Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[Brian Sauvé]

To me, it's all about efficiency. In the current world, the RCMP identifies that they need to move to a new taser, so they build a business case, and that comes to a completely separate silo that analyzes that business case, approves that business case and sends it back to the RCMP to do the RFI. The RFI goes out. Interest comes in and it goes over to the other silo for approval and comes back to the RCMP to do the RFP—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvé. I apologize, but our time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

We will continue now with Ms. Church for five minutes.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all the speakers for an excellent discussion. It was quite useful.

I would like to pick up with you, Mr. Sauvé, for a moment, and speak about a very important bill that is before the House right now, and that's Bill C-22, which I know your organization has provided some commentary on.

Canada remains the only country in the Five Eyes and the G7 that doesn't have a lawful access framework, and that makes us quite dependent on our international partners. I've certainly heard from police, in my community in Toronto, that this is a very important step towards dealing with some of the serious crimes that we actually see in our neighbourhoods—home invasions, auto theft, retail theft, and the list certainly goes on to extortion, child trafficking and other very serious crimes that are concerning. Can you speak a bit to your perspective on Bill C-22 and whether or not this has a set of tools or a framework that would benefit policing in your context?

[Brian Sauvé]

Certainly. Thank you for the question. Even though it's a little off-topic for today, I'll always talk about Bill C-22 and lawful access.

It is wildly overdue. Our particular lawful access regime is designed for the Morse code era, if you will, when we have evolved to smart phones, digitally encrypted transmission, digitally encrypted messaging platforms and social media platforms.

For example, today Bill C-22 does not change the search and seizure authorities of law enforcement. It does not. It does not give us greater powers for search, seizure or surveillance. It does provide requirements for telecommunications operators or web platform operators in Canada to comply with judicial authorizations that are issued by courts and to, perhaps, retain records for a period of time.

We're talking about national security investigations, kidnapping investigations, terrorism investigations, even home invasions, where we identify or are looking to identify and narrow down suspects. Sometimes that takes a month, three months or a year. When we go to a telecommunications provider and seek out—through a production order, a general warrant or a search warrant—some records related to that crime, and are told, “Sorry, we have a seven-day retention policy, so it's gone,” the evidence is lost, suspects go free and victims live the consequences.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That's extremely helpful to hear.

I heard you talk about how that's taking us out of the Morse code era and that it requires judicial oversight. Can you explain, just in plain terms, what that means?

[Brian Sauvé]

Certainly. I've written a number of general warrants, production orders and search warrants, whether they be for drugs or whether they be under the Criminal Code. They are all judicially approved. I do not write a search warrant, take it out of my back pocket, walk to a house and say, “Here's a warrant. I'm searching your house.” I have to go to a judicial Justice of the Peace, if it's after hours. If it's a general warrant, I have to go to a judge of a provincial court. If it's a federal investigation, they will go to a Federal Court judge. It is the court that approves and signs off on the grounds to obtain that warrant. Then, and only then, the warrant or the production order is served on the provider or is executed in the home or at the business.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That judicial oversight provides an important check on privacy rights by the court itself.

[Brian Sauvé]

It does. It's my understanding that, in C-22, you're looking at review periods. For example, the retention access for telecommunications companies of 12 months is a fantastic start. In a year or two years, let's do a review as to whether that works, whether that period of retention is adequate, is too stringent or is not enough.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much.

In the 45 or so seconds I have remaining, Ms. Senneville, I want to ask you about the union training and innovation program, or UTIP, which we've invested in over the course of the 2025 budget.

How is this investment impacting your union workers? How can these investments be utilized most effectively as we go forward?

[Phillippe Morin, Union Adviser, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

If you don't mind, I'll take over from here.

In our view, this type of federal investment or expenditure should fall within the provincial jurisdictions. In the other provinces, the training programs are carried out more directly with labour organizations. In the case of Quebec, the situation is a bit different. The training expenditures are incurred through agreements between the federal and Quebec governments. In our view, they must be incurred—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Excuse me, Mr. Morin, but that's all the time that we had for this round.

Thank you, Mrs. Church.

To wrap up this hour, I'll give the floor to Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

This won't wrap up the time that we'll be spending talking about provincial jurisdictions, Mr. Morin. You just hit a nerve.

