Human Resources Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Ministers, thank you so much for coming and thank you for the work that you do on behalf of Canadians.

Minister Fraser, as you've said many times before—and rightly so—the challenges we face as a country on housing are severe. They're urgent. But this is also something that's been unfolding over very many years and over very many governments. It's not something that just happened in the last four or five years.

I appreciate very much what our government is doing with respect to stepping up to the plate, whether it's through the co-investment fund, the rapid housing initiative or the housing accelerator. I'm really proud to be on this committee, which was there when we came out with the national housing strategy, the national housing program, because we do have to act as a federal government. It's incumbent upon us to do so.

I digress here, but in the House, in Parliament, there are times when opposition parties can do opposition motions and sometimes those motions are to flush out who voted. Then you see on social media that they voted against this motion or that motion, and it's all over social media.

Obviously, everybody watching and everybody here knows what we just went through over the last weekend with respect to 31 hours of voting. You know, it's what we signed up for. It happens, and we did it. Those votes could have been done in one package and done very quickly, but they weren't.

What that showed was what the Conservative Party voted against—line by line, item by item. Normally, you wouldn't see that because it would be in a package. What we did see over the weekend was the Conservative Party.... I had expected that maybe some members of the Conservative Party would have said, “No, I can't support that” and there would be three or four votes on the other side, but no, it was voted as a bloc. Maybe they were told that, whipped that, what have you, but they all voted together, and we saw them vote against 71,000 new apartments and 15,500 new homes. We saw the Conservative Party vote against funding for housing for the most vulnerable, housing for veterans, when those groups need it the most.

The Conservative Party was the party that wanted to vote on these line by line so it showed. It showed Canadians, line by line, what they didn't support. That's a fact.

I just wanted to start, Minister, by getting your comments on that. Were you surprised and how did you feel about that over the weekend?

Thank you.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to respond.

The exercise that took place last week was not entirely surprising. You and I, both having been elected on the same day in 2015, have been through this exercise a few times. What I do find surprising is that, as an individual member of Parliament, you have the ability to vote with your conscience, vote whichever way you choose. Most often, as members of different parties share the world view of their party, they will align with that party, but not always. You, in fact, have a reputation, Mr. Long, for going your own way on occasion, and I credit those who have the ability to understand when their community's interests demand that they vote in a certain direction.

One of the things that I found curious about the exercise last week was that despite the fact that there might, for procedural reasons, be a desire to break things down line by line and frustrate the proceedings in the House, there's nothing requiring a party or a member to vote a particular way on any of those line items. In fact, it would be entirely reasonable to say, let's break it all down so we can signal what we do support and what we don't support.

However, when I was reviewing the texts of the motions as we were going through the voting exercise, to see that the Conservative Party had decided that they didn't want to invest in affordable housing was a surprise—although, if you actually do a little bit of research, you'll find that their leader has very brazenly said that Canada should get out of the housing business, as reflected by the position they've held while in government not to invest in affordable housing.

To your opening point, I should say that no party is without sin when it comes to a failure to invest in affordable housing. On the Liberal Party of Canada's part, there were years in which we formed government and we, too, didn't invest in affordable housing in the way we ought to have, and we are living with the consequences today.

However, when I see a continued desire to oppose low-cost financing to build more apartments in this country, direct grants to build more affordable housing, supports for emergency shelters for women and children, supports for veterans who are homeless, supports for indigenous housing to help people who are separated from their home communities, and even more innocuous items that shouldn't be partisan in nature around flood protection for residential areas that will allow us to protect housing that exists or potentially build in different areas, that confounds me.

What I expect happened is not attributable to malice but perhaps to partisanship. When there is a desire to say “no” based on who is proposing a measure without an analysis of whether that measure would help people, I would suggest that it signals a downward trend in the discourse and level of engagement that our constituents deserve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long and Mr. Fraser. That is your time.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, Madam Minister, thank you for being with us.

Mr. Fraser, in the 2023 Fall Economic Statement, there's an additional $1 billion over three years which is earmarked for the affordable housing fund starting in 2025‑26. There's also a new $15 billion earmarked for loan financing starting in 2025‑26.

You know very well, Minister, that there will be a federal election between now and the end of 2025. Therefore, if the government is concerned about affordable and social housing and makes it a priority, how can you guarantee that it will get there?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for the question.

It's important to understand that funds are already available. It is possible to continue to use existing funds to support housing construction. According to the Fall Economic Statement, once these funds have been used, it will be possible to continue making investments with the additional funds that have been announced.

It's also very important to recognize that funds will be available very soon. For example, there will be funds for the development of housing co-operatives in early 2024.

