Human Resources Committee on June 6th, 2022

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, before we go back to questioning the witnesses on the study at hand, I just wanted to turn back to our guest of one week ago, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, and the issue of passports.

I was very pleased to see my colleague, Ms. Gladu, prominently featured in the media and asking not only about service delays to this point, Chair, but what the plans are for the future. With that, Mr. Chair, I am presenting a motion and putting it on notice here today, right now, so that the wishes of not only Ms. Gladu but all Canadians can be fulfilled in making sure the government is staying on track with passport delivery and all services coming out of Service Canada.

I have it here, Mr. Chair, in both official languages. The motion is as follows:

That, given the recent reports of passport renewal delays, the committee send for, from Service Canada, a weekly progress report including the number of passport requests in the previous week; the number of passports cleared in the previous week; the current backlog; the number of express passports processed in the previous week for travel within 25 days; the number of express passports processed in the previous week for travel within five days; and a resumé of trends over the last four weeks.

Mr. Chair, as a former consul for Canada, I would also be interested in seeing these numbers.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will now pass the opportunity to ask questions to Mr. Liepert.

Thank you very much.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you to all the witnesses this morning.

Cathy, I have a quick question and then I'm going to see if there's still time, as my colleague might have another question for the witnesses.

Despite what we heard this morning from our guest from Hamilton, the thing I continually hear from developers and construction folks in Calgary is about the delays and the costs associated with municipal regulations and barriers. It seems like it's a blame game. The contractors blame municipalities. Municipalities, to some degree, blame the province. The province blames the feds, and the feds end up blaming everybody else combined, hence the accelerator fund.

The minister was here last week, and I'm not sure I got the right answer. I'd like to hear from you what municipalities can do from a measurement standpoint to see.... If this accelerator fund was designed to clear away some of the hurdles, how is it going to be measured to make sure we're actually getting there and getting value for our money?

[Cathy Heron]

That's a great question. I agree there is always a blame game.

The Alberta provincial government has been very focused on red tape reduction. In its attempt to reduce provincial red tape, a lot of it has been downloaded as red tape onto municipalities. We are constantly being asked to jump through hoops to achieve the province's goals. It's probably a question for the planning department at my municipality, but I can tell you that at the municipal level, our goal is to act, especially in a mid-sized city range.

I'd like to add that a lot of the housing product ends up in the bigger cities of Edmonton and Calgary, yet you have good projects in my municipality, right on the outskirts. We have a piece of land in our downtown core that we're giving to our housing foundation. They'll need to make it mixed housing. It can't be completely subsidized, because we need some of the market housing to offset the below-market. If this accelerator fund can help those foundations increase the number of doors, then we're bringing it.... The same number of doors are being developed, but it'll create a higher percentage of those that are subsidized versus those that are not.

As for the red tape reduction, our level of government—I can quite proudly say—has worked very hard. This is such a priority for us. I'm currently in Regina, at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. This was the number one topic we spoke about during the entire five-day conference: how to get more housing product out, and what we can do as municipalities—things like parking regulations. We can and should be doing that.

We can create tool kits, if you need them, to help municipalities adjust their realm of responsibility and work more closely with the provincial government. I think that's always key: working closely.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Liepert, your time has concluded. Thank you for your question.

Thank you, Ms. Heron, for the answer.

Mr. Van Bynen, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Coteau. If you could stop me at two and a half minutes, I'd appreciate that.

My question is for Ms. Heron.

What criteria do you think should be used to determine which municipalities can access the building funds, that is, either the municipality or their housing service providers? I know there are different needs in different municipalities. There was a suggestion that these funds could be distributed on the same basis as the gas tax distribution.

What are your thoughts on that, and what should the criteria be? What should the measurable, achievable, realistic and controllable goals be that the municipalities should sign on to in order to be eligible for those funds?

[Cathy Heron]

That's a great question, but I'm not exactly sure I would focus on the same measure as the gas tax, because the needs are different in different municipalities.

One of the things that I think would really be beneficial in getting more housing on the market is a regional approach. For example, in my area, we have the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board. We work together, as a board, to address our priorities for transportation. Then we submit a list to the province and say, “These are the projects we would like funded.” That could absolutely happen with a housing file. Each municipality identifies its needs and projects.

Doing this with a regional approach also distributes the housing among municipalities. Right now, in a municipality such as mine, if I can't house people, they end up in Edmonton, which contributes to a lot of the social problems happening in the bigger cities.

I think that would be a great criterion. I also think it's the ability to get it out there fast.

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

I wonder if Mr. John or Mr. Thorne could answer that question, as well.

[Jason Thorne]

Yes, I'll add one quick comment.

One thing I like about the gas tax model is the certainty and predictability of the funding. I think that's really important, especially in something like development approvals, which you're in for the long game. That predictability of funding would be key.

In terms of what municipalities must do to access funding, in the first part of the question, I would suggest that it's reasonable to have some policy gateposts in place. There isn't much point in the federal government's putting funding into missing middle housing if municipal zoning bylaws do not permit missing middle housing. I think having those types of policy gateposts in place would be a reasonable expectation of municipal partners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

As requested, Mr. Coteau will have the last two and a half minutes.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Thorne, you mentioned brownfield sites being used to increase supply. I know that in Toronto, the Canary District, for example, was built on contaminated property. It really transformed that area of the city. I've always looked at brownfield sites as huge opportunities. According to a recent report I read, there are about 30,000 brownfield sites across Canada.

You mentioned putting grants forward to help developers purchase land, but I've also heard from people involved in industry that there's been concern over long-term litigation from contaminants, so there's getting the right insurance policies, and sometimes they are not available.

