Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 160 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection test in advance of the meeting.

I would now like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. Whether you are participating in person or via Zoom, the clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 26, 2024, the committee is resuming its study on the pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2025 budget.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

With us today as individuals are lawyer Nathan Hume and barrister and solicitor Jeffrey Simser.

From the Business and Higher Education Roundtable, we have Matthew McKean, chief officer, research and development, and Valerie Walker, chief executive officer.

Welcome.

From the Canadian Gas Association, vice-president of strategy and delivery Paul Cheliak is joining us.

From École de technologie supérieure, we have Kathy Baig, director general and chief executive officer; and Éric Bosco, executive director of AdapT.

From Mortgage Professionals Canada, we have its president and chief executive officer, Lauren van den Berg.

Each of the witnesses will have up to five minutes for their opening remarks before we move to the members' questions. We will be starting with the individuals.

Nathan Hume, go ahead please.

[Nathan Hume, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Bonjour, finance committee.

You've already heard a lot about the financialization of housing and its impacts on Canadian families and our economy. You've also heard a lot about the imbalance between housing supply and housing demand and the causes of that imbalance, from red tape to population growth. However, I'm here today to suggest a new way of thinking about this problem and a new solution.

We have a house price crisis in Canada. It's simple: The prices are simply too high. To solve that crisis, we do need more homes, but we also need more financial innovation.

We need to build those homes and we need to build a national market in house prices. We can do both. We have the knowledge. We have the financial infrastructure. We can fix this problem right now. We can build a national market in house prices before I can build a single home in Vancouver.

Our high house prices drive the other factors behind the housing crisis. They magnify the effect of interest rates. They attract speculative demand. For many people, they're the only investment game. High price expectations can constrain supply by inhibiting sales and driving up the cost of construction.

There are two federal policies that keep our house prices high. There's the principal residence exemption, which gives real estate a tax advantage that no other asset class enjoys, and there are CHMC mortgage insurance and securitization programs that give real estate a financial advantage of cheap and abundant credit.

Mortgage insurance thresholds keep moving higher and higher, and keep anchoring our prices higher and higher. It was $500,000, then $1 million, then $1.5 million, and most recently it's moved to $2 million with a secondary suite.

These policies have created a Canadian version of the Greenspan put. Our prices always increase and are always expected to increase because the government is always there to back them up with more cheap credit and tax incentives. Those increases just drive more investor demand. They offer outsized returns with limited risk, and that's why you end up with 34% of condos in my home province of B.C. owned by investors.

The only way to get exposure to that great return is to buy a house. If you want to talk about gatekeeping, it's a great example. The only way to get access to those amazing returns is to buy a house and take on a mortgage. It doesn't have to be this way.

What we call “housing demand” is actually demand for two different goods. There are houses that offer shelter, status and control over land, and there are house prices, which offer those great investment returns supported by government policy. Instead of bundling those two goods together as we have for decades, we can and should find ways to separate them and satisfy the demand for financial exposure to house prices with new financial products.

New financial instruments, futures contracts and house price ETFs would be based on house prices and could give investors direct exposure to the house prices they want without requiring them to buy homes. These products would build on our existing financial and regulatory frameworks. They would build on our tradition of financial innovation. The first ETF was created in Canada. We can keep doing this.

We can already buy ETFs that give us exposure to weird, exotic assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and S and P volatility carbon credits, but we can't buy exposure to house prices, the most important asset class in the county.

A house price ETF would absorb speculative demand and would enable young families and new Canadians to save down payments that track house prices. They wouldn't fall behind. They could be held in tax-free accounts to mimic the benefits of home ownership. A renter could combine those two things and get something very similar to owning a home. They would also be compatible with other federal efforts to build more houses, like the accelerator fund.

They'd be different from REITs in two important ways. First, they would not involve the purchase of houses. They wouldn't take any shelter off the market. Second, they would provide direct exposure to house prices, not cash flows of rental properties.

I'm saying to just give the people what they want, because, clearly, what they want is more exposure to house prices.

This committee and the federal government can take steps to advance this concept by expressing interest in and support for new financial instruments that absorb speculative housing demand; studying the concepts in order to identify and resolve technical issues like defining the reference price for this instrument; and mandating the CMHC to provide specific financial support, such as credit support for the underlying swap agreements.

