Evidence of meeting #24 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 affordable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Benoit Dorais
I've already mentioned that 50% of the federal funding should be reserved for large municipalities and large cities in Canada, and that 50% should be allocated among the other municipalities. The reality in Quebec is different in the regions.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My final comment to Mr. Collin is that it's good seeing you again.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Ruff.
Now we'll go to Mr. Long to conclude this hour's questioning.
Mr. Long, please go ahead for five minutes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Long.
Mayor Taylor, as a mayor of a municipality, could you share with the committee some of the main challenges facing the municipalities that impact the processing of construction applications? We keep hearing that there's too long of a development cycle.
How can the federal government support municipalities to accelerate the housing construction process? Only as three examples, could there be things like changes to building codes which would require secondary dwelling units; should we fund additional staff for processing applications; or should we fund something along the lines of an end-to-end process review to streamline the development processes at the municipal level?
12:55 p.m.
John Taylor
I would quickly say none of the above. I think it's an absolute myth that has developed and caught hold in Ontario and in the media that the problem with supply and affordability has to do with municipal processes. I utterly reject that concept.
If you wanted to direct money to support, let's say, the housing provider, in a very specified way that wasn't around actual building, I would do it in a way that provided dollars to service providers or larger urban centres to support not-for-profits to work through the process themselves. They struggle with planning and with architecture fees and with the capacity to do it.
There are a lot of not-for-profits and faith-based groups out there who want to step into this need, but don't have the dollars and sophistication to do it. If we were funded to support them, we could maybe accelerate some housing that way.
However, I believe strongly that spending $4 billion to try to improve municipal process is really not the right way to go.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
I want to thank my fellow member.
My question is for all the mayors, but I'd first like to hear Mr. Dorais's response.
I'm pleased to see my former colleague again virtually, in Ottawa.
My question will be about funding provided to municipalities. All three of you mentioned how important it was for the funding to be given directly to the municipalities, because they are familiar with local problems and needs. None of you mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, and I would like to have your opinion on something.
Could the FCM be a useful vehicle for distributing the funding to municipalities, while respecting the issue of rural areas compared with large urban centres?
I give the floor to Mr. Dorais.
1 p.m.
Benoit Dorais
Thank you very much for your question. It's also a pleasure to see you again virtually.
I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of the FCM being a vehicle or entity. That said, I admit that I don't see the benefits at first glance. Certainly, I think that municipalities should receive funding through as few intermediaries as possible. In Quebec, there's certainly a specific characteristic related to the Privy Council.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
At this time, in your opinion, how could the money be provided directly to municipalities in Quebec, for example?
How could that be done?
1 p.m.
Benoit Dorais
Indeed, that's the difficulty that we often see in Quebec. There are exceptions, of course, that can be obtained from the Privy Council. It might be necessary to look at the terms with the FCM. That said, the exercise is still quite cumbersome concerning a number of FCM and Canadian government programs.
There are certainly some benefits. It could be analyzed more carefully. The FCM may be a useful intermediary. That said, it doesn't resolve everything. There are still glitches for some programs in which the FCM is the intermediary.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Manager, City of Saint John
If I may, Saint John thinks very highly of FCM. In fact, they have funded several consultant-type projects for us, albeit not necessarily to do with affordable housing. I don't personally see a need for another intermediary, and I'm not sure they would have the staffing horsepower to act as that intermediary, in any event, for a project as large as the housing accelerator program that we're speaking about here today.
There's still very much a strong preference to finding a way for direct funding from the federal government into the municipalities, without additional intermediaries and without additional documentation and justification required to all sorts of different entities.
May 16th, 2022 / 1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Madame Martinez Ferrada.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing today and for providing the valuable testimony that you have during your time in this meeting. You can see that an hour is a short period of time for this very important topic.
Before the committee adjourns, I would ask for a few minutes on committee business to consider a request that this committee has received from FINA.
The witnesses may leave.
Committee members, could give me your indulgence for five minutes?
On Thursday, FINA, the finance committee, adopted a motion inviting HUMA to consider the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32, of Bill C-19. This would have to be done by Friday of next week, if we are going to consider it.
The finance committee will still review the sections of the bill in clause-by-clause, amend it where they choose and approve it. HUMA is being asked to review it and provide recommendations, if we so choose. Having said that, if we're going to do it, we would possibly have to sit during the constituency week.
I'm at the direction of the committee members. The finance committee will still review it.
Madame Chabot has her hand up, and next is Madam Kusie.
We have Madame Chabot.
1 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
As you know, this is a 500-page bill with a lot of sections. It's referred to as an omnibus bill, but it's the budget implementation bill.
The provisions in question, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of part 5 of the bill, are related to employment insurance. In my opinion, it's entirely appropriate for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to examine this part and hear from witnesses.
The Standing Committee on Finance is correct in offering us the opportunity to study these sections. I agree with that.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with my colleague from the Bloc that this is relevant to our committee, but I think the time frame is very unfair. Two weeks is not a lot of time, really, for this, and for the weight of the issues that we're considering.
I'm seeing nodding in response to that point.
With regard to EI and EI benefits, as my colleague pointed out, they're amending the Canada Labour Code. These are significant things. As well, I'm sure it's very important to Ms. Zarrillo, as the EI appeal board is something that will allow those whose claims are denied to have their opportunity to say....
This is significant. I think it merits not only our rescheduling of the meeting on Thursday to evaluate this, but also two meetings next week. I think three would be the bare minimum that we could do to provide justice to this issue. I also think, when we're dealing with such sweeping, impactful legislation, that the ministers have to be accountable. In my opinion, that includes Labour, Finance and ESDC.
Mr. Chair, I really don't want to waste a lot of time going back and forth. I think Madam Martinez Ferrada is always pretty clear in her mind about what her team has been informed of and what they're willing to do. I'm asking for three meetings.
I'm seeing agreement here. I can't tell from Madam Zarrillo on the screen.... Then, as I said, those three ministers....
Could Madam Martinez Ferrada respond as to what the government had in mind? If they put this time frame in front of us, then I'm sure they have an idea as to what they're willing to do. Then, I guess, we'll leave it to the decision of the committee to decide if they find acceptable what the government suggests, which I hope will be what I've suggested and what this merits, especially given the time frame.
Thank you, Chair.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Just before Madam Martinez Ferrada comments, we do realize that meetings could be scheduled only if support is available for the committee.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Yes, and to that, Chair, government business always takes precedence, so I do hope the clerk will recognize that as well.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
We can put the request in if the committee chooses to meet on this—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
—because we can just hear witnesses on this and provide input. We cannot amend or change anything through the process.
Are there any other comments?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, from what I understand, we would need to hear from witnesses and submit our recommendations before May 27, which would not give us much time. I don't see how we could add three meetings to the schedule, given the committee's resources. Indeed, it's an important topic, but I don't even know if we could add a single meeting to the schedule. It's not that I'm not willing. The problem really is the schedule and availability of House resources.
Now, it might be something that the committee could study in the future. Regardless, we could not make any amendments to the measures to be studied in committee. I therefore propose that we put forward a committee motion on this and that we come back to the discussion later. However, I don't see how we could do it within the time proposed.
In closing, it must be remembered that this is being studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, which is at the stage of clause-by-clause consideration.
They are spending all their hours next week to do this before May 27, where all the parties are represented.