Training is important. We're happy that the federal government recognizes this. However, Quebec has a reality. Since the late 1990s, the Quebec government has been responsible for everything to do with training. We have the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, as well as sectoral tables, for example. These entities connect vocational training with companies to ensure an effective response to market needs and a forward‑looking approach. At least, that's my understanding. I'm not an expert in this area.

First, do you consider this a Quebec jurisdiction? I'm not talking about the provinces, since Quebec is a special case.

Second, I would like to know whether this model works in Quebec. Is it right to interfere with this model?

Third, if the model does work, should the money earmarked in the most recent federal budget in the form of subsidies and tax credits, for example, have been redirected to the Quebec system to bolster it?

These are my three questions related to the previous conversation.

[Caroline Senneville]

Yes, it's a provincial jurisdiction. Yes, this model works in Quebec. Yes, it's necessary to take steps to respect this, not for Quebec, but for Canada. If people aren't trained properly and the unemployment rate rises in Quebec, which remains part of Canada, the unemployment rate in Canada will rise. It's necessary to respect our approach, which works well, and to ensure that the money goes to the right place.

Quebec has union‑management forums that work well for labour force training. The country doesn't have the financial resources to keep at this issue for long.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I would like to hear the FTQ's thoughts on this.

Mr. L'Ériger, here in Ottawa, we have the team Canada strong initiative. We could have an initiative called “team Quebec strong” in order to inject money to strengthen the current system and recognize Quebec's jurisdiction in this area.

What does the FTQ think?

[Colin L'Ériger]

We agree. Labour force training falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, and the institutions in place are working well.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

I have seven seconds left. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for submitting briefs. We don't always have as much time as we would like.

Perhaps we'll see each other again another time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I will also take a moment to thank our witnesses for this hour.

We appreciate your time and the work that you've done.

We're going to briefly suspend as we turn over for the next panel.

Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Welcome back. We are going to resume the meeting.

I would like to take a moment to welcome our witnesses.

From the Institut de développement urbain du Québec, we have Isabelle Melançon, the chief executive officer. From Indwell Community Homes, we have Chris Finkbiner, chief operating officer. From Options for Homes, we have Angus Knowles, board chair.

I would like to remind participants of the following points before we begin.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select floor audio, English or French for interpretation.

Please note that committee members may ask you questions in either English or French, so please be prepared, so that we can take advantage of the time that we have allocated.

I will give a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I see Madame Melançon on screen, so we will begin with you.

You have five minutes for your opening statement. Thank you.

[Isabelle Melançon, Chief Executive Officer, Institut de développement urbain du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the committee members for having me here today.

My name is Isabelle Melançon. I'm the chief executive officer of the Institut de développement urbain du Québec, or IDU. The IDU is a non‑profit organization that represents Quebec's major real estate developers and owners. I'm here to make a simple point. To overcome the current housing crisis, we need to increase the supply of all types of housing. If we really want to do this, we need to tackle the structural barriers blocking projects, and we need to do it now.

Our first message concerns water infrastructure. Across Quebec, municipalities are struggling to authorize new housing as a result of saturated or aging water and sewer systems. A number of municipalities have resorted to imposing development charges on developers to try to fund the necessary repairs to current infrastructure or the construction of new infrastructure. In so doing, they drive up the cost of residential projects. In the end, future owners or tenants are the ones who end up paying more for their housing.

Other municipalities must impose moratoria on their land, thereby cutting themselves off from much‑needed housing. This isn't a secondary challenge. It's a direct hindrance to new housing construction.

A study carried out by Aviseo Conseil for the housing‑related water infrastructure task force, of which the IDU is a member, shows that Quebec's water infrastructure asset maintenance deficit could exceed $42.5 billion by 2031. We're calling on the federal government to heavily invest in water infrastructure. It has done so today, particularly through subsidized transfers and low‑interest loans. Until this shortcoming is addressed, we'll never find a solution to the housing crisis.

My second message concerns the current federal levers. With Build Canada Homes, Ottawa has created a new tool to speed up the large‑scale construction of affordable housing. However, we must ensure that the projects supported by Build Canada Homes in Quebec aren't slowed down by negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec. When the needs are urgent, the implementation must be as well.

Given the creation of Build Canada Homes, it seems obvious to us that the mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, will change. I would like to remind you that, without CMHC's involvement over the past few years, few projects would have come to fruition in Quebec. However, a hasty withdrawal or unannounced changes to the rules of the game will undoubtedly create uncertainty for developers and affect the ability of a number of them to launch projects. The message coming from the ground is that CMHC must remain active in the market until Build Canada Homes is fully deployed.

