Finance Committee on May 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's the time. We just reached it.

Thank you, MP Stewart.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll hear from the Liberals and MP Chatel, for six minutes, please.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always great to see Mr. Stewart passionately advocating for diabetes.

My questions will turn to Mr. Ross from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada.

Mr. Ross, as you mentioned in your opening, we have invested $1.5 billion in the budget in the new co-op program. You mentioned that you learned a lot about what worked before and what didn't work, and you think that the new housing programs will be very effective in delivering affordable housing.

Could you expand on that, please?

[Timothy Ross]

Thank you so much for the question.

In terms of what works and what we've learned, we know that community and co-op housing works very well in Canada, with a well-established 50-plus year track record of creating permanently affordable housing that puts community first and members first. We know that works very well, especially at this time when renting or owning in the marketplace is very, very difficult. Co-op housing is affordable—more affordable than market housing. It provides security of tenure and security of ownership, and it provides for a very strong community.

What's needed to work at a programmatic level is to deliver new co-op housing in Canada at scale. The supply programs of the seventies and eighties created a very disaggregated asset base, so a lot of very small housing co-operatives all across the country. That was very good, but in today's very difficult housing market, we need to create affordable co-operative housing at scale.

One of the features in our budget proposal is that the co-op housing sector itself delivers this program at scale, to realize efficiencies and economies of scale and ensure we are committing seed funding and working capital to projects much faster. There are projects stuck on desks all across the country, representing thousands of units, because they can't navigate the bureaucracy of current programs. Having a sector-delivered program is much closer to the ground and is going to be much more efficient and get outcomes even faster.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

What exactly do you mean by a “sector-delivered” housing project?

[Timothy Ross]

Well, we would see part of this program being delivered by the sector. Most housing programs in Canada at the federal level are delivered by CMHC. However, there is some precedent for other partners to come in to deliver housing programs, such as the Community Housing Transformation Centre and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They are both directly delivering programs, and creating some greater efficiencies and proximity to the ground to commit funding faster and realize outcomes even faster too.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I see. Thank you so much.

We know that beyond funding, there are, as you mentioned, numerous challenges to building affordable housing. How do you think that the federal government will work with other levels of government, and in particular, Quebec—where there's a contribution for co-op housing already in existence—in order to make sure we effectively deliver affordable housing to Canadians?

[Timothy Ross]

I think one of the greatest and most important roles for federal funding programs is to provide a very deep level of grant contributions to projects. The supply and labour shortages and inflation and rapid appreciation in the real estate markets make it harder and harder to deliver affordable housing every day that goes by. Therefore, a very deep level of grants on a per-project basis is critical for reaching the levels of affordability needed to create deeply affordable housing in Canada. In doing so, through the unilateral programs or through the bilateral agreements, there are opportunities to do just that.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I represent a rural riding, and these housing co-ops are not in scale in rural areas. It's more for municipalities, but sometimes it's the only lever they have because big, large developers are not going into the region. Getting together as a co-op in the community with community leaders is really perhaps the only solution to the crisis in rural areas.

When you talk about scale, I just want to make sure you don't forget those small and essential co-op projects for rural communities so they're not left behind.

[Timothy Ross]

In rural areas, co-op and non-profit housing is sometimes the only form of rental housing available in some communities. I know that in Pontiac there are 34 co-op homes that were created under previous federal programs.

Another advantage to having a sector-delivered program is to make sure that funding and financing levels are reflective to different regional markets, whether they be rural or urban. The way we create scale as a sector is by delivering a program together across the country.

We very much welcome the investment of $1.5 billion, and 6,000 units is not a lot of housing when you look at the scale of the crisis, but it's certainly an important start.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It's a good first start.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel and Mr. Ross.

I hope you know how many co-ops are here in Mississauga East—Cooksville, my riding, but that was great.

We are moving to the Bloc and Monsieur Garon for six minutes, please.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'll begin with Mr. Gilbert, from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques.

I was listening to you, and, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me the employment insurance program is supported by the money of employers and employees.

For a long time now, we've been demanding a major reform of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada with respect to the EI first level of appeal. As you said, there seems to be a kind of imbalance in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, as a result of which employers, employees and unions would not be adequately considered in the appeals process.

I'd like you to tell us about the impact of that imbalance and how we could amend the bill to mitigate that impact.

[Maxime Gilbert]

We, the representatives of the stakeholders that contribute to the employment insurance fund, that is to say, the employers and workers, or employees, consider it important, in the initial appeal stages, when a claimant is dissatisfied with a decision or unhappy with the result of a claim, to be able to make submissions that connect with the individuals involved in the appeal process. That, moreover, is one of the demands of CSD and the four major labour groups in Quebec, which share our opinion and advocate for it.

