Human Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2009

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Who picks up the costs for housing stock that doesn't get better, that evolves downward as opposed to upward? On whose back is it when there are all these bigger costs of siding and shingling and all those bigger things a way down the road at some point?

[Nicholas Gazzard]

The idea is that the reserve, which you referred to earlier on, will take care of that. However, I will say that in many cases those reserves have not been enough, because the standard of construction was very modest to begin with and significant reinvestment will actually be needed. The stimulus money, the $1 billion in stimulus to be cost-shared by the provinces, is a very welcome contribution towards doing that.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you very much.

Geoff, earlier you referred to some public-private partnership thing in the Toronto area. Can you explain exactly what you meant by that? I think you referred to something in Toronto.

[Geoff Gillard]

Yes, I referred to the Toronto Community Housing redevelopment of Regent Park in particular.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So there's money coming into the private sector on what kind of percentage basis?

[Geoff Gillard]

I don't have the percentages at my fingertips, but I can tell you that the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, which is an independent corporation at arm's length from the city, attracted a private developer as a financing and risk-taking partner in that project. It was a large development. It was based on the notion that there would be a more dense development pattern on this site. There would be more of a mix, getting away from the intensive situation--rent geared to income, or all low-income housing--that exists there right now. There'll be a much broader mix, and there will be opportunities for a private sector partner to make money.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Do you think there can be some efficient infusion of funds through these public-private partnerships? Are you positive, or hopeful, in respect to models like that?

[Geoff Gillard]

I would say that one of the keys to the success of that initiative was that it was very well planned. It was planned over a long timeframe. It was also a very large project, and that helped. But I would say that there is much more potential to engage the private sector if we have a planned approach to development than is the case today. I would say that there's much greater potential in this.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I want to get to the issue of pride of ownership a bit. Particularly in 2006, the incidence of core housing need among renter households in Canada was 27.2%, whereas among owner households that same year, the incidence of core housing need was 6.3%. What priority would you give in public policy to supporting private home ownership among low-income households?

That's just a quick question for perhaps a quick response from a couple of you.

[Nicholas Gazzard]

I think you have to realize what that means. What you're looking at is that people who own houses in this country are more affluent and therefore are less likely to be in core need. It's not because they own housing that they're not in core need, but they can afford housing and they probably weren't in core need in first place.

I'm not trying to equalize everybody's level of income, but we have to be realistic. Homeowners tend to be more affluent, it's that simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Lessard for five minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Welcome and thank you for the information you're giving us.

I am quite familiar with cooperatives. In the course of my life, I have had the opportunity, with other people, of course, to establish housing cooperatives, food cooperatives and funeral cooperatives. I've also gone on cooperative development missions in Latin America, in particular. I have a great deal of respect for the work you are doing because it's not always easy. You have to deal with a very restrictive situation.

I listened to you very carefully this morning when you proposed a measure requesting that the provinces account for the transfer payments made for social housing. That's the first measure suggested by the two of you. What somewhat surprised me is not the fact that the provinces should account to the public on how they spend their money, but that you've made it a priority.

Among your reasons for making that proposal, did you consider the fact that the federal government withdrew from subsidizing the provinces for 10 years? From 1992 to 2001, the government made no further transfers, or very few. It did not resume its transfer payments until 2001. Did you consider the fact that, for two decades now, a housing vacancy rate of less than 3% is considered a problem for the least well-off in our society? There are 12 municipalities in my riding, and none of them has a housing vacancy rate over 3%. There's even one where the rate is 0%.

During the time the federal government was not contributing to social housing development, it was the provinces that bore that responsibility in part, thus resulting in deficits for themselves, whereas the federal government used its savings to pay off its debt. From the moment the federal government starts to contribute again, it should automatically return a portion of that money to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Did you consider that aspect? That's my first question.

I'm not defending the position of the provinces, but I think enough money has to be invested in social housing. You must properly respect what has happened and take that into account. The provinces have borne nearly 50%, sometimes three-quarters of the amounts the federal government did not contribute.

In view of the lack of time we have at our disposal, I'm going to ask a second question on the impact of the measures you've proposed. Ms. Markell and Mr. Porter told us that there wasn't just one poverty measure, but several. There are child care centres, of course, transfer payments and employment insurance, in particular. We are going to examine all these measures very seriously with a view to making our recommendations in the House.

In a time of economic crisis, what measure would have the greatest short-term impact on poverty? You may state one measure each.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have about 30 seconds left. I don't know who wants to handle this one.

Mrs. Markell or Mr. Porter.

[Lynne Markell]

You've put me on the hot seat.

I say it would be things that will bring multiple results at the same time. One of the things around co-op housing is not only that you get people housed but that they also get some involvement in running the housing and learning about democratic decision-making. With co-ops, you also get people creating jobs and getting the services, and you learn business skills and how to run something. Things that will have multiple results are very effective right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're almost out of time. We were scheduled to break earlier, but I think this is such an important topic that I want to get as many questions in as possible. Ben, you can have one question, and then Ed, you can have one question, and then we're going to wrap up.