Lastly, our third message concerns programs that can support the rental supply more quickly. For example, the apartment construction loan program is a popular tool. However, a number of players on the ground are telling us that CMHC's review of the financial capacity of large borrowers is a long, complex and murky process, and that these borrowers now lack the predictability to pursue their growth and start up major projects.

The same goes for MLI Select. This CMHC product is quite effective and popular with developers. However, we find it hard to understand why the affordability criteria are still determined by the median income of tenants in 2019, meaning before the pandemic. You'll agree that the situation has changed considerably since 2019. A pandemic, a historic inflationary surge and the election of an American president who particularly fancies tariffs for all can change a life.

Remember that the median salary of tenants in 2019 was $40,900. To qualify for MLI Select, the average monthly rent can't exceed $1,023. Yet the reality today is that the median salary of tenants in Quebec has exceeded $53,300. Today, we're talking about an average monthly rent not exceeding $1,330. That's why we're asking that the MLI Select affordability thresholds be updated to better reflect the reality.

Quebec is ready to build. Now it needs the resources to do so.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Melançon.

We're going to continue with Mr. Finkbiner. I would just ask you to turn your camera on, please, and the same for Mr. Knowles. Thank you very much.

Please go ahead.

[Chris Finkbiner, Chief Operating Officer, Indwell Community Homes]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chris Finkbiner. I'm the chief operating officer of the Indwell family of companies. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I'm here because Canada's housing crisis is real. It's been growing, and we need to invest in solutions that match the scale of the challenge. Our work at Indwell is driven by a bold vision: open homes for all. This vision compels us to create urgent and practical solutions to Canada's housing crisis.

Indwell develops and operates supportive, affordable housing, addressing homelessness. We operate almost 1,500 units in south and southwestern Ontario, and have almost 400 more units under construction. Our new sister organization, Gather, was specifically created to develop and operate affordable apartments for working Canadians whose household incomes fall below the median.

Our submission today is grounded in our daily frontline experience. We are looking at the housing crisis through two lenses.

The first is homelessness. Canada's homelessness crisis remains severe and deeply entrenched. In 2024, over 19,000 people stayed in shelters on an average night in Canada. The homeless are often cycling through hospitals, shelters and the justice system because they don't have housing and adequate supports to help them stay housed.

The second lens is affordable housing for average working households. Millions of Canadians who keep our economy running are facing growing housing distress. They earn below the median income and are struggling to find adequate housing in the market. In Ontario, 53% of renters pay more than 30% of their income for housing, and 18% of renters pay more than 50%.

Building more market-rate supply alone will not close this gap. We are facing structural affordability failures that demand a direct non-market response. In addressing these challenges for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness, intertwined with mental health issues, addictions or trauma, supportive housing is the single most effective permanent solution. It stabilizes tendencies, improves health outcomes and reduces public costs.

At Indwell, we have a 92% housing stability rate; that is, 92% of tenants coming out of homelessness are housed one year after first occupancy. Supportive housing works.

To scale this proven solution, we need to maintain a dedicated and significant capital pathway within the Build Canada Homes program. However, capital is only half the equation. Operating funding must be explicitly attached to federal capital commitments. To ensure that these buildings can actually open and provide supports, operating funding from provincial and territorial governments is crucial to fund the necessary on-site health and housing supports. Where provinces lag in partnering on funding agreements, the federal government must earmark and tie provincial transfers directly to these capital projects.

Looking at our second lens, the sheer scale of the affordable-housing challenge requires transformational investment. The current Build Canada Homes funding level is simply insufficient to meet the moment. To deliver homes that working families can actually afford, federal per-unit capital grants must be substantial. Projects targeting households below the median income frequently require 40% to 60% of their capital costs covered by grants. Further, we must measure the success of BCH by the depth of affordability achieved, not simply by the total number of units built.

Finally, to build quickly, federal programs must prioritize portfolio-based approaches over individual developments. Partnering on aggregated portfolios with trusted non-market developers enables the speed and funding certainty to deliver results at scale.

In conclusion, Indwell and the broader non-market sector are ready to act. We have the capability and the capacity. We need the federal government to move quickly and invest significantly. We urge this committee to support three recommendations.

One, make Build Canada Homes funding match the scale of Canada's housing crisis by substantially increasing federal funding and committing to long-term annual investments.