I'm trying to make myself clear. We don't want to go back to the previous arbitration boards before an umpire and so on. We're asking that, following consultations with sectoral representatives, people from the region be appointed and trained by the Employment Insurance Commission so they can hear these cases. This would help reflect both the regional and economic diversity of many workplaces in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada as well.

It's false to say that the situation in downtown and suburban Montreal is the same as on the Basse-Côte-Nord or in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Representation has to be institutionalized, if I may put it that way.

To answer the second part of your question, we understand from the provisions in the present version of the bill that people will be appointed from the labour and employer sides. However, there's no indication of what mechanism will be used to appoint those persons. Our understanding is that they'll be accountable to the chairperson. Once again, we would like the appointment and training process to be outlined in greater detail and established more clearly. The labour associations would also like to be engaged in the representation process.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

I understand.

Looking back over your remarks, which I found very interesting, you discussed regional representation on these boards. I think that's particularly important because, when you institute appeal proceedings, it's because there's a problem. It's really a contentious case, and you know that benefit criteria can depend on the region and local labour market.

Could you cite any examples of problems that may arise in an appeal process when regional representation is inadequate?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Here's something that comes to mind. Employment indicators are quite good right now, but consider, for example, a situation in which a person lives in a region where the unemployment rate is—

[Jean-Denis Garon]

If I may, I'd like to say that we've been waiting since 2015. An announcement was made in 2019. It could be a long time before it changes again.

[Maxime Gilbert]

Yes, but what immediately comes to mind are the eligibility criteria. The current threshold is 420 hours, and we'd like that to continue. The threshold can be calculated in hours or weeks.

In addition, individuals are disqualified for voluntary leaving because they don't have proof that they were available for work or because they didn't take steps to look for work. It seems to me that the question whether a person is available depends on the circumstances of the workplace. I'm thinking, for example, of seasonal workers and construction workers.

Workers are often disqualified from receiving employment insurance benefits in voluntary leaving cases. However, in some workplaces, some departures seem to be voluntary, whereas they're related to employment circumstances. Once again, I'm thinking of the construction industry and seasonal jobs, which give rise to voluntary leaving. That would be a response to go after.

[Jean-Denis Garon]

I understand. I'm picking up the pace here because I only have a few seconds left.

You also discussed the part-time or full-time status of people who would be called upon to rule on these judgments.

Bill C‑19 allows for a distinction: it would be possible in a way to have two types of judges. Do you see that as a fairness problem?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Yes, I ran out of time earlier too.

We're afraid of the distinction that's being made between part-time and full-time judges. Under the bill, full-time judges would be compensated in such a way that they would be considered members of the public service. The part-time people might have less privileged access to information and training. We feel that creates a distinction that should not exist. If we want to create a board of appeal that's operational and autonomous and in which all members are fully involved, no distinction should be drawn based on their employment status.

To answer your question, yes, I think it's clearly unfair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Now we move to the NDP and MP Blaikie for questions.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to direct my first question to the folks at the Green Budget Coalition.

They talked a bit about the new carbon capture and storage tax credit that the government has proposed in its budget. I'm wondering if they want to speak a bit more to that issue and the problems they see with that approach. I'll send it over to them for comment.

[Andrew Van Iterson]

Thank you.

I'll turn to Tom Green to respond.

[Tom L. Green]

I think the way we look at this tax credit is that, first of all, you have this technology that continues to disappoint. Wherever it's used, we're promised a whole bunch of emissions reductions and that a certain percentage of the carbon is going to be captured, and typically that has come in much lower than expected. A lot of projects have had quite a few billions go into them and then have not made it very far or have had to be cancelled. Here, we have a very expensive way of addressing things.

Right now, the oil and gas industry is incredibly profitable, and we believe it should be cleaning up its own act. This can be done through regulatory means and shouldn't be subsidized with public funds when really where we should be putting the billions is in deep energy retrofits. We know that's going to benefit Canadians across the country and that it's going to help bring down emissions. We should be helping people get into electric vehicles, as this budget this does help to do, and we should be deploying more renewable energy.

This is a very expensive tax credit for a technology that is still more conceptual.... I know that there are some operating projects, but if you look at the projections of where the world was supposed to be with carbon capture utilization and storage to where it is now, there's such a big gap, and that's because the technology has proven to be more complicated. We don't see that taxpayers should be the ones subsidizing this so that we can keep having oil and gas production, when really what the world needs to do is, as all the science shows.... For instance, there was a recent study in Environmental Research Letters, which came out on May 17, saying that nearly 40% of the already developed fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground for us to have a hope of staying within 1.5°C.

That would be a quick overview of our thoughts on CCUS.