Human Resources Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Actually, it is both. I have noted the dates in the motion, but I want to be flexible for my colleagues. If you want to consider the motion at our next meeting and just receive it and add it to the list of motions received today, that is fine with me too.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I will suggest that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have two questions.

Can we get a copy of the motion from Mr. Vis, maybe emailed if that's possible? I would like to read it. He read it quickly, and I'm not sure if I got it.

On a point of clarification, Mr. Vis, are you suggesting the rapid housing initiative should be studied while it's being implemented, simultaneously? It seems to me that might be quite challenging to do. The usual practice is to have something implemented, and then study it, or study it before it's implemented, but maybe not during the same exact period.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I would add, in the spirit of co-operation, that there are serious housing needs, especially in your neck of the woods, Mr. Turnbull, and my own, in the Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions.

The purpose and spirit of this motion is to ensure that the government actually meets its stated goal of purchasing or acquiring 3,000 additional units of supporting housing within a six-month period. This committee could provide a great function to hold our public servants to account to ensure that those purchases are being made, especially in the Toronto and Vancouver regions, and provide updates to this committee in a timely manner to ensure that, in fact, the government meets that objective.

That's the spirit of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll go to Mr. Vaughan.

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

I have no problem with the spirit of this motion in terms of making sure that the good work we do through the national housing strategy, and in particular the rapid housing initiative, is publicized and promoted and shared publicly with this committee, with Canadians, with Parliament, with whoever needs to know the work we're doing.

That being said, the member has outlined six one-hour meetings, with a seventh meeting, and wants them all within the first couple of weeks of the program rolling out. While we will be moving as quickly as we can to get this money to the front lines in the fight against homelessness, in particular as it relates to COVID, and in particular in cities with high COVID counts, Winnipeg is also one of them. The focus simply on Toronto and Vancouver is not a national approach that I support. I think we need to take a look at where the science directs us, where the housing point-in-time counts direct us. The cities with programs stepping up with opportunities with large shelter populations also have to be taken into account.

I have no problem referring this to the subcommittee for scheduling. I have no problem having the minister appear to talk about the good work we're doing and the good work we still need to do on top of this to eliminate chronic homelessness. I just think the timetable is heavy at the front end and requires some scheduling.

MP Kent has already said that we have estimates coming, and this would pre-empt those ministers from showing up for those meetings. I think it's a little premature to schedule it in the way you've done it. I totally support the spirit of this and look forward to.... I think the subcommittee should take this motion and work it into a schedule and bring it back, in balance with the other challenging and competing interests we have, which include, of course, the estimates.

On the issue of how this relates to the issue we have prioritized, which is urban, rural and northern housing, we know that the communities with the highest population counts in terms of homeless people count amongst them the highest concentration and the overrepresentation of indigenous people. We need to get support and programs, and we need to get investments into this particular stream of housing with an urgency that I can't understate. It is long overdue, and if you don't believe me, take a walk through MP Gazan's riding and understand the impact over the last six months of not acting quickly on this file.

I absolutely urge us, in the spirit of Mr. Vis's motion, to take it to the subcommittee, on scheduling; get this committee to focus in on getting accountability and the reporting out on that. We have already missed half a year in terms of advancing the work on the urban, rural and northern housing strategy. We cannot ask this group of Canadians to wait for any longer.

The good news is that the rapid housing initiative will work well to achieve priorities in that segment as we work on fine tuning exactly what the federal approach should be doing for housing individuals in this area. I think that the timetable—and once you see the program as it gets rolled out, I think you'll understand it even more—is a little aggressive on the front end. There will be little to report in the first couple of days. We've already had two one-hour meetings before perhaps even the dollars have started to flow, and that doesn't make any sense.

I would urge my committee members to refer this to the subcommittee. We will report back to Mr. Vis, and work with Mr. Vis as a critic, to make sure he understands how to get the best results from the motion he's moved.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I politely respond to those comments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You can do that right after Ms. Young intervenes, because you're next on the speakers list after her. She might have some stuff that you want to respond to as well.

Ms. Young.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the honourable colleague across the floor for bringing this forward. It speaks to the incredible needs in housing. The rapid housing study and initiative is something that I'm very interested in.

With that said, I spoke to some indigenous community members last night, and they were just starting to hear about this program. I think we need to hear further about what their needs are. The needs of indigenous rural, urban and northern indigenous communities are different depending on where you are. I think it's important for us to hear what they need first.

I would have suggested, as Mr. Vaughan did, to refer it to the subcommittee. If that's in line, I think that's what we should do.

Thank you.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you both MP Vaughan and MP Young for your comments.

Mr. Vaughan, first off, regarding Winnipeg, I fully take your point. I believe that this is a national program and our focus should be nationally. That's why when I originally asked you about this in the House of Commons, I asked for a full regional breakdown.

