Evidence of meeting #99 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was blaikie.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
I don't see anyone else on the speaking list, so I guess we'll go straight to the vote on the amendment first.
I'm sorry; I see Mr. Redekopp.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Chair, once we're done the vote, I have something I'd like to say.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Sure, okay.
We'll start with the vote. We'll have a recorded division.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Chair, is this vote on the amendment or on the motion?
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
It's on the amendment. We will call the vote now.
We have five yeas and five nays, so I'll be the tiebreaker. I'll vote in favour of the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I have a quick point of order, perhaps, for the clerk to clarify.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I know that in the House, the rule for a Speaker, if there's an amendment, is typically to extend debate. I think typically on the floor of the House, if there is an amendment, the Speaker would vote against it in order to break a tie. I'm just wondering if at committee some of those same rules that inform the vote of the Speaker would likewise inform the vote of a chair.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Blaikie.
The clerk has something up here for casting votes. It is:
The Chair is not bound to give reasons for his or her vote and is free to vote either way.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
Mr. Chambers, I see your hand is up.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
It's a different point of information.
I had accepted those amendments as friendly. I don't know if that changes the procedure, trying to negate the requirement for another recorded division, but it sounds like since we've already had that vote, I'm not sure we can....
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you, Mr. Chambers.
Since we've already had the vote on the amendment, we will go to the vote on the main motion, unless anyone else wants to debate it as amended.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Madam Clerk, we will have a recorded division.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion, as amended, has been defeated.
Mr. Redekopp, you said you had something to add afterward.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said, I'm new to this committee, but you may not know that I am a former home builder. I built houses in the Saskatoon area. I built about 60 houses over about 10 years, and I saw the struggles from both sides of the fence. I saw them from the way the buyers had to deal with all of the issues that they faced in coming up with down payments and dealing with banks and cost increases that directly affected them. Of course, on the flip side, as a home builder, I saw the other side of the story, which was all the increasing costs and the pressures that contractors and builders face in trying to keep up with the changes in the government building codes and all of the pressures that came along there.
Saskatoon right now has a vacancy rate of 3.4%. It's very low. Because of that, rents are increasing. We have a lot of students coming into our city. We have a lot of newcomers and people moving into Saskatoon, and that's causing more and more people to look for housing. Especially at the lower levels of rent, those prices are going up significantly.
There are also a lot of changes that happen in building codes, changes that make it more and more difficult for builders of my type. There are new rules to follow and new things builders need to do, and they of course add costs, which puts upward pressure on prices.
We talk a lot about gatekeepers. Building codes can be one of those things, but cities are also there when it comes to building permits and the places where they allow you to build. There are restrictions, and in different ways they can really make life difficult for builders. Of course, we have that problem in Saskatoon, and I know we have it right across the country.
Conservatives have talked a lot about ideas on this. One of the big ones is to work with cities to encourage them to build houses more quickly and reduce some of the red tape, rules and restrictions that are making it very difficult for builders to build and are making houses more expensive.
The other idea that we've talked about is using federal money as a carrot for cities, essentially, to encourage them to build more housing, to build housing near transit infrastructure and those types of things, and use the money that we have in the federal government to encourage cities to do that sort of thing. Of course, the idea of selling excess federal buildings and converting them into housing is another of the ideas we have. We have a lot of ideas that we've talked about on our side of the fence.
We also need to build three and a half million more houses in Canada. To put that into context, it equates to about 130% more houses than are being built today. If a homebuilder like me was building, let's say, 10 houses a year, that means I would have to build 23 instead of 10. If I was building a hundred, that would be 230. Those are very significant and difficult numbers to achieve, because even just finding the tradespeople to do those kinds of jobs.... The reality is that we're using the same technology, more or less, to build as we were 40 years ago. There are lots of things that have to be done and lots of things that need to change.
I noticed that we have a new Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. He was the previous immigration minister. I sit on the immigration committee, so I did a lot of work with that minister, and he actually showed up to committee when we asked him to. For that reason, I think it would be very helpful for this committee to hear from him and to talk about some of these ideas, because housing is one of the biggest pieces of inflation and the biggest cost that the average Canadian faces.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion. I'll read it now. I move as follows: “That the Standing Committee on Finance call the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Sean Fraser, to appear before the committee for 90 minutes, and that the minister appear at committee at the earliest opportunity and no later than 14 days from the adoption of this motion.”
I don't know if we need to take a minute for the clerk to send that around. I think we have sent that to the clerk.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Is this motion not out of order?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
First, thank you, Mr. Redekopp.
Ms. Dzerowicz, I'll recognize your point of order. I'll get some clarification from the clerk, if I can just have a minute.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Chair, once you have had advice from the clerk, I may wish to add to this point of order before you rule.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I actually have a second part to it, depending on what he says.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Before I make a ruling, I'll turn the floor to Mr. Blaikie and then to Ms. Dzerowicz. Mr. Blaikie had his hand up first.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate that.
I want to add my own understanding of this. When a meeting is called under Standing Order 106(4), the purpose of the meeting is defined in the letter that calls for the meeting. It's not just a general meeting; the meeting is specifically for the business mentioned in the letter.
That is my understanding, and I await your ruling on that. I thought that this was the established practice.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
