Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cities.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Lavoie  National Senior Director, Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Canada
Carr  Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada
Lee  Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
Whitzman  Senior Housing Researcher, University of Toronto School of Cities, As an Individual
MacKenzie  National Director, Public Affairs, Advocacy, and Strategic Communications, March of Dimes Canada

The Chair Liberal Karina Gould

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to meeting number six of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Before we begin, I would ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, so I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you. For those participating by video conference over Zoom, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute your microphone when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation—floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece to select the desired channel.

For members participating in person or via Zoom, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The committee clerks and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated speaking order.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 12, and the motion adopted on September 22, the committee shall resume consideration of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

We have Alana Lavoie, national senior director of public policy for Habitat for Humanity; and Krista Carr, chief executive officer for Inclusion Canada.

Unfortunately, Peter Norman is unable to participate today, as his headset is not compliant. If we do another study with witnesses, he could appear at a later date, but he's not able to join us because the sound check completed earlier was not satisfactory.

Without further ado, we will begin to hear from our witnesses. They will each have five minutes for their opening remarks before we open it up to the members for questioning.

With that, I am going to begin with Ms. Alana Lavoie.

Alana Lavoie National Senior Director, Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Canada

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. We do appreciate the opportunity to come and speak with you.

I am here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Canada. We are a national charity, founded in Canada in 1985, in Winnipeg, in fact. We work in every single province in the country as well as our two northern territories and until recently, also in Nunavut. We build homes, we build communities and we like to remind ourselves all the time that we build hope. We do this through construction, through repair, through financing, through skills training and of course through advocacy. We are part of the global movement Habitat for Humanity International, which operates in 70 countries. We are very proud of our contributions in continents across the world.

Today I want to speak about the GST exemption included in Bill C-4, why it matters to Habitat and why it matters in the context of Canada's housing affordability crisis. Between 2019 and 2025, Habitat local affiliates, our 44 local affiliates, built steadily through some of the toughest construction years we've seen, up to and including this one, serving over 5,000 individuals, including 3,888 children, every single one of whom was very excited to be able to pick the paint colour of their bedroom, I can assure you. We have done so with energy-efficient, accessible homes and, most importantly, affordable homes—truly affordable homes—for home ownership. We also through that period of time leveraged government funding at least 2:1. Every dollar that comes into Habitat for Humanity gets put to good use in our communities and for families.

We generated over $311 million in construction activity over that time frame. We also generated $40 million in tax revenue. Over that same time frame, our Habitats and our local families paid over $19 million in GST on the fair market value purchase of their homes. We continue even now to pay between $15,000 in rural areas and $80,000 or more in high-cost markets on every affordable Habitat home that is sold. For every 100 homes upon which the GST is charged, we could probably deliver up to another 13 to 15 homes, depending on the cost to construct in a given market. In parts of the country, we are paying more in GST on Habitat-built homes than we receive in federal government investment.

We welcome the proposed measure included in Bill C-4 to waive the GST on homes up to $1 million for first-time buyers. This will directly benefit our partner families. This will also allow us to reinvest savings that don't go into the mortgage, or into our own costs, into building more affordable homes, accessible homes and energy-efficient homes.

We would urge the efficient review and passage of this provision, as delays have real costs for families. We are also hopeful that, if passed, the implementation of the provision will be applied retroactively to agreements of purchases and sales that are signed and that were signed in May 2025. The summer and fall are very busy Habitat times, with many families taking big strides on their journey toward home ownership and moving through the purchase phase. We've advocated for this relief on homes that are purpose-built for affordable home ownership. There's purpose-built rental and there's also purpose-built affordable home ownership homes. We are proud to be the organization that provides those. They're sold at fair market value. The families pay no down payment and they pay no more than about 30% of their income on mortgage payments. We figure out the rest; we figure out the rest. Every dollar we save gets reinvested into more homes and keeping the homes that we do have affordable over a long time.