Two, protect and expand a dedicated capital stream for supportive housing, backed by long-term annual commitments.

Three, give BCH the mandate and incentives to deliver meaningful per-unit capital grants and measure success by how affordable the homes are, not simply how many units get built.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Finkbiner.

We will now turn to Mr. Knowles for five minutes.

[Angus Knowles, Board Chair, Options for Homes]

Thank you, Chair and honourable committee members, for the opportunity to appear today as part of the pre-budget consultations in advance of budget 2026.

My name is Angus Knowles. I'm board chair of Options for Homes, a non-profit developer that has spent 30 years delivering ownership housing for working households priced out of the traditional market. Across 14 communities, Options has helped create pathways to home ownership for more than 3,300 families.

I want to begin with a story about Angella, a nurse working in Etobicoke and a single mother of three. She works hard, with two jobs, and earns a steady income, but home ownership for her family is still out of reach. The down payment barrier alone meant she could not see a path to staying close to her work, her children's school and her support network. Through Options for Homes financing programs, combined with federal mortgage support, that path towards stability and home ownership became possible. This opportunity was transformative for her. Angella became the first in her family to own a home in Canada.

Now, Angella's story is not unusual. At Options we see versions of this over and over. It reflects a growing group of essential workers—nurses, teachers, emergency service workers and others—who do not qualify for traditional subsidies and yet cannot afford ownership in the communities they serve. They did exactly what we asked people to do—study, work, contribute and start to build a life—but with today's heavy upfront costs and limited livable options, we are leaving our working neighbours behind. This is not just a housing problem; it's also a social and economic one. When our skilled and essential workers can't afford to live close to where they work, the entire city suffers. A sense of belonging in our cities is lost, employers lose access to talent, and people lose confidence that hard work will lead to a secure future in Canada's cities.

At Options for Homes, we have seen these pressures intensify dramatically with the communities we serve. Our model combines non-profit housing delivery with down payment support. We reinvest project surpluses into future homes, but the households now seeking help from us are no longer only those earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year. Increasingly, they are earning in the range of $70,000 to $170,000, which, in Toronto, for example, still isn't enough to save a down payment to buy due to high rents and a high cost of living. As a result, our wait-list has grown to a record of 30,000 people. I want to emphasize that this is not just a young professional issue; it's affecting people in their forties too.

Our data shows that it can take up to 17 years for this group to save a traditional market down payment, depending on what city they live in. That delay affects when people form families, where they live, their old age security and whether they can stay in the communities that depend on them. Thirty-three per cent of the homeowners we have assisted say they would have left their communities if not for our programs, which supported their path to home ownership.

Federal policy has rightly supported rental supply, but ownership options for middle-income essential workers that help them establish more stable roots close to where they work remain largely overlooked. That is why our main ask is that budget 2026 recognize workforce home ownership as a national housing priority to sustain the social and economic health of our cities. Non-profits and public agencies have the models, but they need stronger supports to scale the program and bridge that gap.

Second, we ask for immediate delivery tools for non-profits building workforce ownership housing, including low-cost construction financing, capital support and access to free or low-cost public land where appropriate.

Third, outside of the budget itself, policy direction should recognize down payment support provided by non-profit housing providers for ownership purposes as bona fide equity, not debt. Right now there is an OSFI guideline that does not recognize our down payment loans to purchasers as equity, which significantly limits what qualified purchasers can receive from regulated lenders for their mortgages. A policy direction recognizing non-profit shared equity as vital support for workforce ownership stability sends a clear signal to regulators and financial institutions, and it allows non-profit supports to go further for qualifying households.

Basically, we are asking for the same treatment of down payment support that is provided to government agencies, but extended to non-profit housing providers. This creates an easy, non-cost policy opportunity that could unlock significant impact without budget allocation.

You can find more detail in our additional information package.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you very much, Mr. Knowles.

We now go to Ms. Cobena for six minutes.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses for your recommendations.

I want to start my questioning with Mr. Knowles.

Thank you for your remarks and for your story about Angella, who is a nurse and a single mother of three and has been struggling to buy a home. Your program was able to help her buy a home and stabilize her family life for her children.

You also mentioned that essential workers are struggling to get a home. That concerns me, because in my riding there is a significant presence of the medical sector. One of the largest employers is actually our local hospital, which is Southlake regional healthcare centre. Can you speak a little more about the struggle that these essential workers are experiencing when it comes to purchasing a new home?