Public Accounts Committee on May 18th, 2023

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

This may be a somewhat related question. According to the OAG's recommendation 5.74, the CMHC and Infrastructure Canada should “engage with central agencies to clarify accountability for the achievement of the National Housing Strategy targets to eliminate gaps”. In response to that recommendation, CMHC was to clarify and define federal accountability for the national housing strategy's target to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28.

Was the organization responsible for the achievement of the target identified?

[Kelly Gillis]

Again, when this particular audit was done, the transition from CMHC coming in and working with Infrastructure Canada...and the homelessness policy and programs had just moved into Infrastructure Canada. That has been clarified. Under the minister's direction, Infrastructure Canada is responsible for homelessness policy and the program Reaching Home.

However, as the minister already outlined, that can't be done without partnerships. We know that to actually make a difference in homelessness, the partnership we have with CMHC, the partnership we have with provinces and territories.... We have seen a number of provinces and territories recently issue homelessness strategies that are very much aligned and working with us to make a difference. We've recently created a working group with all provinces and territories in support of housing and homelessness, again to align and make a difference.

We all know that to make a real impact on people's lives, it is done at a local level, with all orders of government, the homeless-serving sector and civil society working together.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. I'm afraid that is the time.

I have a request. I'm looking for unanimous consent to give Mr. Morrice two and a half minutes to question the minister. He'll be our last questioner.

Is that acceptable?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It is if he brought donuts.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I hear no dissension.

Mr. Morrice, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the committee for that.

I want to start by sharing this, which I've shared with the minister before: In my community, homelessness has not gone up by 12%; it's gone up by 300%. Our last point-in-time count, in 2015, had just over 300 people. In 2021, that same point-in-time count led to over 1,000 people. I wonder if I could ask for a document to be tabled from officials with this 12% figure. Could that be tabled for the committee? Thank you.

Second, I want to follow up on a question I asked of the minister on Monday night with respect to definitions. The definition of “affordability” is very important. In fact, one of the recommendations from the Auditor General—5.62 on page 33—is this: “Take the necessary steps to align the definitions of affordability for all initiatives so that they are consistent.” Recognizing that, for the co-investment fund, for example, the definition being used is not 30% of income; it's 80% of market rent. Only 30% of the units have to be 80% of market rent.

Can the minister commit, or have actions already been taken—the report came out back in November—to align the definitions, as the Auditor General called for? Ideally, that definition will be the 30% income definition and not this 80% of market rent.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Before I turn it to the officials.... Different programs have different levels of affordability attached to them because they target different people. Look at, for example, the rental construction financing initiative. That's the program that talks about 80% of market rent, whereas the co-investment fund is explicitly talking about 30% or less of household income.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

If that's the case, Minister, do you disagree with the recommendation from the Auditor General?

[Nadine Leblanc]

We have one definition of “affordability” under the national housing strategy. It is 30% of household income spent on housing. When it comes to the affordability requirement in our specific program, that is a function of, as the minister stated, whom we're supporting, as well as the way the program has been constructed between contributions and loans. Our deepest program is the rapid housing initiative. That is 100% contribution, and the requirement of affordability is based on 30% of income.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Minister, at a time when homelessness is tripling and the Auditor General is saying to use one consistent definition, would you not agree it would be best to ensure that all funds go to the lowest-income people, who need those funds the most?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The question suggests that we then, for example, shouldn't purposely build rentals for police officers, paramedics or teachers.

People are being increasingly priced out of the rental markets in the cities they work in. We need to have a national housing strategy that, yes, focuses a lot on the most vulnerable, but we also need more rental supply. Part of the RCFI is about doing that: building more rental supply, but also putting some affordability there—not as deep as, for example, the rapid housing initiative.

You need to have a national housing strategy that meets the needs of Canadians on different parts of the housing spectrum. It's difficult to say that people who work in our cities and who are being priced out of the rental market don't also need help with rentals. That's what we're trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Morrice, I'm afraid that is the time.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, may I ask the minister to table a document related to this question?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If you want to ask about a document being tabled, I will allow that, but not an additional question.

Go ahead.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you for your generosity.

Could I have a list of any projects that have been funded through the national co-investment fund that did not meet the definition of requiring 80% over the next 20 years? Thirty per cent of units need to be 80% of market rent. This is about a list of projects funded that do not meet that definition over the coming 20 years.

[Nadine Leblanc]

We will provide that.

The short answer is that it's part of the design of the program. It is a requirement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. Thank you very much.

Before I excuse the witness, Mr. Desjarlais, you have a point of order.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Chair, as mentioned by the member across the way, we oftentimes forget the requirement for decorum, and I believe that requirement also applies to the witnesses who come to present to us. Although I appreciate the answers of the honourable minister, I do believe his conduct in relation to his challenging of you, the chair of this committee, is unacceptable.

Mr. Chair, I believe that the committee would agree to assist you in your request for an apology.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This is not something I really want to get into for too long.

Minister, I've done everything I can to ensure that the proceedings run smoothly. I did find your comments directed to me somewhat disrespectful, and when you disrespect the chair, you're disrespecting the committee. Is this something you would care to address?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I didn't intend to disrespect you. I was trying to say that I was finished with my answer. It was not directed towards you, and if it came across like that, I do apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Minister.

You're all excused. I appreciate your time.

I will say as well, Minister, that, as some of the government members said, it is uncommon for this committee to hear from ministers, so we do appreciate your coming before us today to answer our questions. We appreciate it.

With that, I'll bid you adieu and thank you very much. We'll see you in the House at some point.

I will suspend for a few minutes so we can go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]