Transport Committee on May 21st, 2024

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I'm wondering, Minister, about this. In my home province of Quebec, there is the M-30 law, which you alluded to earlier. How is your ministry working with the Province of Quebec to see how the Canada housing infrastructure fund could benefit that province? What is the relationship like? What are the conversations like?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It's been very positive in my experience in dealing with my Quebec counterparts since I've had this portfolio, and in fact before. I find that for the most part, they want the same thing. They want to address the housing crisis as a provincial government, and they would like federal support to do it.

As a result of certain changes that make it more difficult to engage directly with communities, it can sometimes go more slowly than I would like or more slowly than it does with other provinces. However, ultimately, if we can find a partner at a provincial level who's willing to make certain kinds of changes, then we get a better deal.

There's an irony behind lots of these funds. Because they tend to be in areas of provincial jurisdiction, lots of the changes that are incentivized—though we have the authority to do it in this fashion—could be made by provincial governments without federal support; however, they weren't happening. We're creating incentives to inspire those kinds of changes, because we know that as a direct and predictable result, there will be more homes built as a consequence.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

How am I doing on time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have two minutes left, Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

We also know the importance of tying infrastructure dollars to building more homes near public transit. You've alluded to this in your answers to several questions. Can you share with the committee the importance of creating high-density housing close to rapid transit, and are those asks by various jurisdictions, provinces, territories?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

This doesn't seem to get a lot of push-back, because most people see the good sense behind moving forward with this kind of an approach. The conversations will vary between provinces or in a given city, but I think it's going to be successful, for two main reasons.

One, there's a lot of money being put on the table in exchange for commitments to change certain rules, pursuant to my last answer, that will result in more homes being built.

Second, transit systems don't work if people don't live nearby to use them. If you actually increase density within walking distance to a transit system, you're setting up a system for success that won't require continued support for its operation, because it can be self-financing. If people who use the system live within walking distance of the system, more people will use it.

When you have those ridership numbers climbing up, the ability to fund and maintain the assets within the system will become much easier and the funding will be much more reliable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

Thank you very much, Minister and Deputy Minister, for appearing before us today and for so generously answering the questions posed by members.

Colleagues, I see the bells are ringing for a vote, so we will suspend until the vote is over, at which time we will welcome members of the department.

With that, the meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, appearing before us in the second half of today's meeting, we have, from the Office of Infrastructure of Canada, Kelly Gillis, deputy minister; Janet Goulding, senior assistant deputy minister, community policy and programs branch; Alison O'Leary, senior assistant deputy minister, communities and infrastructure programs; Michelle Baron, assistant deputy minister, corporate services and chief financial officer; Marco Presutti, assistant deputy minister, investment, partnerships and innovation; and Lindsay Boldt, senior director, strategic policy.

I believe we have agreement to limit our questioning to one round.

We will begin that line of questioning with you, Mr. Davidson. The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Oh, good morning, or good afternoon. Look at that. We are pushing the day along here.

Could someone answer a relatively simple question? According to Stats Canada, what is the fastest-growing area in Canada now?

[Kelly Gillis]

There are a number of fast-growing areas in Canada, according to StatsCan. I don't have the exact community that is the fastest growing, but I have a—

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The number-one fastest-growing community is actually East Gwillimbury in my riding of York—Simcoe, which I call the soup and salad bowl of Canada.

The minister was here earlier, and he said that the housing accelerator fund will address the housing crisis in this country and across the country. However, all of the northern six municipalities in York region received no housing accelerator funds, which is very concerning to me as a member of Parliament standing up for York region.

I had all six mayors reach out to me. They were very concerned about this. I'll tell you why this matters to me. I think everyone here would agree that the carbon tax affects rural Canadians disproportionately to urban Canadians. I'm in a riding where we have no subway, no transit and no streetcars. That matters, because the riding of the minister who was just here has been rolled back to rural as a result of census data, and my riding is now classified as Toronto.

That matters to me when I look at the housing funds because, first of all, we don't get the rural top-up now, which is very concerning for me. We are classified as Toronto. If the federal government is going to classify us as Toronto.... We didn't receive any housing accelerator funds, but Toronto received half a billion dollars' worth. I have a first nation in the middle of Georgina Island, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, that is on a boil water advisory. We're lacking infrastructure funds for that. We have no housing funds and we're not getting the rural top-up on the carbon tax.

I'm just trying to set the picture as to why people in my community feel like we're on the outside looking in. I wonder if you could comment on why none of the northern six municipalities in York region received any funds.

