Evidence of meeting #113 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

8:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)) Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Good morning, committee members. We certainly have a full house.

Welcome, everyone.

The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum.

Those appearing online have been sound tested. Those who will be participating have been cleared that they're fine.

Before we begin, I want to remind all members appearing today to follow the procedure of only using the black headset. Keep it away from the microphone and at the appropriate position to prevent hearing damage to the interpreters, and keep it face down when you are not using it.

Today our meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. As you know, this is meeting number 113 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

For those appearing virtually, as well as in the room, you have the choice of speaking in the official language of your choice. Interpretation service is available in the room using your headset. For those appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language of your choice. If there is an interruption in interpretation services, please raise your hand, and I will suspend while it is being clarified.

As well, I want to remind all members to please direct your questions and comments through me, the chair, and wait until I recognize you by name.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 26, 2024, the committee is commencing its study of the subject matter of supplementary estimates (C) for 2023-2024, and the main estimates for 2024-2025.

I would like to welcome our witness, Minister Sean Fraser.

Welcome Mr. Minister.

Attending with the minister are Nadine Leblanc, interim chief financial officer and senior vice-president, policy; as well as Kelly Gillis, deputy minister; office of infrastructure Canada.

Mr. Minister, you have five minutes to make opening comments, and then we will open the floor to questions.

8:15 a.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Liberal

Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Housing

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I’m here to discuss very important matters.

I'm here technically to discuss the estimates, although I understand that there is a study on housing that the committee has undertaken and, of course, we recently released a national housing plan. I'm happy to take questions on whichever of those issues you may deem appropriate.

I'll spend a few moments going over the bones of the recently released housing plan to give you an idea of where we're coming from and what we're trying to achieve.

There are three main things the housing plan seeks to accomplish. The first is to build more homes, the second is to make it easier to rent or buy a home in this country and the third is to ensure those who cannot afford a home nevertheless have a roof over their heads.

Some of these measures will have a shorter-term impact. Others will take time to fully mature and to realize the potential we have as a country to solve the national housing crisis.

Under the first pillar—to build more homes—there are a few key things we're seeking to do.

The first is to reduce the cost of homebuilding through a series of different measures, including tax measures such as the GST rebate and the changes to the capital cost allowance to allow it on an accelerated basis. We're also moving forward with low-cost financing programs such as the apartment construction loan program, as well as an opportunity to partner directly with provincial governments through bilateral deals through the Canada builds program. We're not limiting the low-cost financing to large institutional builders and we are launching a program that's designed to help individual homeowners add accessory dwelling units with a low-cost loan to help them with the start-up costs.

In addition, there's a major opportunity to reduce the input costs of home construction by leveraging public lands. We are seeking to do something different by maintaining ownership of public lands and entering into long-term leases, which will protect the public interest and public lands. At the same time, we have an opportunity to further reduce the costs for construction and, potentially, the costs for the person who lives in the home that will be constructed at the end of the day.

It's not enough, though, to reduce the cost of homebuilding. We have to make it easier. We're working with different municipalities across Canada to help change their zoning and permitting practices through the housing accelerator fund.

We have other different tools we're using to negotiate improvements to the ways homes are built, including by addressing things like development cost charges through our infrastructure funding to support housing-enabling infrastructure, such as water and waste water. Similarly, we'll be negotiating deals with major metro regions across Canada to improve density near transit stations, through our transit infrastructure funding.

Even if we have a perfect suite of policies on cost reduction and municipal zoning reform, we're going to run into another bottleneck, and that's the capacity of the Canadian economy to actually produce the homes we need. We intend to address this through a series of measures, including training supports for Canadian workers, targeted immigration programs and, of course, incentivizing the scale-up of home manufacturing facilities—building more homes in factories. We intend to do this by creating a pipeline of demand for the businesses that will be able to produce homes in factories and by creating specific incentives to help with their scale-up.

The second pillar of the fund is designed to help make it easier to rent or to buy a home in Canada. There's a series of measures to help protect renters, such as the renters' bill of rights, which will require co-operation with provinces, but we also want to ensure that we have an opportunity for people to transition to home ownership if they choose. We intend to do this in a few key ways.

The first is to help renters establish a credit score, for those who face that as a particular bottleneck, by allowing them to use their rental history to establish credit, but a bigger stumbling block for more people trying to get into the market is saving up for a down payment. We want to help by creating a tax-free opportunity for people to save money for that down payment, including through the adoption of the first home savings account, which now has more than 750,000 Canadians who have signed up, and changes to the RRSP homebuyers' plan that will make it easier for people to take advantage of a tax-free opportunity by scaling up the amount they can put towards their home and extending the grace period during which they do not need to make repayments.

