Human Resources Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, before I begin my questions, I'd like to put forward a motion that I provided notice for on October 22.

Canadians 65 years of age and older currently represent 19% of our population, and by 2043 it's estimated they will be around 25% of the population. That represents an increase from approximately eight million seniors to 11 million seniors.

The major demographic shift is always causing, and continues to cause, further strain on Canada's social and health services, which seniors especially rely on as they age. Further, according to CMHC, seniors are increasingly living in their existing homes longer as they age, ultimately contributing to the rise of naturally occurring retirement communities, and I believe the rise of naturally occurring retirement communities, or NORCs as they are known, provide an opportunity for the government to adapt, innovate, and support care delivery systems for seniors that both meet seniors' needs and enable extended aging in place and help provide early indicators that result in health care cost savings for governments.

Now, as an example of the potential savings involved in adapting programs to service NORCs, I'll reference a case study of a NORC-based home care model piloted in Waterloo, Ontario.

The NORC Innovation Centre estimates there is a 44% productivity gain for personal support workers. In Ontario, if they were to move to a NORC-based home care model and achieved half of the productivity gains of the Waterloo pilot, the organization indicates that it would translate into 755,000 hours or $26.7 million in PSW services for Ontario home care systems annually, which would allow for more clients to be served within the budget constraints.

With that in mind, I would like to move the following motion:

Considering that Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORCs) allow seniors to age well at home and with dignity, the committee agrees to undertake a comprehensive study on NORCs. The study will examine the benefits to seniors’ health and social well-being and pay particular attention to the cost-savings for care delivery; the study will further examine how the government can help address the existing Canadian research gap with regard to NORCs and their impact; support existing NORCs; adapt and/or develop programs and strategies to support care delivery to NORCs; and that the committee invite to testify leading subject matter experts; that the committee hold a minimum of three meetings; and that the committee reports its findings and recommendations to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

The motion had the required timeline, but I do not believe you want to pursue debate on this at this time. You moved it, but if we do not want to debate it at this time, it would require a motion to adjourn debate on your motion so we can return to the witnesses.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

My preference, Mr. Chair, would be that we deal with this very expeditiously and move on and speak to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, but you did move it, so it's subject to debate, which takes precedence over the witness, unless there's a motion to adjourn debate on this motion so we can return to the witness.

Ms. Gray, you had your hand up.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that this was put on notice, and I would like to move an amendment to this motion.

Basically, when we saw this go on notice, we had to look up what this was. It's very niche, and I think that's probably the whole purpose of it. However, we'd like to broaden it a little more, while also including this as the priority. We can circulate the amendment.

I'd like to move the following amendment, that we add after "Considering that", the wording “retirement housing options for seniors, including” in the first sentence, and then at the end of that first sentence that we would add the words “including how they compare to other options.”

I'll read what the first sentence would look like. It's not to remove any of what you have. It would read:

Considering that retirement housing options for seniors, including Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORCs), allow seniors to age well at home and with dignity, the committee agrees to undertake a comprehensive study on NORCs, including how they compare to other options.

I think it's a very reasonable request, and I would hope that we could easily move forward with that, as it would actually encompass looking at how these fit in on the bigger retirement options.

Mr. Chair, we've circulated the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gray.

We have an amendment to Mr. Van Bynen's motion.

On the amendment, we have Madame Chabot.

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

Can I speak to that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes...on the amendment.

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

Yes, I understand that we are now debating the amendment. I don't necessarily oppose the amendment, but I must say, with all due respect, that I am against Mr. Van Bynen's motion.

This is indeed a very specific topic. I don't see how such a study would enrich or support our committee's work. Let me explain.

Naturally occurring retirement communities are a very specific formula that exist in very specific places. For my part, I can talk about seniors living in residences, regardless of the type of housing involved. The term is different in Quebec. Regardless, all these issues really fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Studies have been done on those communities and on the benefits of keeping people at home as long as possible in terms of health care.

Honestly, with all due respect, I don't know where such a study would get us.