It's important also to see that the funding being put in place now is going to flow to buildings when expenses are incurred, so we can actually book expenditures very soon for projects that are going through the application process, knowing that the funding will actually flow during the construction period. If you're building an apartment complex that will have 300 units, that's usually a multi-year project, so to the extent that we can say today that there is going to be money in place, we're going to be encouraging more builders who are filing building permits and advancing projects before construction starts, knowing that the money will be able to flow. Despite a later start date, we can actually book those expenditures sooner and continue to use money that's in the pipeline already.

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

Minister, I'd like to ask you a question that's perhaps more sensitive, or more political, that goes beyond the numbers.

You know very well that there is a major housing crisis, and the federal government can help improve the situation. We know that this falls under provincial and municipal jurisdiction, but the federal government has decided to make a commitment to affordable housing by adopting the National Housing Strategy. You'll tell me if I'm wrong, but there may be about $40 billion left in the budget linked to the strategy, which means we're halfway to realizing it.

Have you given new directions to this strategy to ensure that programs target affordable housing and social housing, and enable faster and more agile action? If not, we won't succeed. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, says we'll need to build 3.5 million housing units by 2030, and that's without taking immigration into account. The goal is to be nimble and move faster by focusing on social and affordable housing. Strategies are made to be reviewed.

How can we move faster to help people?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for the question.

This strategy does include a requirement to invest in affordable housing, but there are a lot of programs in the National Housing Strategy.

There are some policies that are directly tied to investments in affordable housing, and we can move more quickly by making policy changes, as we did during the rapid housing initiative; however, there are other parts of our response, including some that have been advanced more recently, that are targeted at growing supply more broadly. The apartment construction loan program, for example, provides low-cost financing in exchange for not rent-geared-to-income apartments but rent that will be offered at and below market prices.

Eliminating the GST on new apartments is meant to grow supply more broadly, which jurisdictions that have done similar measures demonstrate will free up more housing across the spectrum, including affordable housing. Some programs specifically target affordable housing; others are more broadly based in their application.

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

I think we all have this concern. The government makes announcements, but you know that it takes five, six or seven years before we can see concrete results. So we need to ensure a good match between the needs and the acceleration of the process.

Acting only on rental housing does not guarantee housing affordability.

What is your opinion on this subject?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please give a short answer.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

My view is that we need to remain for the long term in the business of investing directly in social housing, but we also have to create conditions in partnership with other levels of government, the private sector, the non-profit sector and indigenous leadership to build more housing across the market in addition to the social housing focus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

We have Ms. Kwan for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ministers and officials for being at the committee today.

I want to jump right in. The Bank of Canada has said that investing in community housing, social housing and co-op housing is not inflationary spending. There are a multitude of reports. The Scotiabank report and the Bank of Montreal report, among others, have indicated that Canada is way behind the eight ball with respect to our social housing stock. We are at about 3.5%, and it's not even half of what the other G7 countries are at.

To that end, people are calling for the government to invest in social housing to at least bring us to the G7 average, which is 1.3 billion units. Others, including the housing advocate, are suggesting that we should bring our social housing stock up to 20%.

We know that the Conservatives do not believe in social housing, because their leader has already said on the public record that social housing is “a Soviet-style takeover of housing.” I believe that the minister does not believe that.

To that end, will the government be investing in social housing to at least the level of doubling it, as community advocates are calling for?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thanks very much.

I agree, in fact, that investing in social housing could be deflationary, because it could bring the cost of rent down if you balance the supply and demand equation. The one challenge you have is that if you invest more quickly than the sector can build, it could, in theory, have an inflationary impact, but my view is that we are not in that position today.

A short answer to your question is that I want to significantly increase the proportion of non-market homes in this country. We have not formally broadcast an official target as the Government of Canada. As we work towards releasing new measures in the new year, that is an exercise that I wish to undertake and to share publicly the details of, but not having completed the consultation phase of that conversation, I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the conversations I would have.

Striving for the OECD average seems like one reasonable bar to seek to meet, but until I have an opportunity to engage more broadly with the sector to identify what the appropriate goal for Canada should be and on what timeline, I hesitate to broadcast anything in advance of establishing a formal goal.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I would urge the minister to look at the housing advocate's report, which was just released. The CHRA commissioned Deloitte to do a report. It indicated that productivity gains in the development of social housing would actually yield a return back to Canada's economy to the tune of up to $136 billion. That's a good investment economically and socially. I look forward to the next budget, where the government will make good on those commitments and not just say empty words as we have so often seen.

Municipalities have called the crisis of gender-based violence an epidemic. Is your government planning to restore the $150 million in cuts to shelters? We know that the rates of violence have not decreased since the pandemic. They have actually gone up. This cut will cost lives. Are there any plans to ensure greater investment in shelter funding as a cost-saving measure for people fleeing violence?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

With respect to money for seeking to address homelessness through the Reaching Home program, we made a decision a while back to increase the funding by about $2 billion.

