to start with those who need it most.

As the housing co-op sector and the non-profit housing sector have demonstrated, investments in those areas and in that type of market, in non-market housing—and it only represents 3.5% of the purpose-built rentals in Canada—create affordability in perpetuity, long after the operating agreements are done and long after the mortgages are paid. Non-profits are owned by the community and, as Tim said, housing co-ops are owned by the people who live there. These are not owned by government. These are independent of government, yet they are still able to stay by their mission. That extra money in people's pockets means a better economy in other sectors.

If we're looking at OECD numbers, you have the Netherlands, where the percentage of non-market housing represents 35% of the entire rental portfolio. In Austria and Denmark, it is over 20%. In the U.K., it's 15%. In Canada, it is a mere 3.5%, yet this is the housing that makes a difference in perpetuity.

If as a federal housing advocate I'm looking at outcomes for people and housing is a human right, this is the best investment for the government's money.

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

We've heard about the trickle-down theory of it not mattering where you invest in the spectrum, but is it not also the case that investments in the social and affordable end of the housing spectrum actually trickle up?

You have people renting market housing but can't afford it and they're cutting pills and skipping meals. They're doing lots of things to make their market rent—for those who can—but by transitioning those folks into units that they can properly afford, that creates more room in the market rental space for folks who can afford it but just can't find it.

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Non-market housing is not just housing that's subsidized, because there are subsidies for people who have deeper economic needs. For the people who are non-subsidized, again, Tim's numbers spoke to that.

That being said, when I'm hearing people talk about the rental market and say that if we only build more homes for mortgages, people will get out of the rental market and it will free up rentals.... Because we don't have vacancy and rent control applied when people move out, whatever those people were paying for rent is not going to be what's available for new people moving in.

If there is a dependency to look at the whole housing system and the whole housing spectrum trickling down, regulations need to be put in place. It doesn't seem that government has an appetite for that, certainly not around vacancy control. If that's not going to happen, we'll have to focus on non-market housing, and that's the point.

If we're talking about taxpayers' money, the private market will do what the private market will do. It will look out for itself. However, if we're looking at government investments and regulations, this is where they need to be focused.

If we had a higher representation of non-market housing, it might have a chance to compete with purpose-built rentals and the private market. It certainly won't when it represents only 3.5%.

There's a lot I could say. I'm afraid I strayed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You'll have more opportunities. We're well over our time.

We are going into our second round, members and witnesses, and we are starting with MP Morantz, for five minutes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boswell, I want to pick up where my colleague left off with respect to the issue of market inquiries. Michael Geist, the professor you're probably familiar with, has expressed concerns that the provisions of Bill C-56 relating to inquiries by the Competition Bureau into the state of competition in the market or industry could undermine the bureau's independence from the government by allowing the minister to order an inquiry not only if he believes an offence or contravention of the act has been committed but also on the basis of public interest. Do you share his concern?

[Matthew Boswell]

I wasn't able to hear everything you said. I apologize.

I can reiterate that we did caution in our recommendations to the government on the future of competition policy that it's very important to maintain the independence of the bureau. It's important to maintain the public's perception that the bureau is an independent entity that is able to make the decision of where it's most appropriate to engage in market studies and to seek to use its powers to compel information.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Is there any other country you're aware of that provides this type of power to a politician?

[Matthew Boswell]

Yes. I believe it's in New Zealand, but I'll let Mr. Durocher reply.

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

I believe New Zealand is one example. If I'm correct, Australia has a dual model where I believe the minister, or the agency, can initiate a market study.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Did I understand you correctly when you said you were unclear as to whether you would have the authority, should this bill pass, to initiate a market study on your own?

[Matthew Boswell]

Yes. The way it's worded in new subsection 10.1(1) of the bill, the minister can direct a market study inquiry. That would be done in consultation with the commissioner, as would the resources and scope of the inquiry, but it wouldn't be the commissioner of competition initiating a market study inquiry under new subsection 10.1(1) of the bill.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

To be clear, right now, with the way the existing legislation is written, you do have that authority.

[Matthew Boswell]

No.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Who does? Not this bill....

[Matthew Boswell]

We conduct market studies, but.... I'm sorry. I guess the trick here is that if you do an inquiry under the act, as it stands now, it gives certain powers to the commissioner of competition to do things like go to court or seek orders, but that's related to enforcement investigations. We do our market studies in our general competition advocacy role in Canada informally, if I can put it that way, but we don't have any powers to compel information when we do those types of market studies.

For the grocery market study, we decided it was appropriate to look into competition issues in the retail grocery sector. We said we were going to study it, but we didn't have any powers when we did that. The act will give the minister the power to initiate a market study inquiry. Once the minister initiates it, that will give the bureau the power to go to court under the market study to compel records from people involved in the study.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

If we were to seek an amendment around this, what would you like Bill C-56 to say?

[Matthew Boswell]

As we said in our recommendations to the government, we'd like it so the commissioner can initiate a market study inquiry, whether that's in addition to the minister directing a market study inquiry or just the commissioner on his or her own.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Bester, the act is named the affordable housing and groceries act. Do you think the name of the act actually reflects the provisions of the act?

[Keldon Bester]

As I said, I think this act is an investment in the future of competition in markets much beyond grocery. We've seen a particular focus on anti-competitive agreements.

With the restrictive covenants, clearly there is an onus on grocery, but I think the great part about the Competition Act is the economy-wide framework. If you strengthen it with one market in mind, you really are strengthening the approach across the economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

Now we'll go to MP Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being with us today. I won't have a chance to ask questions of all of you, but I appreciate your input and look forward to asking some of you some questions.

I'm going to focus the questions toward you, Mr. Ross, at the outset.

I know you said that we don't want to politicize housing, and I agree we shouldn't, but I share my colleague Mr. Blaikie's concern about what Pierre Poilievre said about co-op housing. Let's depoliticize it for a moment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

For my constituents who are watching and who want to understand what co-op housing is, what is co-op housing?