Yes, an amendment to the motion has been moved, but I disagree with the substance of the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Ms. Gray to the main motion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please proceed with a recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Cormier, the vote has concluded. The main motion has been adopted as amended.

We return to questioning.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

We are coming to the end of this study, which gave us a chance to hear your testimony over the course of four meetings. I'm going to ask you a question and give you both the rest of my time to answer it in turn.

What would you like the committee to take away from your testimony today when it writes its report? What main point would you like us to include in our report on this study?

I'll start with you, Ms. Phillips.

[Carol Phillips]

Probably the most important thing that I actually had an opportunity to say here today is about intergovernmental alignment, having some form of task force that helps us understand where different levels of government can actually help to scale the adoption of these innovative technologies. We certainly concentrated today on mass timber, but I think that if there were the possibility of some form of task force, limited in time, that could actually look at some of the initiatives at various levels of government—and, perhaps, specifically around the housing issue—we could see where there are unintentional impediments put up between the different tiers of government that are actually creating hurdles. If there's something that I could possibly recommend it is this: Look at a multi-tier task force to actually look at allowing, with respect to housing, the uptake of these prefabricated systems. That's one thing.

The second thing, if I may say, has to do with recognizing the upfront investment by private industry, including the professionals, who are actually self-educating at this point, trying to scale our knowledge in this continually evolving area. The self-education is, really, coming at our own cost.

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

Mr. Moses, go ahead.

[David Moses]

I think there are some really good things that are happening right now in the availability of funding for parts of the sector. I know that the consultants rely heavily on the SR and ED—the scientific research and experimental development program—to help with the self-education that's happening. Without that, the process would be much slower.

I think that, if we were just talking about funding and not a study, demonstration funding makes a big difference for developers who are considering using a new technology because it helps take the edge off the risk, knowing that there's going to be some buffer that might offset the incremental cost for them. Currently, demonstration funding is occasional. It's not reliable, and if there were just a permanent pool of money available to allow for these innovations to take place—and, obviously, through a vetting process and with certain criteria—having that would make it more permanent and predictable. Right now, when these funding programs happen, they happen for just a very short period of time, but the life cycle of a building, from the time that somebody thinks of the building until it's completed, is years. The current programs, if they happen to be timed correctly for that project, they'll get it, and that's just too much of a risk for most building developers to consider.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Phillips, you represent an architectural firm, but you talked a lot about mass timber buildings. Wood is a very important natural resource in Quebec, and we have seen wonderful buildings made of wood and steel.

You talked about the employment opportunities in those sectors. To what extent are you relying on the employability of workers to contribute to the advancement of your work?

[Carol Phillips]

I'm sorry; I lost a bit of the interpretation, but I think the question had to do with roles and job opportunities throughout the industry.

Certainly, I'm an architect, but the way we are working now in these innovative fields is that we have to work more like an ecology. We have to work with the tradespeople, we have to work with the skilled trades and we have to work with the builders. We don't necessarily, in a way, see ourselves as just providing the professional services; we actually are part of a much bigger network of individuals who understand the technology.

Within our practice alone, certainly the skills of being able to use the evaluation software, such as LCA and LCCA—life-cycle analysis and life-cycle cost analysis—helps us speak to our clients and helps them make decisions when it comes to choosing the right materials for their process. Streamlining the process and getting the design right in the first place involves us working directly with engineers, builders and the skilled trades to understand where our designs might have limitations for manufacturing. This has directly to do with understanding how we all work together.

Certainly, as others have said, there is a major lack in the skilled trades right now. With automation, with robotics and with more software-driven manufacturing methodologies, there is room for everyone, including those who don't necessarily have the physical attributes to actually work in the trades in the way that they used to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Ms. Zarrillo, go ahead for six minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

My questions are for Carol Phillips, and I'm open to giving you the full six minutes.

You talked about an abandoned post office that you worked on, and I want to hear more about this. I want to hear about the learnings and the pros and cons, as the government is looking at federal lands, and there is an abandoned post office in Port Moody that is on the initial list of properties to look at for the government.

Can you share your wisdom and your learning so that the government can think about how they can get this done quickly?

