Finance Committee on Feb. 15th, 2024

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Marty.

Chair, I want to move the following motion. It's one that I had put on notice last week. It states:

Given that:

a. Taxes on beer, wine and liquor will automatically increase on April 1, 2024;

b. This year's tax increase will be 4.7%—the amount equivalent to average inflation over the past year; and

c. Canadians and businesses cannot afford another tax increase;

The committee report to the House that it calls on the government to cancel its April 1, 2024, tax increase on beer, wine and liquor.

As we all know, inflation and interest rates are hurting Canadians' paycheques, pocketbooks and businesses. We see business insolvency rates going up. We know that this will hurt tourism and the hospitality industry, after they've already been significantly impacted by COVID.

This hike will also impact workers like taxi drivers, and areas like ride-sharing. Many of the people I talk to in different communities who are working in these industries have been impacted. There is less and less business, especially over the weekends, because fewer people are going out to restaurants and bars to spend money due to the increases in this excise tax.

On April 1 the tax on alcohol will go up. That's on top of the carbon tax hike and the payroll tax increases this January. We know that this Liberal government's out-of-control deficit spending caused 40-year highs in inflation, forcing the Bank of Canada to raise its interest rates, leaving Canadians with the highest cost of living ever. As a result of inflation, the government's automatic escalator on the alcohol excise tax will increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits by 4.7% on April 1 of this year, without any vote in Parliament.

We've heard from different stakeholders who are against this hike. They know how bad the impact will be on the industry and how much more expensive it will be for Canadians. These are stakeholders such as Beer Canada and the wine growers association.

Conservatives are calling on this government to cancel its April 1 tax increase on beer, wine and spirits. The Liberals have the opportunity to do the right thing right now for Canadians and businesses and support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Hallan.

Go ahead, MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

New Democrats are certainly of the view that it does not make sense to raise the tax on beer, wine and liquor at the rate of inflation when we're in a period of extraordinary inflation, well beyond the target that the Bank of Canada has set.

We have an excellent panel here, though. I had hoped that this debate might have come closer to the end of the panel. I'd be happy to take up the debate again around noon, but for the moment, I would move to adjourn debate on the motion so that we can have our time with the panel here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, are we good to move back to—

[An hon. member]

We'll just let it go and adjourn until [Inaudible—Editor].

[An hon. member]

I think we have agreement on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. If there is full agreement, we'll let it go and we'll get back to our witnesses.

MP Hallan, you have a minute on your time.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Ms. Houle, I have a simple question for you. Have you seen that the homelessness situation has been getting worse or better?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Well, I would encourage everyone to read the report on encampments that I just released this week.

To answer your question in a simple way, absolutely the visible homelessness in this country has risen. It's not just in large urban centres. It's in remote and northern areas as well.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

When you're talking to some of the people you would deal with on a daily basis, or just to Canadians in general, is the cost of living a big factor in homelessness?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

It is mostly the cost of housing that is the big factor. That was a factor long before the pandemic. It's just gotten worse. Everyone I've met in homeless encampments is in the encampments because they don't have a safe place to go.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Absolutely.

Are there any other factors in their monthly budgets that are affecting this? We know that shelter costs have grown and are taking more out of Canadians' paycheques. Are there other financial factors you're hearing about that are getting people to have less at the end of the month?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Anyone who goes to the grocery store and looks at the prices will see that groceries have also greatly increased in price.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

Now we're going to MP Dzerowicz, please.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all our witnesses today for their very important testimony.

Ms. Houle, thank you for the in camera report that you've put out. I did read it with great sadness. I will tell you that everything you've put in there is very much the reality that we see in, I would say, all cities across this country.

The first question I have for you is on the importance of acknowledging and committing to the right to housing. Do you think it's important for every party in the House of Commons to acknowledge the right to housing? Why is it important for all of us to be aligned on this issue?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

First of all, the right to housing was enshrined in domestic law in 2019 in the National Housing Strategy Act. The onset of the housing crisis in general in Canada has been long in coming over the past 30 years because we're doing things backwards. We're doing things from the top down.

Encampments are a real fine example of a top-down approach that, in the treatment of people, violates their human rights, especially with violence and forced evictions.