These changes to the GST that are included in Bill C-4's proposal, combined with our ongoing partnerships across all governments, with the private sector, and through philanthropic participation and donation will help us build even more, even in the face of exponentially rising constructions costs, slow municipal approvals—again, slow municipal approvals—and an income gap that persists despite some market shift improvements in certain areas.

We are committed to growing our impact. We are committed to delivering more stability, continuing to contribute to Canada's GDP and continuing to help families who can increase their income by 30% over comparable families who remain in rental. Now is the time to deliver more homes—affordable homes—and we look forward to doing so with new tools and in partnership with the federal government. We are closely watching the development of Build Canada Homes, and are hopeful that our past experience delivering a large portfolio of new, accessible and energy-efficient homes in Canada through our partnership with CMHC over the last several years will help inform this new way forward.

The Chair Liberal Karina Gould

Ms. Lavoie, could I ask you to wrap up, please.

Thank you.

4:35 p.m.

National Senior Director, Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Canada

Alana Lavoie

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair Liberal Karina Gould

Thank you so much, Ms. Lavoie, for your opening remarks.

Next is Ms. Carr from Inclusion Canada.

Krista Carr Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Chair and members, thank you.

My name is Krista Carr. I am the CEO of Inclusion Canada. I speak today not only for our organization but also for a broader coalition of disability organizations across this country. Our ask is straightforward: Increase the base amounts for the disability tax credit and the child disability supplement so that their dollar value equals what they would be at 15%, now and in future years. Do not let a general rate cut shrink disability supports.

We are here because Canada is about to make a policy mistake that this committee can prevent. This summer, Canada launched the new Canada Disability Benefit. It will provide up to $2,400 per year to low-income Canadians with disabilities. While still not adequate, it is progress. But with this progress, at the same time, Bill C-4 will now reduce the value of the disability tax credit. We cannot give with one hand and take with the other.

Here is what is happening. Bill C-4 lowers the lowest federal income tax rate to 14.5% this year and 14% next year. That same rate is used to calculate the value of non-refundable tax credits, including the disability tax credit and the child disability benefit. When the rate drops, the credit value drops correspondingly. Those numbers may sound small in this room, but nearly one million Canadians rely on this credit to help manage the extra costs of living that come with a disability. For people already stretched far too thin, $100 matters.

The fix is precise and durable. For 2025, increase the disability tax credit base amounts by 3.45% to offset the rate reduction to 14.5%. For 2026 and later years, set an annual formula so that 14 times the adjusted base equals 15 times the indexed base for that year. CRA already publishes indexed amounts annually. This is an easy add-on to that existing process. It also future-proofs the credit if rates change again. If the marginal rate goes back up, the formula continues to work.

The disability tax credit exists because Parliament recognized 40 years ago that Canadians with disabilities face unavoidable expenses that others do not. The credit is not a windfall. It is a recognition of reality. Wheelchairs cost money, accessible transportation costs money, assistive technology costs money and the list goes on. This credit helps to modestly offset some of those costs.

The principle here is simple. Disability supports should not shrink to help pay for a general tax cut. We recognize that this is an unintended consequence of Bill C-4. We support making life more affordable for all Canadians. Keep the tax cut, but keep disability supports whole.

This committee has the authority to act. The Speaker confirmed in 2022 that amendments to non-refundable credits can be moved directly, without requiring additional procedural steps. This can be fixed at clause-by-clause.

Members of the committee, we are asking you to ensure that when Canada helps families with affordability, it does not leave behind individuals and families affected by disability. Amend Bill C-4 to increase the base amounts for the disability tax credit and the child disability benefit by formula. Keep the tax cut. Keep supports whole.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions

The Chair Liberal Karina Gould

Thank you very much, Ms. Carr.

Thank you to the witnesses for their opening statements.

We will begin with the first round of questions.

Mr. Genuis, you have six minutes.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure to join all of you at the finance committee.

It's good to see the witnesses. I thank them for their testimony.

First off, Ms. Carr, could you clarify one aspect of your testimony? Is it your calculation, therefore, that people living with disabilities will be net worse off as a result of this bill?