We have a house price crisis. We can solve it. Financial innovation itself is not the problem; we can build houses and a national house price market, and we can do it right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Hume.

Now we'll hear from Jeffrey Simser as an individual, please.

[Jeffrey Simser, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm an expert in money laundering and I am here to offer you five ideas that the government could consider. I was Canada's first director of civil asset forfeiture.

The first is this. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act was recently amended to add a structuring provision. That's all good, but I'm suggesting that it be repealed. I'm suggesting that instead you port it and move it into the Criminal Code.

Here's why. Canada has been criticized in the past by the Financial Action Task Force for not using our existing money-laundering offences in prosecutions. For example, we use section 354, which is possession of proceeds of crime, instead of the money-laundering prosecution.

The reason for this is pretty simple: The penal consequences are the same, but it's much more difficult to take a judge through the money-laundering provisions. Even though there have been changes to the mens rea of that, it's still a problematic provision to use because the prosecutor has to find a predicate offence. Of course, organized crime obviously organizes their affairs to separate their crime from their money as a risk mitigation strategy, and that makes prosecution on money laundering much less likely.

My recommendation is to bring the structuring offence out of the PCMLTFA, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Terrorist Financing Act, and to make it a designated offence under the code so that a prosecution for money laundering would be a prosecution for money laundering, not for the predicate crime.

I'll give you a second idea that's similar.

Project Collecteur, out of Alberta, interdicted a long-standing money-laundering operation. They were moving $200,000 per suitcase through Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. They might have moved upwards of $1 billion in cash, but the problem is that airport screening could not stop them. There was no problem moving $200,000 in a suitcase. Try to put a bottle of hand lotion in your suitcase, and you'll have a problem, but not with $200,000.

My idea here is that we add to the code a provision for bulk cash smuggling. There is a provision in the U.S. code that's similar. That would be an offence. Again, you could prosecute a money launderer for money laundering.

Finally, I have three points about civil asset forfeiture.

The first is around FINTRAC. In the spring, the government announced in the budget that it would finally allow FINTRAC to share information with civil forfeiture authorities. We've been hoping for this for almost 25 years. That's a really good thing, but it's not in place yet.

There is a risk to be managed because, in a civil forfeiture case, the director of civil forfeiture is allowed, using the civil process, to compel information from the bad guy, from the respondent. They're deemed to undertake to that defendant or that respondent not to use that information for any other purpose. The problem is that FINTRAC routinely collects something called a VIR, a voluntary information record, from police, and then it puts that into its database. There is a big risk that if it puts civil forfeiture information into a database, and then if it's used to lay charges and to prosecute someone, there will be a defence motion five or six years later that will have the case thrown out because there's a derivative use problem.

What I suggest here is that the standing committee amend the PCMLTFA to provide clarity on how FINTRAC's VIR process works and to ask it to work with the nine civil forfeiture jurisdictions to ensure that the information can be transferred without that problem occurring.

My fourth brief thought is around the RCMP.

The RCMP has an operational manual that guides its members about how to conduct investigations and how to address civil forfeiture. What the manual says right now is that civil forfeiture is always a last resort, and that's wrong. That might have been right 25 years ago; it's wrong now. I think that the RCMP should change the protocols within their operational manual to make civil forfeiture part of the early planning on cases.

This isn't about the primacy of a criminal prosecution. No one argues that; it should be first. What's happening right now is that files are being held back because it's a last resort, and by the time it gets to civil forfeiture, nothing can be done. The bad guys are laughing all the way to the bank because they get their tainted assets returned.

My final thought is about a gap in the Bank Act, which I know sounds unusual. Section 461 of the Bank Act says that a bank deposit account is deemed to exist at the branch where it was started. We have a couple of jurisdictions—P.E.I. and Newfoundland, for example—that don't have civil forfeiture. What we're seeing is that someone could set up an account in Charlottetown and could do all of their dirty business in Vancouver, and then when the civil forfeiture authority in B.C. comes forward, they could say that it doesn't have jurisdiction because it's a P.E.I. bank account and that there's no civil forfeiture there.

