Health Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

When we left off, we were considering clause 3. Monsieur Garon was contemplating whether to move an amendment.

Monsieur Garon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all committee members for their patience. It turns out that in different versions of the bill, the line numbers were not listed the same way. Now that everything is in order, we can debate the amendment.

The bill provides one-time assistance with rent. This assistance is targeted to those who are considered low-income, most vulnerable, and for whom rent makes up a significant portion of their expenses.

Many provinces are experiencing a major housing crisis. That's the case in Quebec, particularly in Mirabel. I've had constituents still attest to that recently. The cheque will be welcome, but the fact is we're helping people only once. I believe my colleagues are having the same experience in their respective constituencies: People are talking about the housing issue.

There are all kinds of long-term solutions. Here, we're putting a little salve on a wound that's gaping in some places. That's the case in my constituency. Of course—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order. Just because there are some complications with the numbering, I'm wondering if we could specify where we are at so that we can follow along.

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

We're on BQ‑3.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Yes, I know, but what part of the bill does this amendment relate to?

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

It's on page 17 of the bill, specifically paragraph 4(1)(g) of the proposed act. It reads as follows:

(g) subject to any of subsections (2) to (6) that apply in the circumstances, the total amount of the rent referred to in paragraph (f) is at least 30% of the applicant's adjusted income for 2021.

The first part of the amendment is to delete proposed paragraph 4(1)(g), as I just explained. In that case, a number of changes to the calculation method would be nullified because the calculation would be eliminated. So that's what's in the rest of the amendment.

I hope that answers Ms. Goodridge's question.

So I'll go back to what I was saying. Housing is important. I would say that this is the part of the bill that I welcome the most because it helps people in an extremely difficult situation.

Once again, targeted support is being proposed. I know that a Liberal colleague asked the Minister of Health about the virtues of targeted support. There is an inflation crisis, and we need to help people in a targeted way. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing targeted measures for the past year. We applaud the attempt to target support to those households that are struggling the most and need it the most.

The amendment deals with how that support is targeted. For a person to qualify for this rent assistance cheque, they have to meet a number of criteria, one of which is income-related, obviously income adjusted for the provisions. In the case of a single person, they would have to have an annual income of less than $20,000, which isn't much; for a couple, it's less than $35,000. There is an additional criterion, which is the percentage of income spent on housing. In other words, in addition to having to have an annual income below a certain threshold, the criteria require that at least 30% of your income be spent on housing.

This criterion could have an unintended effect. Let's compare the situation of two people, for example. Let's say the first person earns $1 more in income than the second, but that income is just $1 more than the allowable threshold. This person would not qualify for the benefit. But the second person, whose annual income is just below the threshold, will be able to receive the benefit and will end up with more money in their pocket in the end. But we're talking about people who really don't have much income.

Again, in the application of this measure as well, people will be left out. I say that very candidly, because I have hope that we can help people by passing this amendment tonight. I still believe in it.

In Quebec, we have a number of programs that are quite unique in the federation. Quebec is the only province that has permanent social housing construction programs. That's why negotiations on the national housing strategy took a long time. It had to be adapted to accommodate those programs. That said, that's not what we're discussing today.

However, because of these permanent programs, there are more people in Quebec living in housing co-ops or low-income housing. In the case of housing co-ops, people pool their resources. By regulation, to help these families, the cost of rent is capped at 30% of income, and in the case of low-income housing, it's subsidized by the Quebec government. In this case, too, under the regulations, you can't pay more than 30% of your income in rent.

We're doing this in Quebec to help individuals and families who need it most. We agree that this measure wasn't put in place to help wealthy households. An annual income of $20,000 for a single person and $35,000 for a couple is not a lot of money. Quebec has invested in these kinds of programs over time. I think that permanent social housing construction programs are a good model to follow, because we have to increase the housing supply. But the bill has the effect of setting people aside. Because they're paying exactly 30% of their income in rent, or maybe a little less, they won't qualify for the benefit.

There are already enough criteria as it is without adding more. No one around this table would want to be in the situation of a single person earning less than $20,000 a year or a couple earning less than $35,000 a year. That's already a fairly stringent criterion, targeting those who need the benefit the most.

Removing proposed paragraph 4(1)(g), which requires that the person pay at least 30% of their income in rent, would allow for greater inclusion, justice and equality. Again, it would recognize that it's legitimate for a province or for Quebec to decide to invest in social housing.

Sometimes there are differences of opinion on how to proceed. Still, after listening to Minister Hussen at the previous meeting we had today, I understand that encouraging the construction of social housing, so that we don't leave 100% or too much of it in the hands of the market, is something that is part of the Liberal government's agenda and something that the NDP feels strongly about.

Additionally, when it comes to helping people through a housing assistance benefit, we have to be as inclusive as possible. That's the intent of the amendment. I trust that all of my colleagues will be open-minded enough to consider it very seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Part 2 of Bill C-31 enacts the rental housing benefit act, which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit. The amendment proposes to remove the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) and referred to in subclauses 4(2) to 4(6).