We also want to help by reducing the monthly mortgage payment, and we've started by increasing the amortization period for new builds from 25 to 30 years, which will have a positive impact on the monthly bottom line for someone who enters into a mortgage over a longer term. This is a particularly useful opportunity for a younger first-time homebuyer, who will still be in their working life at the time the mortgage has completed.

There are other measures that we want to move forward with to help free up stock that already exists, including measures targeting short-term rentals and attacking the issue of mortgage fraud, and a series of other measures. It's not enough to simply deal with the housing market; we have to improve things for non-market housing in this country. Canada has about 4% of homes in our country that exist outside the market. The OECD average is about 8%. We need to do better.

We are scaling up the investments in affordable housing for low-income families, including not just support for new builds but an acquisition fund that will help more organically affordable housing that exists in the market to be transferred to non-profit actors so they are maintained at a level of affordability forever. There's additional funding through the reaching home program to support communities that are seeking to support those who do not have a place to live, with additional supports to help communities that are struggling with encampments to help transition people to durable housing solutions.

Mr. Chair, there's much more to share, but I see that I'm out of time. I'm happy to take what questions my colleagues may have.

Merci.

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now begin with Mr. Aitchison for six minutes.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. I appreciate it.

I'll get right into it. I wonder if you would agree that development charges, which you mentioned in your opening remarks, actually make homes more expensive. It's a tax.

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I do.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Okay. The housing accelerator fund, which I know is a signature policy of the government, is a $4-billion fund designed to speed up home approvals and get more homes built.

Is there anything in those agreements with any of those cities about development charges in cities that increase development charges at the same time as receiving federal dollars?

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

The development cost charges that we seek to address are dealt with through the Canada housing infrastructure fund, not through the housing accelerator fund, so in order to access the infrastructure supports, you won't be able to increase your development cost charges.

That said—just a bit of nuance on the housing accelerator fund—it's an outcomes-based program. We both get measures that you agree to implement, but you also have to produce the permits. To the extent that a community increases development cost charges to a degree that doesn't allow them to meet the milestones baked into the agreement, they would jeopardize their funding under the agreement.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

You would agree, though, that the housing crisis we have in this country is not just a supply crisis, but an affordability crisis.

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Yes, certainly.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Then why wouldn't this housing accelerator fund also include some kind of language in these agreements, which we've still yet to see, about the cost at the local level?

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

It's an interesting question. We wanted the right tool for each job. The housing accelerator fund was targeting specific changes that we wanted to see made around municipal zoning reform and the process of permitting so we could build faster.

I agree with you that development cost charges create a real challenge on affordability. What we're saying with the infrastructure programs we're putting in place is that if you're going to benefit from federal money for the infrastructure, you can't also be increasing your development cost charges that go towards building that infrastructure.

We've chosen unique tools for each of the problems that we're trying to solve. The housing accelerator fund, in my view, is having a tremendously positive impact, but we're tackling the development cost charges issue through a different federal program.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Let's take Ottawa, for example. They just proposed to increase their development charges by almost 30%. They've backed off a bit: They're only going up by 11%. The notion that they're going up at all anywhere in the country is absolutely mind-boggling in an affordability crisis.

These accelerator funds are not paid out all at once. They're paid out in quarterly payments. We haven't seen the agreements, but from reading the staff reports, it would appear as though you and your office have the final say on whether they get their next payments and whether they get that each quarter.

Ottawa already has received $44 million, I guess. The next chunk will be another $44 million. Would you be prepared to address Ottawa or any of the other cities that are recipients of this money to say that we need to focus on affordability as well, and to pro-rate the next payment or even not make the next payment, if they keep increasing development charges?

8:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Because development cost charges are being dealt with through a different fund, we would need to see them fail to meet their obligations under the binding agreement we have with each city. In this case, if they increase development cost charges to a degree where it impacted the permit milestones that they've agreed to achieve, then certainly we would withhold funds. No permits, no money: That's my approach to some of these conversations.

However, if they increase the development cost charges, still implement the zoning reforms, continue to speed up the process of permitting and actually get the permits out the door, we're not saying that we're not going to touch the development charge issue: We're saying that we're going to use a different fund to tackle the development charge issue. If they fail to produce the permits as a result of those changes they make, they would jeopardize their funding.

8:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

In an affordability crisis, I don't know why you wouldn't use all of your funds to attack this affordability issue. Nobody makes more money on housing than governments. The average across the country is about 33% per unit.

I don't know how big your infrastructure fund is, but on your accelerator fund of $4 billion, why wouldn't you use that fund too?