That's something that I think would be a simple legislative fix to section 461: Allow a court to say where the bank account is for the purpose of a civil forfeiture proceeding. That is where it's transacted. Then you'll close that loophole.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Simser.

Now we'll go to the Business and Higher Education Roundtable and its chief executive officer, Valerie Walker, for opening remarks.

[Dr. Valerie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Business-Higher Education Roundtable]

Thank you, Chair.

I almost feel like I need to start by saying, “And now for something completely different.”

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Val Walker and I am the CEO of the Business and Higher Education Roundtable, or BHER. I am joined today by my colleague Matthew McKean, who is our chief R and D officer. We are a national, member-based non-profit. We are the only organization in the country that brings together leaders from our country's top post-secondary institutions and companies to tackle the most pressing challenges facing Canada's economy and workforce.

Since 2019, we've played a critical role in helping post-secondary institutions and businesses, especially small and medium-sized companies, create work experiences for young people before they graduate. What we do is incredibly important, because we know that businesses need people and young people need jobs. We also know that connecting students to employers through what we call “work-integrated learning”—or WIL for short—remains the most effective way to build the skilled talent pipelines that enable Canada's businesses to be productive and innovative and to grow.

Developing the talent we need to work in growing and in-demand sectors like the skilled trades, health care, AI and clean energy doesn't happen organically. It requires curated programs, partnerships and capacity building. BHER is at the forefront of delivering solutions. We are uniquely positioned to deliver on the Government of Canada's commitment to get every student some work experience before they graduate.

We do this by developing partnerships between post-secondary institutions and companies, and we often involve other intermediary organizations like local chambers of commerce and regional economic development groups. We work with those partners to create or scale work-integrated learning programs where they didn't exist before and where they are needed most.

We're not limited to one sector of the economy. We can respond to Canada's evolving labour market priorities by working across industries and sectors in every region of the country. This flexibility allows us to ensure our programs are aligned directly with the current and future needs of this economy.

Our work has big impacts and big outcomes. To date, we have created nearly 65,000 work-integrated learning opportunities for young people. We've partnered with more than 200 post-secondary institutions and we have a pan-Canadian network of nearly 10,000 employers. We've helped a diverse range of students, 50% of whom are women and 45% of whom are visible minorities.

We talked with SME owners across Canada before we started out on this journey—hundreds of them. What they told us was that the biggest barrier to hiring students or entry-level talent wasn't paying wages; rather, it was finding and hiring them, mentoring capacity, covering project costs associated with creating quality experiences or making the post-secondary connections in the first place. That's what we do. That's what we use the funds currently provided by the Government of Canada to pay for: capacity building and partnership development. We get the employers to pay the salaries. Our exit surveys show that more than two-thirds of our employer partners hire or plan to hire their BHER students, and they're also saving big on recruitment and retention costs.

Here is the thing that might really resonate with this committee in particular: Our model is not only highly effective but also very cost-effective. In 2022-23, BHER provided 20% of Canada's federally funded work-integrated learning programming for about 2% of the federal WIL funding envelope. We had a recent evaluation by ISED that confirmed the effectiveness of our programs and our differentiated value and role in the WIL ecosystem.

We would very much like to continue to do this important work. We are requesting $32.5 million in federal reinvestment over five years to expand our impact. With this reinvestment, we will continue to leverage our relationships with industry members and large companies to support small and medium-sized companies to do more WIL. We'll get more companies to pay more students. We'll work with the provinces and territories to ensure shared responsibility and buy-in. We'll build a program worth more than $250 million. In other words, we ensure an 8:1 return on the Government of Canada's investment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Walker.

Now we're going to hear from the Canadian Gas Association and its vice-president, Paul Cheliak.

[Paul Cheliak, Vice-President, Strategy and Delivery, Canadian Gas Association]

Thank you, Chair.

Hello, committee members.

My remarks today will focus on two areas. The first is setting a new narrative for Canadian energy that aligns with the energy trilemma, and the second is a proposal to leverage Canada's vast natural gas infrastructure system.

The Canadian Gas Association members deliver natural gas through 600,000 kilometres of pipeline infrastructure that connects over 20 million Canadians. This infrastructure spans eight provinces and one territory, and through it we deliver 40% of Canada's energy needs, nearly double that of the electricity system.

