Human Resources Committee on May 27th, 2021

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support Mr. Vis's motion on the transparency of the awarding process.

I do understand Adam's comment. We don't want to sidetrack anything, and I think a friendly amendment from Adam on the motion would hopefully have the whole committee voting in favour of transparency where it doesn't hurt overall projects. I look forward to hopefully hearing Adam's amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Vaughan.

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

I was going to cover this in the question. Under the housing accord with Quebec, the Quebec government sets the criteria and then chooses the projects. We don't have the information as to what criteria or which ridings they chose or which projects and project applications they moved ahead with. We're being asked for information that is not entirely within our jurisdiction. We have to respect the decisions that the Quebec National Assembly and the Quebec government made.

On the amendment, it is a very long, complex and detailed set of requests that have been put here. For example, when we put in place an application that comes from a particular housing application, when they ask for the riding, is it the location of the proponent or the location of the housing? For example, in Winnipeg Centre we had an application that was put forth the other day by a company in one riding for a project in a different riding. We announced it in the riding and the MP in question wasn't invited to the announcement because we thought we were in a different riding at the time. There's a lot more to this equation than simply the information you're asking for.

I understand the need to understand which projects got funding, which ones didn't and why, but it's more complex than just the federal government or just the CMHC making these decisions.

I will go back to the point I raised earlier. I'm not going to fix this motion. The proponent can fix their own motion, but they are asking for us to disclose confidential, proprietary information and detailed financial transactions in a public way to a public body that would literally blow up the process that is currently under way. I would suggest that it would violate the good faith that both vendors and proprietors have put forth in these applications. They were never told they were going to have to disclose their financial information, which properties they were trying to acquire, the dollar amounts they proposed to put on the table or the funding sources for those dollar amounts, which are all part of this calculation.

I would suggest that the member withdraw the motion and come back with a clearer motion. I'd be happy to work with them to get the information they want. The way this is drafted puts at risk everything on rapid housing 2.0 and every single project that's currently on hold awaiting new funding, which is now being delivered by the budget implementation act and the budget.

This motion is a really serious overreach. I understand the intent and support the intent in principle, but in practice and in detail, this will literally take projects out of the hands of non-profit providers and hand them over to somebody else. Who knows what the consequences of that will be? Who knows what the consequences will be to people who have purchase offers that will then expire as a result of this information being disclosed? Who knows what legal remedies may be available to those individuals? They have invested dollars in trying to acquire these properties, only to see a committee of the House of Commons disclose all of the business dealings prematurely and therefore put at risk their security deposits.

There are a lot more implications to what Mr. Vis is asking for than what is currently in this motion. I would ask everyone to take a step back, focus the request more properly and deal with it in a responsible way. Don't put at risk the transactions that are on hold right now, awaiting future funding.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Manly. Go ahead.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have a vote on this committee, but I would just like to support what Mr. Vaughan has said. I know in my riding, the City of Nanaimo has deals for properties going on with BC Housing, which cannot be disclosed. This is proprietary information. It would cause serious damage to the projects that are being proposed and that have gone forward with their application.

I love transparency. I want to see money flowing. We didn't get money in Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the rapid housing initiative. A couple of really good projects were proposed and the proponents are waiting for the next round to come. They cannot have this information that is part of their application disclosed. It would just create havoc. It will actually sink those projects.

I would agree with Mr. Vaughan. I hope the rest of the committee does as well, and doesn't support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Manly. Again, welcome to HUMA. It's quite the day to be joining us.

Mr. Vis, go ahead.

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

Mr. Vaughan can wordsmith all he likes. As I suggested, I would be open to a friendly amendment on excluding proprietary information, but I received redacted documents from the government—after this government promised to Canadians that it would outline everything on March 31, and did not—and now am told I'm being irresponsible as a parliamentarian.... I was given a bunch of black pages by the Government of Canada when I asked for transparency. To then make it seem that I'm the irresponsible one for fighting and that Mr. Vaughan, the parliamentary secretary, is accountable to Canadians on the decisions of the government is misleading to all the members here.

I am open to a friendly amendment. I'll table one right now that maybe the lawyers, through the HUMA committee, exclude proprietary information but list the project names that were approved and those that were rejected to this committee. All I'm after is which projects were rejected and which ones were approved. He could have given that to me in the Order Paper questions, but Mr. Vaughan and his department decided to give us zero information.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I need to comment on the bullying language that I felt Mr. Vaughan was exhibiting.