4:40 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

Yes. I think it's an unintended consequence of a bill meant to make life more affordable for Canadians. As a consequence of that, yes, in a net position they will be worse off than they are now.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

It's not just that supports will be lost that partially offset the tax cut. It's rather that people will be net worse off as a result. Thank you for that clarification.

This is something that I know we've spoken about in the past. Have you engaged with the government on this request for a change? What has been their engagement on this issue thus far?

4:40 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

We have engaged with all parties on this bill, actually, because we operate in a non-partisan way. We've had an excellent response from all parties. I do believe Minister Champagne mentioned earlier this week that this is a recognized issue with the bill and that he's committed to finding a solution. That is certainly welcome news for us.

I think all parties have been very receptive and engaged on helping to try to find a solution to this.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

This may be more of a comment. I love to nerd out on procedure whenever I have an excuse to.

Even if a committee makes an amendment that might otherwise have been deemed beyond the scope, it is only struck out if that issue is brought to the attention of the Speaker. If all parties agree to make an amendment.... I know that you made the case in your testimony that this is well within the scope of the bill, but that only becomes a problem if one of the parties decides to bring it to the attention of the Speaker and argues for the exclusion of that item. It only becomes a problem if there are people around the table who are objecting to it.

I want to ask you about the experience of people with disabilities in general accessing public services and health care and other kinds of public services. It's important to me, and I think it should be important to all of us, that people have their dignity affirmed when they are accessing services and that they're treated equally. Can you share in general terms how you would see the experience of people with disabilities raising issues or seeking public services interacting with the health care system? How would you evaluate how those experiences are, based on what you're hearing from your members?

4:40 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

In all transparency, since the bill was brought in around track two MAID, which made people with disabilities the only group eligible for medical assistance in dying when they are not dying, that has certainly changed people's interaction with the health care system quite dramatically. People with disabilities are now very much afraid, in many circumstances, to show up in the health care system with regular health concerns. MAID is often suggested as a solution to what is considered to be intolerable suffering that happens to be caused by some of the things this committee addressees, such as poverty and the situations that people with disabilities disproportionately find themselves in compared with other Canadians.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

That's very striking. I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, but it sounds as though I'm hearing you say that people with disabilities who are interacting with health care or seeking other kinds of public services are proactively being offered MAID, when they are seeking completely different services.

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

That is correct.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Is that common? Are you hearing about that a lot?

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

You're hearing weekly complaints from people who live with disabilities, who seek other kinds of services, and who are asked by someone, “Well, have you thought about MAID?"

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

What do you think we should do about that as legislators? Do you think we should try to stop government officials from proposing MAID to people who are not seeking it but who are seeking other kinds of supports and services?

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

The disability community has made its case, and the UN CRPD committee has affirmed, that Canada should repeal track two MAID completely. In the interim, anything that anyone can do to limit this from being pushed on people with disabilities who are seeking support to live would be a welcome change.

That's probably not something this committee can deal with, but in your individual capacity as legislators, I'm sure you can.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

I want to be clear that I agree with you about track two MAID, but taking action in Parliament is a bit like building a house on a desert island: You have to build with what has washed ashore. You have to work within what is realistic. I don't think a majority of Parliament would share your view or my view on the track two MAID issue.

It's striking to me that you're saying that in the current reality, you have people who don't want MAID and aren't looking for MAID, but people in the system, people in authority, presume that they should think about MAID, and people in those positions of authority are actually telling them that. Are people disturbed by this when they contact you?

The Chair Liberal Karina Gould

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. That's your time.

Mr. Leitão, we're going to you for six minutes now.

Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ladies, thank you for being here.

Just as a clarification, Ms. Carr, it was suggested when talking about the issue of MAID that it was government officials who were counselling people. I believe we're talking about the health care system. In the health care system, we're talking about doctors and nurses and so on. They are not—

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Inclusion Canada

Krista Carr

That's 100% correct—