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

It's interesting.

Scott, as you know, I've got an immense respect for you. You're one of my favourite colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I'd invite you to have this conversation with your leader. There is no—

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Some of my colleagues are offended by that, I think—

8:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I like all of them.

I like all of them, but truth be told, it's curious that I get these questions from the Conservative side when there's no such plan in your housing plan that actually attacks the development cost charge issue.

You were the mayor in Huntsville and you had a modest increase in development cost charges at the time as well—

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I used to fight development charge increases all the time as a municipal mayor, and we gave land away and we waived fees and charges.

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

We're seeking to address the costs through a number of different measures. We can't just deal with it through one fund. We have to pull a number of different levers.

We're trying to deal with this by reducing taxes, by putting low-cost financing programs forward and by putting public land on the table that we're going to be able to use to reduce the development costs by not selling it off to the highest bidder.

On the housing accelerator fund, we wanted to have a targeted approach to tackle very specific problems around municipal zoning and around the time for permitting. We do want to address the development cost charge issue—

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Can I cut you off there then and ask you another question? Do you think it's working, then, if cities are increasing their development charges so much? Toronto just increased them by 20%. In the City of Vaughan, it's $153,000.

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

The Canada housing infrastructure fund is a fund that we've just funded through the federal budget. If cities have made these increases.... We've put the date as April 2, and if they don't abide by a freeze as of that date, they're going to jeopardize their eligibility to tap into these funds going forward.

Separately, I do think that the housing accelerator fund has been effective, and we're starting to see some of the cities that have had deals actually increase the rate of issuing permits. It's too early to tell the specific degree to which this is going to pan out, but the projections over the next decade from cities—not from the federal government—indicate a projected increase of 750,000 building permits over and above what was scheduled to be the case.

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you.

Mr. Collins, for six minutes, please.

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome.

I'm going to pick up where Mr. Aitchison left off in terms of the accelerator fund.

The Leader of the Opposition was in Hamilton last week as part of his “make Canada great again” tour, and he went down the nonsensical path of talking about gatekeepers and demonizing municipal councillors and municipal mayors over the whole issue of their efforts to block housing development.

Anyone who has served for one budget cycle around a municipal council—we have, I think, three mayors in attendance here today, and a couple of former city councillors—knows that new assessment is the lifeblood of a municipality. It pays for the existing services and helps pay for new services that a municipality wants to provide. It is counterintuitive for municipalities to block any kind of development, whether it's residential, commercial or industrial, so this whole narrative in terms of gatekeepers and municipalities blocking and preventing us from building new housing supply is nonsensical.

As part of the 2024 budget, we topped up the accelerator fund to get at the whole issue of new housing supply and incenting changes at the municipal level. There are a number of municipalities, Minister, as you know, that want to take part in that program. Langley is one of them. In Sudbury, our colleague is fighting hard to ensure her municipality gets its fair share.

Can you share with the committee why it is important to work with municipalities rather than demonize them for their efforts in terms of trying to build new assessment in their municipalities?

8:30 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Some municipalities are better than others. My sense is that no one I've met who serves on a municipal council says they want to block housing, but you do see that some of the attitudes that are reflected in certain districts at a given council table reveal themselves to be in an anti-housing position because they don't want to have an apartment building in the community where they live.

My experience with the housing accelerator fund has been illuminating, because it has demonstrated to me that communities across Canada want to embrace the growth opportunity, but it comes with certain challenges, and having a federal incentive on the table makes it easier for them to address those challenges.

What I was blown away by when we published the list of best practices that emerged through the early applications we assessed through the housing accelerator fund was the degree to which communities were willing to increase their ambition when it came to doing the things that we know will produce more houses, including adopting four-unit, as-of-right zoning, more density near post-secondary institutions and transit stations and digital permitting processes that will speed up the process.

We started getting letters and phone calls from municipalities that were saying, “What more can we do in order to give ourselves a chance to succeed in the housing accelerator fund?” The cream rose to the top. There are other good applications from some of the communities you've mentioned that may not have qualified because so many of the competitor communities decided they wanted to do even more.

We have a $400-million top-up in the recent federal budget that's going to allow us to partner with additional municipalities. We're going to work with those most ambitious cities. From my perspective, although I have gotten into a few disagreements with municipalities across the country, overwhelmingly my experience has been one of willing partners who want to do more but need help.

We need to have different levels of government pulling in the same direction. I find that although you may find yourself in a disagreement once in a while, if you don't have the conversation or you shut down the possibility of the conversation at the outset, you miss out on an opportunity to make a meaningful difference.