As energy companies serving all forms of consumers, from large industries to homeowners, we are acutely aware of Canada's productivity and affordability challenge. Energy as an input cost forms part of that productivity equation. We witness first-hand the economic benefit of connecting Canadians homes and industries to natural gas. More affordable energy means improved bottom lines, more disposable income and economic growth. The Government of Canada has an opportunity to put the conditions in place to bring affordable natural gas and renewable gases to more Canadians.

Where do we start? First, we need to work together as a nation to get the message right. I'm just back from meetings in Cairo, where dozens of countries met to discuss the energy and investment landscape around the world. The discussion centred on opportunities in the United States, in Europe and in developing countries. Canada was simply not on the radar.

How do we change this? It starts with a new narrative, a narrative that reflects our energy strengths as a nation and a narrative that speaks positively about our resources, our domestic industry and our infrastructure.

What is the new narrative? It's one that speaks to and balances each element of the energy trilemma: affordability, reliability and sustainability. Balancing the trilemma must be at the heart of Canada's energy and environmental policy and decision-making. Too much focus on any one source of energy or one aspect of the trilemma will lead to unintended consequences.

We must recognize that the world is in an era of energy addition. We need more energy, not less. Our narrative must be accompanied by durable policy that attracts capital. Our allies are vying for investment the same way that we are.

The next five years will be pivotal with the reshoring of manufacturing and the AI data centre opportunity. Canada should be pursuing both with vigour, and natural gas has a central place.

If we get the message right and we get the policy right, how can we leverage the gas system?

Hundreds of thousands Canadians live close to but are not connected to the gas system. They rely on higher-cost and higher-emitting fuels, such as heating oil and propane. To remedy this, we recommend a public-private partnership to co-fund the extension of the gas infrastructure to data centres, farms, rural communities and indigenous nations.

This would not be the first instance of a partnership. There have been several of them over the years, dating back to the 1980s. A partnership would allow the energy delivery company to connect communities in close proximity to the gas system, often less than 10 kilometres away.

We have seen leadership in Ontario. where the natural gas expansion program funded by the Government of Ontario will connect 17,000 homes and businesses to the gas system in 59 communities. The end result is 30% to 50% savings on energy costs. A federal program could expand this opportunity for the rest of Canada, lowering heating costs and putting money into the pocketbooks of households.

The industry stands ready to bring forward shovel-ready projects, along with capital and a strong Canadian workforce.

In the coming weeks, the CGA will be releasing a national policy document that outlines several gas energy opportunities for Canada, including the one I've mentioned today. We look forward to advancing this and other opportunities in the coming weeks and months.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Cheliak.

We will go now to École de technologie supérieure. We have Ms. Kathy Baig as its spokesperson.

[Kathy Baig, Director General and Chief Executive Officer, École de technologie supérieure]

Members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this important pre-budget consultation exercise. It is an honour for the École de technologie supérieure, or ETS, to contribute to these discussions aimed at guiding the priorities of the next federal budget. This is a critical exercise for the country's economic, technological and environmental future.

Today, I will introduce you to two critical projects for Canada's economic, technological and environmental future: the AdapT Institute, and funding for deep-tech incubators such as Centech, ETS's deep-tech incubator.

Climate change is causing our infrastructure to age and increasing maintenance costs. Urgent action is needed. By investing in research and innovation, we can develop new approaches, materials and technologies for design and construction, thereby strengthening our existing infrastructure to build more resilient cities.

Canada is at a turning point on these issues, and it should seize the opportunity to become a global leader in adaptation and resilience. Sustained investments in education and research and the resulting innovations are making and will make a difference in addressing the challenges Canada faces.

The ETS has developed an innovative model with the AdapT Institute, a one-stop shop that brings together the best researchers in the country to brainstorm concrete solutions to current and future challenges. This model facilitates multidisciplinary collaboration and accelerates knowledge transfer to meet the needs of industry and our communities. Within our industry, more than 60 promising projects are already under way. They are piloted by 27 universities in Canada and internationally.

Given the challenges—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Madame Baig, if you could get a little more centered and closer to the mic, that should be good.

[Kathy Baig]

Is it better now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

If you could start speaking, we'll let you know.