I will note that I'm asking for one-hour meetings: one one-hour meeting a month. However, if the Liberals were to be in favour of supporting this motion and I pushed our first meeting, say to the end of November, I would be very amenable to such an amendment to the motion to make sure this is on the table. I believe with the motion just adopted that this coincides with the other work this committee has prioritized.

Again, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. I think this is a very reasonable motion, on a very unique government program, that requires this committee, in the spirit of a minority Parliament, to work on behalf of Canadians to ensure that $1 billion spent is being used in areas that are most in need of housing right now. That is my main objective.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it would be helpful if we got a copy of the motion. It's really hard to formulate an opinion because there was so much involved with that motion.

I just also want to echo some of the research concerns around pushing forward this study too quickly, because nothing has rolled out, and it is rolling out, so I think narrow the research focus in stages, like what's going on before, as it rolls out and what it looks like after. It's hard to study something that hasn't been rolled out yet.

I think those are reasonable observations, but I'm willing to review your motion. I think we also have to look at how realistic it is in terms of being able to research it, which is why I would like to see the motion before I formulate any opinions on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

In substance, I agree with the motion to study the strategy. I have to reiterate, though, what Ms. Gazan just said.

Of the first two things we adopted today, one was to readopt all the things we had already adopted and we'd already looked at, and the second one was to prioritize one study that we'd already adopted.

This is an entirely new study, and I really would like to be able to read all the language of it. I may want to, for example, amend the timing of the meetings, so I'm wondering if, for the new studies—again, it's totally up to you, Brad—we could agree that, if we all get a copy of it, we'd vote on this at the next meeting.

I know Louise has studies, and the same would be true; if she could send us copies of them and we could vote on them all at the next meeting, that would be really helpful so that we understand it, and, if we have amendments, we could talk to you about them before the meeting and try to agree on them.

It's just really hard. With all those paragraphs, I don't really remember in my head exactly where everything was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead, Mr. Vaughan.

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

I just heard you change the timetables on the fly there, and I'm not quite sure how that impacts this. I think that this is incredibly important—don't get me wrong—and I'm more than happy to talk about this program and, hopefully, how successful it is, because it's critically needed, from what we've heard from the front-line workers right across the country from coast to coast to coast. It's just the timetable you've outlined, and my understanding as parliamentary secretary to the department is that you're not going to get good conversation, just in terms of how front-end loaded the timetable is.

If you remove the exact time and send it to committee, I'm sure we can work out exactly how to achieve what you're trying to achieve, which I think is full public disclosure and real-time assessment of the program. I think these are all great things to talk about. You know me, I love to talk about housing. I'm never going to stop you from doing that.

I just think, in terms of how it works with the rollout of the program, to get you the most effective information so you can have the most effective insight and the best questions possible and also impact the communities that you are speaking to so eloquently, it's a bit front-end loaded, but, as I said, the principles are absolutely fine. If we can get it to the subcommittee and come back to the committee with substantial times, also take a look at the Bloc members' meetings and take into account the estimates meetings, I think we can work this out.

What you're hearing is broad consensus around the principles of your motion. It's just the logistics that we're having trouble with because we don't have the motion in front of us, and it is a bit of a moving target now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We'll go over to you, Mr. Vis.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you for those comments, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Housefather.

I'll just reiterate that I am open to amending and I would seek your amendment to the motion to change the initial date. I believe I've already provided a copy of the motion to the clerk for distribution and would welcome further scrutiny of it.

At previous meetings, we've taken a five- or 10-minute recess to review a motion on the table. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, that's an acceptable option at this time, but as I said, I'm very open to an amendment on the date. My purpose here isn't to study; it is to provide oversight. I want to see public servants coming before Canada right now and saying, they're three months into this program and they've outlined so far that they have purchased 1,000 homes—I'm giving you an example—and next month they will have all these things going on. We're in negotiations with these housing providers and we're going to be at this level next month.

Parliamentary committees don't often take that type of role in the oversight of government programs, but as I mentioned previously, right now extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. I'm not opposed to what the government is doing on the rapid housing initiative. I want to make sure it's serving the people who need it most in the most effective way. The spirit of my motion is to ensure that those urban indigenous housing providers, be they in Winnipeg or Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal, are getting the services that were promised by the Government of Canada in that six-month period. It is a big goal and we have a responsibility to make sure we're meeting that goal on behalf of Canada, to help those people in need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Madame Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, my comment is along the same lines.

It would be nice if we could introduce and receive these motions at this meeting, but debate them at the next meeting of the committee.

I would like to suggest we do that, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

That question is more for the clerk, actually. I feel that, rather than a suggestion, it would be a motion to debate these motions at another meeting.

In English we'd call it a motion to table, I suppose. I think that's what I heard, Mr. Clerk, and I seek your advice on whether that's in order and debatable.

[The Clerk]

We would need to have a motion to adjourn debate on the motion that's currently in front of the committee and then we could take it up at the next meeting.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I will move a motion in the spirit of this committee to adjourn debate and table the motion for further study at our subsequent meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There's no problem with the mover moving that procedural motion, Mr. Clerk? Is it debatable?