Human Resources Committee on Feb. 27th, 2020

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm really happy to hear that government members are open to it. My understanding is that $160 million was put in by industry and probably the same amount by the Government of Canada to start up the program.

Again, it's our job to make recommendations to the government on how it can improve it, and we can do that. I would point out that we could simply prioritize this accordingly.

I hope people wouldn't want to vote this motion down just because they didn't think the time was right. The time is right. Conversation will happen when we start prioritizing our work, after the indigenous housing study that we have already said was number one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

I agree that the timing is a critical issue here. The good news is that the numbers coming back as we move into the second half of the fiscal year are growing and getting stronger as the program becomes better known. We also anticipate that there will be regional adjustments, which were committed to through the campaign process and were announced prior to the campaign, to start to fine-tune it, to make it work as effectively as it needs to in the markets where home ownership is more elusive.

This is also an opportunity, because I think one of the most important things we need to do in this term is take a look at the opportunity CMHC is starting to explore, which is the regionalization of the way we manage the Canadian housing market. Instead of trying to manage it through one-size-fits-all programs, which we know have disproportionate impacts on different parts of the country, this is the first time we have seen CMHC embrace a regional approach.

If we do the study, I would like to also extend it and take a look at how we can regionalize CMHC's approach. We know that such things as the stress test are really important in some markets, not so useful in other markets, and not even an issue in still other markets.

Trying to get CMHC, which is a Crown corporation, to embrace the regionalization of the housing market would be a fantastic thing, if all parties could agree to it, because I think it's the next step in making sure home ownership is much more attainable in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Barrett, welcome.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much for having me, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here.

On timing, I think making sure that we have a good benchmark is important. The program's one-year anniversary is in September of this year. I imagine, with the number of motions I have seen just in the few minutes I've been at this table, that your committee calendar will be quite full.

I think it's tremendously important. The different ridings represented at this table alone really tell a story about the need for looking at what the parliamentary secretary mentioned, and that's not having a one-size-fits-all approach.

Certainly, given the limits that apply to someone in the city of Toronto as compared with someone in my riding, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, which is rural and in some parts quite rural, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't align with home prices, but also with incomes.

It's a tremendously important study to have, but I think that engaging the Crown corporation, CMHC, on it would be very fruitful for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are we ready for the question?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] because I think it's—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, that's a great idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

After “market prices;” we can add “and also study the possibility of regional approaches and regional impacts”. I think it would be good to see why CMHC is a bit stubborn on that at times, but also what the possibilities would be. If we can do it for EI, I'm sure we can do it for the housing market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have an amendment to the motion. The debate is now on the amendment.

Ms. Young.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Could we have that read once again? Is it “and also study the possibility of regional approaches”?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Yes, and “regional impacts”.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Following the words “market prices;” the amendment would add “and also study regional approaches and regional impacts”.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

It's “the possibility of regional approaches and regional impacts”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

Ms. Young, you had your hand up, and then Mr. Long.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

No, I'm fine with what Adam said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are we ready for the question? This is on the amendment to add the words “and also study the possibility of regional approaches and regional impacts”.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there debate on the main motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I have no more motions to present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a motion I would like to present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think I'm starting to get this.

I move that the committee ask the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Seniors to testify before the committee for one hour per minister to explain their mandate letters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

The motion is in order.

I think she submitted it in both official languages.

Is there debate on the motion?