[Kathy Baig]

Given the challenges of climate change, it is imperative to accelerate investment. We are requesting funding of $49 million over seven years to roll out this model nationally. The goal is to reach $163 million for collaborative research. This will enable us to continue the projects under way and increase our response activities across the country.

More specifically, the AdapT Institute, with its proven model, makes it possible to connect researchers, businesses and governments to find solutions tailored to each context, to accelerate the development of research and innovation projects, and to strengthen the resilience of our communities.

The AdapT Institute urges the government to support cutting-edge research on climate change adaptation. By strengthening the resilience of our infrastructure, not only are we preparing our country to meet the challenges of climate change, but we are also creating a framework conducive to technological innovation.

Therefore, we recommend that the federal government help fund the AdapT Institute to promote resilient infrastructure and a sustainable economy in Canada.

The second recommendation we would like to present to you is to increase investments to support start-up incubators that specialize in advanced technology—in other words, deep tech—in order to stimulate innovation and the Canadian economy.

Deep technologies, through their transformative potential, are at the heart of the upcoming technology revolution. The ETS houses a deep-tech incubator called Centech, which UBI Global ranks as one of the top 10 incubators in the world. Centech supports companies in cutting-edge fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and other high-tech sectors.

Deep-tech incubators in Canada are facing a major challenge: underfunding. Start-ups in the technology sector need more resources and a longer support period than start-ups in the usual sectors to ensure their success and survival. However, existing funding programs are not adapted to their specific needs, which limits their development and their ability to compete internationally.

To address this, we propose the establishment of a national targeted funding program of $62 million over five years specifically for deep-tech incubators. This program, based on a competitive call for projects model, would support a network of 15 or so incubators across the country. This would stimulate the innovation ecosystem and create thousands of highly skilled jobs.

In conclusion, I would say that these recommendations reflect the commitment of the École de technologie supérieure to make a significant contribution to the green transition and to innovation in Canada, as well as to stimulate its economy and demonstrate its global leadership. By supporting AdapT and deep-tech incubators like Centech, the government could position Canada to be more resilient and innovative in the future.

Thank you for your attention and for giving me the opportunity to present initiatives that will change Canada's technological, economic and environmental face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Baig.

I'm sure there will be many questions.

Now we're going to hear from the Mortgage Professionals Canada, and Lauren van den Berg, please, for five minutes.

[Lauren van den Berg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mortgage Professionals Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and esteemed members of the committee.

It's an honour to appear before you today on behalf of Mortgage Professionals Canada, also known as MPC to our friends, and I think we're all friends now.

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking all members of this committee for your time and your attention to the housing challenges our country is facing.

MPC represents over 15,000 members, including mortgage brokers, lenders, insurers and other professionals who help Canadians navigate the housing market. Our members work every day with individuals and families making one of the most important financial decisions of their lives: securing a home.

Today I will discuss our pre-budget submission and highlight both the progress made and the ongoing work required to ensure access to home ownership remains within reach for all Canadians.

Housing affordability is rightly one of the most pressing concerns for this government and for all parties represented here today. There is widespread recognition that Canada is facing a housing crisis, and this challenge has only grown more urgent in recent years, due to rising interest rates, inflation and economic pressure on households. I want to commend the federal government and members of all parties for their efforts to address these challenges, particularly the important steps introduced in budget 2024-25. These initiatives represent a significant move towards alleviating some of the pressures on Canadian homeowners and prospective buyers, and we're grateful for this action.

Housing is now a national priority, and this is due in large part to the advocacy efforts of groups like MPC and other stakeholders in the housing sector. We've worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of Canada's mortgage professionals are heard, and we are proud to see housing issues receiving the serious attention they deserve.

Several recommendations from MPC's pre-budget submission have already been partly addressed. We very much appreciate what this represents for all homeowners across the country. For instance, we were very pleased to see the introduction of the housing accelerator fund, which aims to increase housing supply, and the elimination of the GST on new purpose-built rentals. These measures are critical to addressing housing affordability.

Moreover, the increase in the ceiling for insured mortgages from $1 million to $1.5 million is a crucial step forward. This adjustment reflects today's housing market realities, particularly in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where housing prices are significantly higher.