What's very frustrating for me is that this is a government that has been riddled with scandal, cover-ups and redactions. As I mentioned earlier, this has been a trend since the previous Parliament, where we've seen pages just blacked out, sometimes with no letters on them whatsoever.

Our job, especially as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, is to hold this government accountable, and we owe it to the people who sent us here, who are Canadians. I don't appreciate that we are being threatened that everything could implode, especially to Mr. Vis's point that he got nothing when he asked these Order Paper questions. Even if a little had been given there, it would be better than what this is.

Again, on the track record of this government with scandals and cover-ups, I don't think I would be in a position to vote against this for the sake of transparency. If the government is not hiding anything and Mr. Vaughan is true to his word, I would assume that he would make an amendment that would be plausible to the government to show and reveal the answers to Mr. Vis's questions.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

I just want to confirm something.

Mr. Vis, did you put forward an amendment? I may have missed that. I apologize.

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

I would be out of order.

I can't put forward an amendment to my own motion, so I'll ask one of my colleagues to move that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

My apologies. I just wanted to confirm that.

Back to the speaking order, we have Madam Chabot.

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

Don't look at me for that, Madam Chair.

I wanted to intervene because I have the impression—it's an impression—that we are currently going off the rails. Under the rules of the game, I don't think Mr. Vis is going to get what he wants. Even the Access to Information Act would not allow access to such sensitive data.

So what exactly do we want? I have a proposal for the committee to behave and let us finish the remaining 15 minutes with the witness. I don't actually know what the rules of procedure are, but is it possible, after a motion is put forward, to reword it and debate it at a future meeting? If we are going to debate the motion as is, I'm going to oppose it, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Madam Chabot.

Ms. Gazan, please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I hear the frustration in my colleague, Mr. Vis's voice.

I feel frustrated most days, so I just want to say that I appreciate your frustration.

In saying that, even in listening to the presentation today from Madam Bowers, there were certain considerations for projects. In all fairness to Mr. Vaughan, there are different ways that decisions are made in terms of funding allocations throughout the country, and I think that factors in.

I would have to vote against it simply because I just don't have the information. I haven't had a chance to, for example, look over Order Paper questions 244, 350 or 420, so I don't even know what I would be voting in favour of or against.

I'm going to propose that we table this for the next meeting. That will give us all a chance to do some research. I certainly have some research to do, with what's been brought up in committee, so that I can vote in good conscience either for or against.

Right now my vote is certainly against because I just don't have the information to vote properly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Mr. Vis.

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

Thank you, Madame Gazan. I will note that I had those Order Paper questions distributed to all committee members in both official languages a number of weeks ago already. They should be in your inbox.

Do you know what? I didn't actually expect our committee to be disrupted in this way, but I really am trying to get answers on the rapid housing initiative, and when I get black pages from the government, that doesn't sit well with me as a parliamentarian who's responsible for fighting on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are indigenous and many of whom were upset with this program and the approach.

Furthermore, when I'm hearing from people like the mayor of Burnaby, chair of the Metro Vancouver housing committee, that there are some big problems, I have a responsibility to push for more information.

Sunshine is always the best medicine. I think there's an easy way around this, noting Mr. Vaughan's concerns around proprietary information. I understand that. That's why I was open to a friendly amendment, but he doesn't want to be accountable in a way that exposes his decision-making to the people of Canada. I understand that.

That's the last comment I'm going to make on this today. Really, I didn't think it would come to this today, but my point is that transparency is always better than black pages.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make the following amendment to the motion: “That CMHC provide the committee with the complete and unredacted versions of Order Paper questions Q244, Q350 and Q420 within 10 business days”—here's where the amendment would carry on—“with the exception of confidential monetary figures and proprietary information that could inhibit current and future projects.”

I am working on a translation right now, which will be forwarded to the members.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor. I will defer to the clerk.

Is the amendment in order, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

I would like to receive that in writing first.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor.

Is there any discussion on the amendment while we wait for that? It doesn't look like there is.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I really need to see it in writing in order to be able to read it and reflect on it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Okay, thank you.

I'm just getting a note. We have to wait until it's received. Madam Clerk, could you let us know?

Why don't we suspend for a minute while you receive it, Madam Clerk, if that's in order? I see you nodding.

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wasn't aware of this motion before today. I think the reaction of the government to this motion is very telling. There's something there. There's a reason they don't want to release this information, and I think the sooner we move on this motion to find out which projects were approved and which ones were declined, the better off the country is.

I think it's a fundamental part of the transparency that's lacking of late in Ottawa and in our country, and I look forward to hopefully having the vote here shortly.