[Carol Phillips]

I would say that perhaps the most sustainable building is the building that already exists. If we can adaptively reuse some of our assets and improve upon them, expand them and change their function, that is probably the most direct approach to achieving our most sustainable approaches in buildings.

While of course we want to innovate and build new, and our standards have obviously changed, when we have quality construction that already exists, if we can adaptively reuse that construction, that is one of the most important things that we should be looking at first, rather than demolishing and filling our landfills with more debris.

In the case of the project that I'm involved in right now, this is a federal post office that has good bones. It has a steel structure. Because of the use of timber, we are able to add to it without improving upon the foundations. There's a little bit of strategic work that needs to be done to reinforce some of those foundations, but it is actually quite limited. The lightness of timber allows us to actually build on top.

I think this has huge potential. Certainly, I am from Toronto and I can look down main streets that have two-storey buildings and I have to wonder whether or not those can take another two or four storeys on top of them to intensify our city, so that we have more of a six- or eight-storey fabric all through our main streets rather than having two storeys and then 40 storeys. I think that there is what I call a missing middle and the project that I'm working on right now has that potential.

I also think that when we take away our built heritage, we take away the history of those communities. We take away the fabric that was there that gave those communities identity. When we have heritage buildings that actually help to give identity to a community, but because we can't find a way to reuse them we end up taking them down, we erase something of our history.

Certainly, in this day there are parts of our history that we really need to relook at, but I don't think that a post office is necessarily one of those areas that we need to completely rethink. If it gives character and if it gives history of the people who worked and lived in those communities—there are stories embedded in that community—it gives identity and a sense of pride to communities if you can continue to keep that built heritage and continue to grow upon it while providing needs for others.

We have learned that by using innovative technologies, such as not only mass timber, but also prefabricated wall panels, we are able to come in close to heritage buildings and be able to actually adaptively reuse them. We have quality control that is built off-site and then just simply craned into place.

One of the projects that I'm working on in Toronto is a 225,000-square-foot building. Its entire structure was erected by seven people and one crane at a rate of about 10,000 square feet a week. That doesn't mean that's reducing jobs because those jobs have just moved to safer environments. They're now in the factory. They're not out in the weather and in the wind. You're actually producing things in controlled environments. It speaks to quality and safety, and then a much cleaner and easier erection of the structure. It doesn't plug up the city and it doesn't act—

I'm done. Thank you.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm trying to slyly look over there because I want to ask another question.

Thank you so much for that.

As a sociologist—and I was a city councillor—I always ask what the social side of it is.

I cannot find any research that talks about the social impacts and the determinants of health in these large towers over 30, 35, 40 and 50 storeys. If you have some research around this that you could share with this committee, I'd very much appreciate it.

[Carol Phillips]

We can certainly refer to a number of studies.

David, you may know a little bit more about that.

There are a number of studies—some that originate in Finland and others that are in Japan—that speak to a phenomenon called biophilia where we, as human beings, actually have positive responses to natural materials. It lowers our stress levels.

There is a study that I've heard of—I don't know the source; perhaps you can find it. It was done by the Department of Defense in the U.S. This is a very interesting study because they were looking at stress reduction specifically in the military personnel, which is a huge issue. They were looking at mass timber and natural materials in your everyday environment and how it actually helps to reduce levels of stress in your daily occupancy.

These are studies that perhaps I can help to source. Definitely there are studies out there that speak to wellness, which actually contribute to that.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

Witness Moses, I just wanted to follow-up on the easy access to R and D funding. Something I think about a lot is what kind of environment we are creating in Canada. You mentioned the demonstration projects in just funding. What can the federal government do in that space to drive innovation?

[David Moses]

Currently, one demonstration project that does come to mind is funded through NRCan. That is federal government funding. I would definitely look at piggybacking on that because I think they've done a really great job of administering their program right now and being very critical of the projects that are coming through.

I believe it's been oversubscribed, so there is demand for it. I think that would be a good starting point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, MP Zarrillo.

MP Falk, you have five minutes, please.