We also welcome the easing of rules around 30-year amortization periods, which provides buyers with greater flexibility and lower monthly payments. This is especially beneficial for first-time buyers and younger Canadians who are trying to enter the market.

Additionally, we are encouraged by the government regulator's decision to relax stress test rules at mortgage renewal.

These actions represent significant progress, and we commend the government for implementing these changes. However, there are still critical areas that need further attention. Two important issues remain unresolved, and I'd like to highlight them now.

The first is the urgent need for a digital income verification tool.

Currently, mortgage applicants must provide income verification through outdated manual methods, which are both time-consuming and susceptible to fraud. A secure digital tool provided by the CRA would allow trusted third parties in the mortgage industry to instantly verify income, would reduce fraud and would improve efficiency for homebuyers and lenders alike. This tool is essential for protecting the integrity of our mortgage system and for enhancing consumer confidence.

The second unresolved issue is the establishment of a permanent housing round table.

This round table would bring together all levels of government, industry leaders and civil society to engage in ongoing dialogue and develop long-term solutions to the housing affordability crisis. While provincial and municipal governments have made commendable efforts to address housing barriers, a coordinated federal effort is still needed. A permanent forum for collaboration would ensure that Canada's housing challenges are addressed holistically and would demonstrate the government's continued commitment to solving this crisis.

At MPC, we strongly believe in the importance of ensuring access to home ownership for all Canadians. Home ownership is a cornerstone of financial stability and is vital for building strong, resilient communities across the country. Unfortunately, for many Canadians, home ownership is becoming increasingly difficult to attain. The rising cost of housing, stagnant wages and higher borrowing costs present significant barriers for first-time homebuyers in particular. Extending the amortization period for insured mortgages to 30 years, as has been done, and increasing the insured mortgage ceiling to $1.5 million are important steps. We must continue working to make home ownership a reality for more Canadians.

We also urge the government to combine the home buyers' plan with a first-time home savings account. This would simplify the process for first-time buyers and allow them to better manage their savings for a down payment, giving them a clearer path to home ownership.

In conclusion, while we acknowledge the progress made by the government so far, there is still more work to be done to address the housing affordability crisis in Canada. These initiatives are particularly crucial to ensuring that more Canadians, particularly younger generations, can achieve that dream of home ownership.

Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. van den Berg.

I'm sure the members are eager to ask questions, and that's where we're going right now.

All the parties will have up to six minutes to ask questions. We are starting with MP Pat Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

My first question is for MPC.

We had testimony on Tuesday about the state of affordability for younger working people in Canada. One of your members, Ron Butler, told the committee that the dream is dead and that working Canadians cannot afford to buy their first home in most of Canada's cities.

Have your members, in their grassroots work at street level, had the same experience?

[Lauren van den Berg]

Housing affordability remains the most critical financial challenge facing Canadian households today, particularly in urban centres. Housing costs are continuing to outpace incomes. We're looking at medium-income households now spending up to 63.5% of their income on housing, according to the latest report from RBC. In major cities like Toronto and Vancouver, families are spending as much as 84% and 106% of their income on housing, which makes saving for home ownership nearly impossible.

Affordability isn't just a local issue. It's very much a national crisis and requires a coordinated effort across all levels of government. We didn't get here overnight, and our housing affordability crisis has been influenced by multiple factors. Ensuring that the dream of access to home ownership doesn't die is not just an economic issue but also a matter of national well-being that affects the social fabric of our communities.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Cheliak, you said you were in Cairo, and in a discussion, presumably about accessing gas in that region, Canada wasn't even discussed. Did I understand that part correctly?

[Paul Cheliak]

The meetings were focused on the next generation of energy investments. That's everything from hydrogen production to carbon capture and liquefied natural gas export terminals.

Perhaps the way of summarizing it best is that there is a strong environmental plan for Canada that has been well understood and articulated, but there isn't a similar plan for energy.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Canada was not on the map in an international forum discussing energy investment.

What are Canada's gas reserves in comparison to other gas jurisdictions?

[Paul Cheliak]

Canadian gas reserves are in the hundreds of years—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

What is the rank order among nations?

[Paul Cheliak]

We have the second-highest reserves of open countries in the world, after the United States.