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question.

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. With all due respect, I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

Mr. Garon has challenged the chair. That's a non-debatable motion.

The question for the committee is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

We are now back at clause 3. I believe there are further amendments to clause 3.

Ms. Kwan, do you have an amendment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to stop the reduction of the rent claims of only 75% of the total payment for individuals who pay an unspecified amount for board or other services. This reduction would, in my view, penalize individuals such as students, people in supportive housing and seniors who live in these kinds of arrangements. If the rent is $1,000 and that includes an unspecified amount for utilities, let's say, the amount for rent the applicant could claim would only be $750, for example.

There are those who are living in a room-and-board kind of situation. In that situation, they would not have full coverage, so I think that this 25% reduction is steep. From that perspective, I would like to make an amendment for it to become 90% instead of 75%, so that it's only 10% for utilities and such.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm going to rule on the admissibility of the amendment, so if it's a point of order, Mr. Doherty, go ahead, but if you want to debate the amendment, can you just wait until I make my ruling?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I was just going to suggest that it's probably not admissible, given the previous one.

I'm not trying to take away your job there, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to help you out, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I can use all the help possible.

Mr. Doherty was clairvoyant.

Part 2 of Bill C‑31 enacts the rental housing benefit act, which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit.

The amendment proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2), the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With respect, Mr. Chair, I challenge you.

I challenge the chair on the ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There is a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair. That's non-debatable.

The question for the committee is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

The chair's ruling is overturned. The debate is on the amendment.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess we can see the costly coalition at work here.

I think this raises a really important question. If we have amendments that we have to submit in advance—and it is worth noting that we had to submit amendments before we even had an opportunity to hear from witnesses, which is highly unusual and I think is in contravention of the spirit of our democratic process here and the conventions we've established, but that is an aside—and you already have a pre-written piece saying that the amendment is not admissible, I am baffled as to why we even have the opportunity to bring forward an amendment that would be inadmissible based on the parliamentary practice and procedure manual.

This entire system is broken. This is not what Canadians expect when they elect us to come to Parliament and to provide the best possible legislation. This is being rammed through. We can tell that this is a predetermined outcome already. At least I can, from my vantage point on this side of the table. It is baffling to me that we are sitting here debating this, and yet a pretty common-sense amendment that was brought forward by our colleague Mr. Garon wasn't even allowed to be debated. It was simply ruled out of order. I think this just goes to show that this entire process is an absolute sham.

If you guys have a predetermined decision as to which ones are going to pass or not, why don't you just give us the green marker as to which ones you're voting on and save us the trouble of having these debates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I can understand that there are people who could really use what Ms. Kwan is suggesting. My concern with this is purely procedural here. The Liberals and the NDP have just committed the government to spending more money without ministerial overview or permission, or was this already predetermined?

If I might ask our witnesses who are here, what does that jump from 75% of the payment to now the approval of 90%...? What does that financial figure look like? The Liberals and the NDP have just committed a further 15% increase in this benefit. That is a significant cost to the Canadian government, and we don't have ministers here to answer that question. Unless this is, again, already...unless the agreement was cooked before we all came and sat here for the last four hours.

I'd like to know whether the work has been done behind this because there is a significant financial cost to the government. It goes against your ruling and House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 772.

[Nadine Leblanc, Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation]

The 75% threshold that was put in the bill is based on the Ontario energy and property tax credit, which has similar features around claiming rent payment. When it comes to boarding and other services, it does have a threshold of 75%.

When it comes to determining some of this data around the particular criteria at the federal level, it's quite limited, to be honest, because with Revenue Canada, as well as CMHC, we don't have visibility into how many people are claiming such rent and have such arrangements in their rent agreements. However, we do know that if you are increasing it from 75% to 90%, it will increase the number of applicants by default because you're increasing the rent level, which would increase the number people who are paying over 30% in rental expenses. By definition, if you're increasing the volume, you're increasing the costs. We don't have the precise number with us right now.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

So, this hasn't been vetted. It hasn't been accounted for, and we're now signing the government up—not we, but members of this committee, the Liberals and the NDP, have gone against House procedures on this, committing the government to further dollars, a financial commitment.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you need to suspend so you can confer with the legislative clerk or whomever to see if this is even possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I don't. This will go back to the House, and it will be for the House to determine what happens next, including the same question on which I just ruled, so the final word hasn't been spoken. The House gets a say.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead, please.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Oftentimes in committees, we're very concerned about committee time and committee resources and all those things. I guess I would like to echo my colleague's comments. Once again, as we saw at other times in this committee, if there's a predetermined route in how we're going to go, we're wasting much committee time here.

I was in the SECU committee just before we came here this afternoon. It was on the deaths of 23 Nova Scotians, and they were talking about how they didn't have enough committee time to even bring the ministers in front of the committee. Here we have predetermined outcomes already, and my smug colleagues across the way don't want us to continue to have debate, or they want to debate in some sort of sham—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

From that perspective, I would suggest that this is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Just a second, Dr. Ellis. We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden. Do you have a point of order?