Are there issues like that, or other issues you've encountered as a planner, that make brownfield sites harder for developers to use and cities to utilize?

[Jason Thorne]

Certainly, for some of the larger brownfield sites, off-site impacts and de-risking the off-site impacts become a significant issue. For a lot of what we see in Hamilton, though, when we talk about the brownfield sites, it's less about the large-scale former industrial sites. You see a lot of old dry cleaners and gas stations. Those types of uses are deep in the urban fabric. They're smaller parcels of contamination issues that are not as significant as major former industrial sites.

Those are a lot of the ones we tend to invest in with regard to the grants we put forward and the tax grants we put in for site remediation and cleanup costs. Those smaller-scale sites in particular, given that you're going to get a smaller-scale development project on those sites, provide very little in the way of financial resources to fund those sorts of cleanups on their own.

Again, these older gas stations and dry cleaners are two common ones, and they tend to be in locations that are very amenable to infill intensification. They're often on some of our urban transit routes and are really ideal locations for redevelopment, but financial support is needed to overcome that initial brownfield barrier.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Do you see that as a huge opportunity for the government to invest in? Could brownfield site cleanups potentially be one of the components of an accelerator fund?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give a short answer, please.

[Jason Thorne]

Okay.

Yes, they could. It is certainly one of the most successful programs we've had in our municipality. As I said earlier, it's somewhere around 20 years that we have had those programs in place. They have been quite successful in bringing lands to market that we otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

However, we are limited in terms of our own resources. What we grant back to the developer is a component of the tax uplift that their development creates. That's a limited pool of funds. It is limited by the uplift that's created. Certainly, other funding partners in a program like that would allow us to expand the scope and reach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau and Mr. Thorne.

We will go to Madam Chabot, after which Madam Zarrillo will conclude the questioning.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Demers, we have received Ms. Edith Cyr, from the organization Bâtir son quartier, which you probably know. She gave us an important message: this $4 billion fund over five years, which aims to create 100,000 new housing units, is focused on supply, whereas it is demand that is strong in terms of affordable rental housing.

I also share the view that the focus should be on social and community housing developers, because the private market, in our view, doesn't really need to be subsidized. It is self-sufficient.

In your opinion, should a percentage of this fund be dedicated to affordable rental housing? If so, what should that percentage be? What is your opinion on that?

[Anne Demers]

That's a very good question. I can give you my opinion, but I don't have specific data to give you.

We agree on the importance of managing the balance in terms of housing supply. However, there is currently an incredible increase in need not only among low-income citizens, but also among middle-class citizens. It is therefore imperative that the program is able to meet much of this need.

No society or community wants to have citizens who are homeless. Therefore, a strong social safety net is needed to prevent an increase in homelessness and to ensure a housing mix.

A large part of the program must therefore serve to meet these needs.

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

I have one last question, which will be brief.

I would like to take advantage of your presence to ask you whether there are any particularities that we should take into account regarding people with disabilities.

[Anne Demers]

We must be able to meet their needs. These people must have access to adapted housing at a reasonable cost. They must be able to maintain their living environment by staying in their neighbourhood. We have to think about redevelopment and creating a directory.

Earlier, predictability was mentioned. We need to offer predictability not only in terms of the funding of these programs and the measures that support them, but also in terms of meeting the needs of people with disabilities and seniors, given the demographic changes.

We have to be able to anticipate our ability to adapt in response to these changing needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot and Ms. Demers.

Now we have Madam Zarrillo with the last questions, for two and half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question will be for Mr. John.

I want to thank the witnesses today, because the witness testimony is so powerful in these committees. One sentence can lead to a recommendation, can change a recommendation or can change the path of the housing accelerator fund. This housing accelerator fund came to this committee for study, and it is our opportunity to impact what that might look like.

Going back to the idea that perhaps the goal of the fund is not clearly stated and it is not necessarily meeting the need for core housing or what is needed right now, I want to ask Mr. John about the criteria.

We had the Minister of Housing here last week. I asked him about accessible housing, and I was told that a portion of any housing that's funded through the housing accelerator fund would need to be accessible. Madame Chabot has brought up affordability many times. What are those criteria? What do they look like?

I guess I would ask you, Mr. John, what you have heard. Is there a clear understanding of what the criteria are to access this funding? Do you have a definition for affordable housing and accessible housing that should or could be in this funding criteria?

[Edward John]

I think during my opening comments I talked about flexibility, because I think we need to deliver housing that's right for the community and where it will reside. When it comes to the definitions, as much as they will provide predictability, we are looking for that flexibility.

Surely the fairest definition of affordability is that it meets the needs of the individual. It is based on their ability to pay for that unit. I think that would be the fairest approach to that.

Similarly, when it comes to tenure, I know Hamilton has a great need for rental tenure, particularly accessible rental tenure. Often, those with disabilities struggle to find rental tenure that meets their needs.

I would push that many of those options are determined at the local level. What I would really stress is that it not be a punitive approach. Guidelines around predictability are important, but I think, instead of looking at punitive measures, what you do is look towards bonusing those who are taking this fund, leveraging all other abilities as a municipality to deliver on local housing need.

Ultimately, any opportunity to take a sum of money and then demonstrate in response back to the federal government how we have taken that money, leveraged it and delivered on local housing needs should be a priority and a bonus opportunity as opposed to a punitive approach where every municipality is forced by the requirement for a certain percentage of accessibility or a certain definition of affordability.

I think there's an opportunity there to work flexibly within the system, providing clear guidelines but also allowing the bonus of the ability within the municipality to demonstrate where they have shown leadership and commitment to the individual housing needs of their community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

Just quickly, Mr. Thorne, you mentioned REITs. I just want to get an understanding of how REITs might be impacting your community.