I expect what you're referring to is the pandemic-related increases, when you're talking about cuts. They were designed for a period of time and have been exhausted, and we've returned to the prepandemic levels of funding. We have made decisions, though, to target specific groups, including women, and transitional housing in particular, through different programs. The rapid housing initiative would be a good example. In fact, one of the line estimates we're considering today is specific to shelters for women and children. It will be a part of every policy that I put forward in the future, some of which have not been released publicly, but we will be looking to share more details as policies are ready to roll out. We will always have a focus on each of these policies around protecting the interests of women and children, particularly those fleeing violence.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Very specifically, the shelters are full. Too often, people are turned away. I myself have seen situations where families have been turned away. People are fleeing violence, and because they are unable to secure shelter or housing, they are forced to return to the abuser. That is the reality, and in spite of the lift over the pandemic period, even after the fact we know that violence has actually gone up. If anything, there should be greater investments and not reduced investments. I would absolutely call on the government to look at that, and also to engage with my colleague Leah Gazan, who is very active on this issue. We need the government to take action, because literally people's lives hang in the balance.

I want to ask a question with respect to the federal lands initiative. The government is committing only 30% of that initiative to affordable housing. Why is that? Why isn't 100% of that federal lands initiative being dedicated to community housing for the people? It is, after all, public land that belongs to the people.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Can I ask for a point of clarity on the question?

There are multiple programs that we use to build housing on federal lands. The federal lands initiative is one of them. There was a recent announcement through other programs involving federal lands with Minister Duclos. Are you speaking specifically to the federal lands initiative, or are you including the recent announcement that Minister Duclos would have made?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give a short clarification, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's the federal lands initiative.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I may pass to officials on some of the technical details.

The federal lands initiative is designed to make federal land available, which we then divest to organizations but put additional measures in place to build housing. My view is that we have to make sure that an individual development can work financially by according subsidies.

I actually think mixed-use neighbourhoods that have a range of different incomes provide for healthy outcomes for the people who live in them. I think we should be doing more to insist that more new developments across Canada include a proportion of affordable housing. I do have some hesitancy about insisting that an entire neighbourhood must exclusively be affordable housing, because I don't like the way that neighbourhoods have come to develop when that approach has been taken.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's not going to be a whole neighbourhood. It's one parcel of land.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan and Minister Fraser.

Mr. Aitchison, you have five minutes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you're on record as saying that housing is in a crisis. At this committee, a few months ago, you agreed that we have a crisis on our hands. Your housing accelerator fund is part of a response to that.

My concern with it is that just trying to spend our way out of the crisis is not really going to work, and it's proving that it's not working because it's making things more expensive. It's more expensive to build.

Ideologically, the Liberals want to spend their way out of the crisis, but there are all kinds of examples, such as the federal lands initiative, where the long, arduous process for a piece of property to be declared surplus by the government doesn't really quite capture the need. It takes too long, for one, and then the concept of something being surplus....

I'll give you an example of a post office in Burnaby. I was standing next to it. It was surrounded by residential towers. It was built in the sixties. The condition of it is listed as “poor”. The post office keeps losing money. The city wanted it for a developer to build a new tower there. They would give them space on the main floor for a new post office. The response was, “Well, it's not surplus.” Is that the highest and best use?

Are you familiar with the concept of “highest and best use” in planning, Minister?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Obviously, we're not thinking in terms of highest and best use, which I think would be a more appropriate response to a crisis.

Are you familiar with the project at Fisher Avenue and Baseline Road here in Ottawa, next to the experimental farm? It's been delayed by the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if you have chatted with him about it. There is a 400-hectare farm in the middle of a metropolis of a million people, and the Minister of Agriculture is concerned about a tiny corner of that 400 hectares being affected by shadows, which, most of the time, will be only in December, when things don't really grow at the experimental farm, and yet it's being held up in delays. This is another example of the things that we're....

You're saying you're going to try to push municipalities to get out of the way with your accelerator fund, which is pouring more money. There are all kinds of examples where the federal government could just get out of the way and let the private sector build, but we make it more expensive.

I am wondering if you can help me understand that. In a crisis, it's about literally leaving no stone unturned. I've given you two examples. I can give you another example in the city of Whitehorse. You met with the mayor of Whitehorse last week. I did too. A really aging federal office building is located at 419 Range Road. It's not full. It's surrounded by new schools. The city would like it for housing, and they just keep being told that it's not surplus.

Is it the highest and best use of that land? Is this the response of a government that recognizes we're in a housing crisis? I am struggling here.