Human Resources Committee on May 27th, 2021

[Romy Bowers]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

For the last round, we will go to the Liberals for five minutes.

I have Mr. Vaughan on the list.

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

I have a couple of points to clear up.

With regard to the situation in Burnaby, my understanding is that there are five complete applications in and two pending. Those applications came in this year, 2021. Is that not right?

[Romy Bowers]

That's correct.

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

No applications were made between 2016 and 2020 in terms of accessing the fund. If you don't make an application, we can't fund a project. Is that right?

[Romy Bowers]

That's correct, Mr. Vaughan.

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

We are currently working with BC Housing to realize the five.

[Romy Bowers]

That's correct, Madam Chair.

The reason we have not been able to approve the applications is that it's a co-investment program, so we're waiting for some decisions to be made by BC Housing. We hope those decisions will be forthcoming, in which case we will be able to make a determination with respect to the Burnaby projects.

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

With regard to the situation in Quebec, one reason for the slowness was that we had to negotiate a special pathway forward for the rapid housing in Quebec in order to directly fund cities. It was the first time we had ever done it in Quebec, but that caused a delay in terms of executing the project, because until the project money and the city money was allocated, we couldn't spend it in Quebec without an agreement with the Quebec government, and to proceed unilaterally would leave Quebec out of the mix. Is that not also true?

[Romy Bowers]

That's correct, Madam Chair. There are special circumstances in Quebec that create some complexity in terms of providing federal monies to municipalities. That was a challenge for us that I think we successfully overcame.

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

In terms of offshore ownership, in the city of Toronto, for example, 81% of the new housing starts are condominiums, and close to 9% of those condominiums are bought by offshore investors. If 9% of the housing stock were returned to Canadians and offshore dollars were pulled out of that market, would pulling 9% of the purchasers out of the market not also create supply for Canadians?

[Romy Bowers]

We think that addressing foreign ownership can be part of the problem, but as I pointed out earlier, I think we need to focus on creating even more supply for Canadians. We should not be relying solely on things like a foreign ownership tax.

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

In the last 10 years, with 161,000 condominiums, most in my riding.... That's why I got cut in half last time. If we pulled 9% of the offshore ownership and the vacant homes out of that mix and returned those offers to Canadians, would not a boost of almost 9% of supply have an impact on prices for Canadians? If they had more housing options, would that not also align with the goal of increasing supply?

[Romy Bowers]

Yes, I would agree with that.

I would just like to provide a bit of granularity regarding the foreign ownership. It is an issue when there is foreign ownership and the units remain vacant, but there are situations when there is foreign ownership and it's actually rented out. There is a bit of a distinction, but I take your point, Mr. Vaughan.

Thank you.

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

There are additional measures around Airbnb, for example. There's a condominium in my riding where 72 units out of 310 are owned by one particular individual who rents them as Airbnbs and doesn't allow them to go into the housing market, either to be rented or to be owned. Additional regulatory measures around limiting that particular form of ownership would also return housing stock to the market and give Canadians choices. Is that not also true?

[Romy Bowers]

That is true. CMHC would be supportive of assessments of the impacts of Airbnb in certain markets. I think this is a municipal issue, but I think that has been successful in some foreign jurisdictions, so it's something Canada should definitely look into.

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

On the recent infrastructure agreement that was negotiated with the Province of Ontario, my understanding is that the Province of Ontario refused to do things like increase the supply of affordable housing around transit-related projects. However, it's a characteristic of our CMHC programs that we prioritize projects that are being built around existing infrastructure to reduce the burden of providing supply, in terms of making sure we supply where people are trying to live, where people already live and where people have existing infrastructure to tap into. That's one of the ways in which we prioritize and increase supply in highly competitive housing markets.

[Romy Bowers]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not familiar with the particular Toronto, Ontario, transaction you're referring to, but CMHC is supportive in all our programs of creating more density in cities. We feel that greater density around transit nodes is very supportive of our housing affordability goals, and it also aligns with our green change agenda.

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

On the issue of process, supply and clearing red tape, the city of Calgary, for example, now has a 60-day turnaround on social housing application permits. As part of the contribution agreement when cities step up and reduce the processing time, we now calculate and count that as a contribution to the project in real dollars as part of the way in which we factor in approvals.

In other words, when the red tape is cut, they actually move to the front of the line quicker. Is that not true? It's also included as a cash contribution towards the realization of the projects.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Could we have a brief answer, please, Ms. Bowers?

[Romy Bowers]

CMHC would support any measure that prevents bureaucracy from preventing the creation of affordable housing.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bowers, for joining us today. We greatly appreciate your time and—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, just to correct the record, I don't redact statements that are sent out from a Crown corporation to Order Paper questions. Several statements here today left the impression that I was doing the redacting of statements and the redacting of documents. I just want the record to be clear and accurate. To have that idea hanging in the air is a little unfair, both to me and to all other parliamentarians who don't do the redacting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan, for your clarification.

If there is nothing else, do committee members agree to adjourn? Okay. Thank you very much.

Again, Ms. Bowers, thank you very much, and congratulations on your new position.

[Romy Bowers]

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to be here tonight.