The human rights approach is about properly engaging with people experiencing homelessness, first of all. Because they are the holders of the solution, they are the ones who are able to articulate what's not working, what is missing and why they are choosing to live in a tent when they're just so exposed and just so vulnerable. It's because this is a better choice than anything else. That being said—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is it important for all the parties to be aligned on the right to housing in the House of Commons?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Absolutely. Then we're able to get some solutions and be aligned on that because we need an all-of-government approach. It can't just sit on the shoulders of the federal Minister of Housing.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I also want to put on the record, Mr. Chair, that during the voting marathon in December, the Conservatives voted to defund the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate. I'm glad that they have shown some compassion and interest in resolving the issues today, but I do want to put that on the record.

There have been a number of suggestions around an acquisition fund, which I think is a very popular idea. A number of witnesses have mentioned that.

A few years ago, one thing that our federal government invested in for Toronto, which was a game-changer and not done before, was $1.3 billion for Toronto Community Housing in order to ensure that there are repairs and housing is kept in good condition for those who are already living in our affordable housing spaces.

I know an acquisition fund is important, but are ideas like the types of investments that we've made in Toronto Community Housing at the city level also a good step?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Yes, absolutely.

An acquisition fund is a way to ensure that housing that is already affordable will remain affordable. I think the other people on the panel can speak to this as well.

We can't buy and build our way out of this housing crisis because, as Ray had mentioned, we're losing 11 units of housing that are naturally affordable for every one that we're able to build through the national housing strategy.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

I'll turn my attention to Mr. Sullivan.

You talked about looking at federal lands as one way to start addressing the housing crisis that's under way here in Canada.

I am on record and I have talked a number of times to a number of ministers about making sure that we are doing a review of our federal commercial lands in order to address the housing and affordability crises that we have here. I do think it's important to acknowledge that our federal government has already created over 1,400 new homes on federal properties and we recently announced that we are unlocking an additional 2,900 new homes on federal properties by 2029.

Beyond this continued review, Mr. Sullivan, perhaps you could talk a little bit more about what more we need to be doing around federal commercial lands that are in the hands of the federal government.

[Ray Sullivan]

It was good to hear the minister announce several months ago a change in mandate for the Canada Lands Company to ensure at least 20% affordability. I'd like to see that rise higher than 20%, but it's certainly a good start.

There's a severe limitation on access to federal lands because there's a fund, the federal lands initiative, where the government essentially buys land from itself and then makes it available to municipalities and non-profits to develop.

The amount of land that can be made available is limited by that budget amount. That's why we're advocating to switch to a leasing model. A one-dollar lease to a non-profit, co-op or municipality for 99 years would allow us to build that affordable housing. It would also allow the government to retain the value of an asset on its balance sheet. In fact, the value of that asset would grow as the land is being developed.

Significantly, another important message is to look beyond the concept of surplus land and look at the idea of lazy land.

I live here in Ottawa, I ride my bike past federal government buildings outside of the downtown core and they are surrounded by an acre of mowed grass. The government office use can still continue in that building and we can build 50 townhomes across the front of the street and create affordable housing compatible with the existing use. This would unlock the true potential of the federal land inventory across the country.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we go to MP Trudel.

Welcome back to the committee.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for coming to talk to us about this important issue of homelessness and housing. They talked a lot about community housing and the importance of social housing. I'm very pleased to hear that.

Mrs. Houle, you wrote a report. There is no mention of the exact number of homeless people or the increase in the number of those people across Canada in recent years, but the Government of Quebec has done that work. In 2018, in terms of visible homelessness, there were perhaps 5,000 individuals in Quebec. Last year, the number was 10,000. So that number has doubled in five years. In fact, it was exactly when the federal government launched its major national housing strategy that the homeless population in Quebec doubled, no less.

At the same time, we have learned from various sources that the federal government is preparing to cut the budget by 3% for the reaching home program, the major national program to address homelessness challenges. The homeless population has doubled in Quebec, but the government is about to announce a 3% cut to the program's budget, probably to please the Conservatives and to go up in the polls. The federal government wants to show that it is in control when it comes to fiscal restraint. Do you think this is really a good place to make cuts when the homeless population is doubling in Quebec?