I would appreciate your answering as many questions as possible.

Ben.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I think my colleagues touched on a number of important topics. One thing I want to get your opinion on for our report is this. Our governments do a pretty good job of advertising certain programs—the tax-free savings account, the home renovation tax credit, etc. With this idea concerning poverty and affordable housing, would you recommend or suggest that there be dollars allocated for marketing and, even more, to educate people about where the housing is to be built, and also on the benefits of the housing to Canadians in general?

Could you comment on that?

[Geoff Gillard]

Well, on the second point, Canadians in general—and we talk a lot about this, actually—need to become much more aware of the importance of affordable housing to the full society, that everyone benefits when people are well housed. On that point, yes, I think we would love to see the federal government more active in that area. We are going to be more active in that area.

On the first point, many of our members and Nicholas's members are the people who will take advantage of the programming that we hope to hear announced any day now—the specifics of the program, the specifics of how it will run out. They are chomping at the bit to use those dollars. I don't think, in that case, that it's so much an awareness issue. These are sophisticated organizations, to a large degree, or they're networks that are well informed. It's not that.

Really--and I referred to this--what I'm concerned about is that with the compressed timeframe for the rollout of this program and some tweaking of the existing programs through which the money will be flowed, we could have issues with rolling the money out in that timeframe. There are just practical things, such as building permits and that sort of thing.

Am I off time? I'm sorry.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. The point was not your groups; I understand that completely. I'm talking about the neighbours in the neighbourhoods where the developments are going, because there is misinformation, and there's Nimbyism, whether we like to admit it or not. That's my question specifically: would you recommend that there be dollars allocated for neighbourhood consultations and so forth?

[Geoff Gillard]

Absolutely, and I'll let Nicholas or someone else speak to it as well. I would say that a lot of the focus should be placed on assisting municipalities, municipal staff and councillors, to address this locally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I apologize that we're running out of time.

We're going to move to Mr. Komarnicki for a last question.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'll ask one question out of a series.

In particular, you mentioned that we have $1.7 billion as a legacy fund that services social housing needs. You mentioned in response to Mr. Vellacott that some have been setting aside a reserve for when their agreements run out, and their funding over whatever years the agreements are for. When their funding runs out, some have reserves and some don't for the maintenance and upkeep of existing stock. Has anyone done any research or review of the status of all the existing stock, in terms of agreements that are ending?

[Nicholas Gazzard]

Yes. We're not privy to any of the information, but as I understand it, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is involved in a process with their counterparts at other levels of government to look at what those needs are. The amount of the reserves that have been set aside is very much a function of how much has had to be spent already to fix buildings. For example, in British Columbia, where there has been a major problem with water ingress, a lot of those reserves are gone.

That study will be very important, but I want to be very clear that we don't necessarily agree with the view that there will be enough money for most providers to continue to provide affordable housing. The study is going to show that the $1.7 billion should continue to be provided to ensure that those legacy assets will remain affordable for a future generation of Canadians. Savings alone and reduction in mortgage payments on existing mortgages will not do it. They'll have to refinance to renovate or in some cases completely redevelop the assets.

What we're saying is that you don't need to increase the parliamentary allocation, but don't decrease it either, and start that policy discussion now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I personally believe this is one of the most important issues involving poverty. We realize there are lots of them, but we appreciate the work you're doing on the front lines to bring recognition and to deal with such an important issue. Thank you for being here.

I want to stress to the committee that I have to leave at one o'clock. We have a couple of issues we must deal with, so if you want to, say goodbye very quickly to the witnesses. We have to go back in camera to deal with a couple of housekeeping issues.

Thank you once again for being here.

Oh, we don't need to go in camera. Go ahead.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our guests whether they can provide us with a written answer to the last question I asked concerning priority.

Will you be able to do it? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

As I said, I have to leave in about ten minutes. We have really just one housekeeping issue and, of course, a notice of motion that Mr. Lessard has brought forward, which we have talked about. It has been on the table, and I want to continue to deal with it.

First of all, the committee asked me to draft a letter to send to our whip's office. I have done that. The letter is at translation right now. A copy will be sent out to committee members within the next day or so. I just want you to know that has been taken care of.

The second thing is that I was able to talk to our whip's office and, through your talking to your whip's offices, all our travel has now been approved, with the exception of the west coast swing, which obviously was supposed to happen next week. We'll have to bring that back. We'll talk about doing it in the fall period, but our whip has now approved the east, Toronto, and the conference at Calgary. That is good news. Thank you to everyone for talking to your respective whips on this. It has all worked. We have Toronto, in addition to also making sure that we go east. The dates remain the same.