[Kelly Gillis]

I can't comment on the six in particular. What I can say is that in budget 2024, there was an additional top-up for the housing accelerator of $400 million, so additional communities will get funding from that particular program.

However, that isn't the only program for housing. In budget 2024, there are a number of different programs that communities can avail themselves of that will benefit and incentivize the building of housing.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I don't want to interrupt, but for example, the town of Georgina.... From a recent announcement, we've learned that out of 544 applications for the federal housing accelerator fund, only 179—approximately one-third—were selected for funding. Asking municipalities to dedicate significant resources to prepare this complex application with a low chance of success would seem to not be in the public interest.

That's from my mayors. They spent an enormous amount of resources with third parties. That matters because the smaller communities that are applying for these funds from the federal government are spending enormous resources on third parties that we don't want to see municipalities spending money on. The minister talked about fees going up and taxes going up. Now we're spending huge amounts of money to apply for these applications, and the towns aren't even receiving the funding.

The mayors have all told me that when they reach out to the government for a response on this, there is no response. They just didn't qualify, but they don't tell you why you didn't qualify.

Again, in the big picture, that matters because this Liberal government has increased the public service by 40%, yet we're seeing worse outcomes for communities like mine.

I'm trying to lay the picture out here for everyone and so that my colleagues across the table understand. In York—Simcoe, which is one of the fastest-growing ridings in Canada, we are on the outside looking in.

I wonder if you could comment on this. It's another example of red tape preventing meaningful projects from being funded in our communities.

[Kelly Gillis]

Thanks for the question.

What I can say is that with the work being done, they might have an opportunity to use the application for the additional $400 million, and also use the thinking or thought process that went into that application to benefit from the changes. They might be able to expedite the building of housing in their community and benefit from the work.

CMHC has also posted best practices from the housing accelerator fund to have a larger ripple effect from the lessons learned by communities that are advancing different initiatives, in order to have an impact in communities beyond those that were funded.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The Town of Georgina, for example, applied to the green and inclusive community buildings program, but they were not selected for funding. In the letter, your department provided a contentious explanation for why they were not selected. There was no opportunity for them to clarify or even follow up on the application. I had a direct call from the mayor of Georgina on this. It was very concerning, in that they spent thousands of dollars on external consultants to provide the necessary energy reports. This was very involved, as you said. They were told the information was not satisfactory, and that was the justification for denying the funding.

I'm speaking here on behalf of the residents of Georgina who are asking why, again, they were denied on this. They were denied on the housing accelerator fund and denied on the rural top-up. I'm trying to show you the urban-rural divide that this government currently doesn't seem to understand. That's becoming very concerning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Give a 15-second response, please. We're over time.

[Kelly Gillis]

For the green and inclusive community buildings program, again, there was a top-up. Both of these programs were significantly oversubscribed, and that's why there was a $500-million top-up. That application can be looked at again through the additional funds provided in budget 2024.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Gillis.

Next we have Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

Pardon me, Mr. Rogers. I believe you're on mute, sir. We'll get you to restart.

Perhaps, colleagues, if you'll permit me, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval while we sort this out.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gillis, thank you for joining us.

The last federal budget stated that the federal government aims to tax vacant land, which the minister also mentioned earlier in his speech. Generally speaking, it is up to municipalities to tax properties, since that falls under their jurisdiction.

Do you have a legal opinion on the constitutionality of such a measure?

[Kelly Gillis]

We are not proposing a land tax measure.

We want to use properties to build affordable housing, and we want to see how we can work with other levels of government to provide access to housing using federal properties in various provinces.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

The budget makes it very clear that it intends to tax vacant lands. Is there a legal opinion on the constitutionality of such a measure?

[Kelly Gillis]

That tax should be subject to a consultation with the Department of Finance. I don't have the details of that proposal.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Very well.

The last budget also mentions that you intend to work with the provinces so that they comply with the National Building Code if they want to make changes to their own code. I know that Quebec has its own building code, but not all provinces do.

Have you already drawn up a list of the changes you would like to have made to the building codes of each province?

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of codes and standards, a task force is working with the National Research Council of Canada, as well as with resources from all the provinces and territories. It will complete its work in December 2025. The provinces and territories will then have the power to adopt the codes that were jointly established.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I'm trying to understand. You're telling me that the task force will finish its work in December 2025, but that negotiations are currently under way with cities and especially with provinces to obtain funding. With regard to the notorious Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, changes to the provincial building codes are being requested, but we don't know what those are yet. So the provinces have to accept an unknown quantity.