Human Resources Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Kevin Lee]

Yes, I would say that certainly programs like CMHC's different financing programs and that sort of thing have been very important.

I'll also say that the Lower Mainland has some of the worst development taxes in Canada, coupled with the GTA, and if we really want to deal with affordability in the Lower Mainland, then we need to do something about development taxes and find other means of funding all the things that development taxes are currently funding. That would go a really long way for ownership, as well as rental.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

Here is my final question for you. Has the federal government support helped improve builders' confidence or long-term planning when it comes to launching new housing projects?

[Kevin Lee]

I think we're starting to get there. There's still a great deal of uncertainty, as we've been talking about through the course of these discussions, and consumer confidence is waning, but again, things like getting those deals signed with other provinces outside of Ontario to deal with taxes—both the sales taxes and the development taxes—can really help to spur the market.

Certainly, in B.C., which is second only to Ontario in really hurting right now for starts and that, those kinds of moves can make a huge difference to start turning the market and giving some confidence to builders, and nothing helps builders' confidence more than having buyers come to the door, ready to make a purchase.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 20 seconds left. Thank you, Mr. Chang.

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My question is for both of you.

What tools would be most effective to encourage the rapid construction of rental housing, without driving speculation, which is a major problem?

[Mike Moffatt]

I think the federal government has done a very good job of that with ACLP and MLI Select and some of the other programs, as well as the tax provisions such as accelerated capital cost allowance and taking the HST off purpose-built rentals.

I do think the one missing piece is that the federal government, during the last election, promised to bring back the 1970s-era MURB program, and they have not indicated whether or not the federal government will make good on that promise. I think implementing that, or at least announcing to builders and developers if that's not going to happen, would create a little more certainty in the market and give builders and developers an idea of the policy areas going forward. Then, obviously, there are my points earlier about immigration.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

[Kevin Lee]

Sorry, did you want me to answer?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You're welcome.

[Kevin Lee]

I would just add that in addition to those things, because there has been quite a bit of additional activity by the federal government to support purpose-built rental, one of the frustrations that our members have really felt is when the rules changed mid-stream.

In some of the programs that CMHC have, as they become oversubscribed, you start to see rule changes that then completely change the designs of buildings or make them non-viable. Really sticking with the game plan and not making so many changes to these financing programs would create that certainty and help more projects move forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What should we do to achieve a little more transparency regarding public assistance?

I invite you to answer quickly in a few seconds.

[Mike Moffatt]

I would say that with programs like Build Canada Homes, it would be having those key performance indicators, showing how many homes will get started—under any definition of start—over what time frame, how many will be market rate versus non-market rate and for the non-market rate, what the price points will be.

It's just that level of transparency that it's difficult for us.... As an analyst I don't know what the federal government is proposing to do, so it's hard for me to analyze whether or not that program is good value for money or if the program is even realistic when it's unclear what the goals, targets and indicators are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

Mr. Reynolds is next, for five minutes, please. This will conclude the first hour: Mr. Reynolds and then Madame Desrochers.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks again, witnesses, for coming today.

Mr. Lee, I wanted to circle back to your discussion on building code. As I mentioned earlier, my background is in construction. I'm a construction electrician. I've been a foreman, a general foreman, on many projects over the last 20 years.

One of the things I've dealt with is the evolution of the Canadian Electrical Code and the building code as well, and one of the things I wanted to ask you is this: I noticed that, at the front of the Canadian Electrical Code book, it shows the list of people who are on the steering committee or the board that influences or adds their input into the Canadian Electrical Code book, and a lot of them are lobbyists or vendors.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that and whether the Canadian building code is structured similarly?

[Kevin Lee]

Certainly, with the electrical code, you see a lot of manufacturers looking to have their particular type of equipment regulated. I won't go too far down the road of arc fault circuit interrupters, a type of electrical plug that's very expensive. It got put into the electrical code a few years ago. We see a lot of lobbying to put different types of things in the code. That's why we talk about the critical need to look at affordability in the building code. It's not a core objective of the building code, and it really needs to be. Affordability needs to be a core objective of all standards the building code calls up, like the electrical code and others, which don't have a requirement to look at affordability.

Given everything going on with our housing crisis, we need the code, and all the standards it calls up, to be much better in terms of cumulative price impacts when all the charges come together. That's because $300 here, $1,000 there and $3,000 there doesn't sound like a lot—until you add it all up. It becomes $50,000 to $100,000 on a new home.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's especially so when you're adding it to the per-suite cost. I was working on a 500-suite student residence. Each one had its own panel, and we had to add arc faults. Yes, it added tremendously to the overall cost of the project and the per-suite cost.

Speaking of the building code and building in Winnipeg, we had to build things that obviously met the National Building Code. In certain cases, this meant meeting earthquake standards. Now, there are no earthquakes in Winnipeg, or hurricanes, high winds or anything like that. Obviously, we have some jurisdictional issues with cold and such.

[A voice]

There are floods.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

There are floods, yes.

How come the National Building Code doesn't have certain codes for certain jurisdictions? Why is it a blanket code across the country—a “build to this standard” thing, even though it's not really applicable in other areas?

[Kevin Lee]

It is, actually, very regionally specific. It has different snow loads, wind loads and seismic stuff for earthquakes. That varies across the country, so you get different requirements.

As I was talking about earlier, that wind load on lateral loads is being done in a way that will apply practically everywhere, but we don't have the scientific and experiential evidence that shows that there's actually a problem there. You do get different regional variances, and that is important, obviously. When it's colder, you need more insulation, to put it in simple terms. It's that kind of thing. However, we have to be smart about what we put in the code and what outcomes we want, so we can take care of affordability at the same time.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I've also seen a significant increase in cost through codes being added in for future EV chargers and things like that. Obviously, the uptake hasn't been that great.

There are certain jurisdictions that are doing better at housing starts in Canada versus others.

Can you comment on the best jurisdictions in Canada and what they might be doing differently that we could adopt in some of the worst—or at least underperforming—jurisdictions?

[Kevin Lee]

Atlantic Canada has been doing well. The Prairies have been doing pretty well. Let's talk about Alberta. That's probably been doing the best over the past couple of years.

First of all, there's no provincial sales tax on housing. That's a good start. Their development taxes have been lower, although they're growing faster than we like to see. That's a bad example. I think they're learning bad lessons from Ontario and B.C. We would like to see that slow down, in some cases. They have a much more elastic.... I'm sorry. I won't use an economic term. They are able to respond to demand a lot faster because they can get shovels in the ground faster...because they can get permits out faster. There's less regulation. The approval system is a lot faster. When the market turns, they're able to respond much more quickly. They also do a pretty good job with building codes and with being consistent across the province.

They have a lot of things going right in a lot of ways that other parts of the country could learn from.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Ms. Desrochers, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, I truly thank you for the wonderful discussion we're having today. Hearing your perspectives has been very enlightening for the committee.

A few weeks ago I met with the Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with them. We had a long discussion about the shortage of skilled labourers and the forecast for the future, which is not looking very good. I know it's uneven, like everything. It's uneven across the country and in different markets.

I'm wondering whether you had the chance to look at what we unveiled last week in the spring economic update, particularly around training 100,000 skilled workers, bringing young people into the trades and, really, having a single-window approach. If you've had a chance to look at that, I'd love to hear your first take on those programs that we are going to be launching and whether you think they're going to help bridge that gap.