Evidence of meeting #55 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was affordable.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Eddy  President, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
Geoffrey Gillard  Acting Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
Dewey Smith  Senior Policy Advisor-Housing, Housing and Infrastructure Directorate, Assembly of First Nations
Don Hutchinson  Vice-President and General Legal Counsel, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Julia Beazley  Coordinator, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
David Lyman  Representative, Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations
Joshua Bates  Policy Advisor, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Michael Shapcott  Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute
Michael Buda  Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We have new witnesses coming. Depending on what the committee wants to do, I would be more than happy to bring back witnesses at another point in time. This is what we discussed.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

There are other witnesses?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Yes. I really believe we're going to spend a couple of weeks on this.

Mr. Savage, you have the floor, sir.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Colleagues, we were closing in on a consensus, I think.

I'll wait until I get everybody's attention.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Colleagues, let's suspend for one minute.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I would ask all the members to grab a seat again.

Mr. Savage has the floor.

Go ahead, Mike.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you very much.

We've been looking at a motion that was put forward by Tony Martin some time ago. It deals with poverty and has gone through a number of iterations. On Tuesday we were kind of closing in on a consensus as a committee, and the clerk has given us some wording.

In discussions I've had with Mr. Martin, in discussions we've had with people from around the country who are trying to deal with poverty, and in trying to make a statement to follow up on a statement in 1989—which was endorsed by all parliamentarians but on which we didn't reach a consensus—he has added a different line at the end, a line I fully support, and I hope all members of the committee can agree to it.

I don't want to hold up our witnesses who have taken time to be with us on this bill. It's my hope that we can achieve a consensus on this and pass it. If not, we'll have to figure another way to do it, Chair, but with November 24 closing in on us—this is the anniversary date—it's very important. We're going to be travelling that week.

We only have a couple of opportunities to get this through, and I think it's very important that we get it done. So I ask for the consensus of the committee, or perhaps we can have just a straight vote on it.

Thanks.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I have a bunch of names now. I have Mr. Komarnicki, Ms. Chow, and Mr. Lessard.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

If we want to proceed with this today, I certainly want to speak to it much further than I am right now. Further to what Mr. Savage said, we weren't closing in on a consensus. We had reached a consensus. It was a question of drafting that consensus, and when I last spoke to Mr. Martin, it remained at the consensus stage.

This is not a consensus; this is an addition of an element. For someone to vote at the moment, without doing any research or having any basis for understanding the implications and consequences of an amendment such as this, would not be appropriate at this hour. I would ask that it be deferred to another meeting.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I'm just going to ask the question, then. Can we go ahead and put this on the agenda for Tuesday? We're going to clause-by-clause on Tuesday when we come back.

Go ahead in response. Then we'll go back.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I would accept that because we do have witnesses, as long as there's a commitment from all parties that we will deal with it and have a vote with a motion at the very next meeting of this committee.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We will put it on the agenda. Clause-by-clause should not take the whole meeting on the following Tuesday.

Ms. Chow.

November 5th, 2009 / 4:45 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Chair, Mr. Martin told me to come to this committee.

Yes, I was listening to the emerging consensus at the last meeting. I was listening to the discussion. What I believe occurred was that Campaign 2000 then subsequently had a meeting and insisted it was very important, that there are some timelines and some targets and that it was critically important to have that as part of the motion. What they are afraid of is a repeat of what happened 20 years ago when there was really no set percentage, etc., in the motion that was passed in the House of Commons. So they wish to have this 50% reduction by 2020.

Mr. Martin asked me to come and vote in favour of this motion that is in front of you. There is a real concern that if we delay it any further there would not be any more consensus in two weeks from now than there is now. My suggestion is that we do not defer this motion. We do have from now until 5:30. Let's attempt to see whether we can in fact deal with this motion today.

If we are not able to do so, then perhaps we may have to come back on Tuesday, not next week, but the week after. By that time, if the motion is adopted that Tuesday and is reported to the House on the Thursday, it is mightily close to November 24, and it would be terrible if we could not get some kind of statement through the House by November 24.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do right now. We have witnesses here. It's apparent that we're not going to get a consensus because of the new motion.

I'm going to suggest that the second hour on the Tuesday when we get back be devoted to this motion. In the first hour, we'll do clause-by-clause. That way, we can take care of both those things, and if we come to a resolution in the meantime, we'll still be able to report it back to the House. But we do have witnesses.

Go ahead, Mike.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I agree with you on that.

The only thing I would ask is that we do this in the first hour. The clause-by-clause is not nearly as time-sensitive as this motion.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Why don't we do that?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

If we can commit the first hour of our next meeting to this motion, and if Ed and my colleagues are okay with that, then let's hear our witnesses.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay. That will be in the first hour on Tuesday.

We can get going.

I apologize to the witnesses. This is just part of what happens in our parliamentary life here.

I know you were sitting in on the last session. We're going to give you seven minutes each. I'm going to start with David Lyman.

Thank you for taking the time to be here. You have seven minutes. I'll give you the two-minute signal, if you need, and then we could across, and then start with questioning. We have right until 5:30 today.

So thank you very much, and the floor is yours.

4:50 p.m.

David Lyman Representative, Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations

Thank you.

It is my pleasure to be here before this committee. I thank you very much for the invitation.

The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, CFAA, is the national voice of Canada's private residential rental sector, advocating the interests of the industry to the Government of Canada. We represent the owners and managers of close to one million residential rental suites in Canada through 17 landlord associations across the country.

We believe that a healthy rental housing market contributes greatly to Canada's national well-being and economic prosperity. We believe that landlords, tenants, and taxpayers have a common interest in free rental markets, in fair taxation of residential rental property, in high industry standards for customer service, and in housing assistance that supports tenants' rights to choose their housing and to move when and if they please.

CFAA is in favour of the creation of a national housing strategy. Getting all interested parties, including the private housing sector, the non-profit community, and others around the table to develop a national housing strategy that helps to establish means to provide adequate housing to all Canadians would be a fine and, frankly, a necessary endeavour.

But CFAA would hope that those discussions would include how to make rental housing more affordable through tax policy changes, and more attractive through removing long-standing biases that favour home ownership over rental housing, to its detriment.

A national housing strategy must fit well as part of a broader poverty reduction strategy. In particular, the national housing strategy should include a universal entitlement to a portable housing allowance.

As proposed in the bill, CFAA supports providing financial assistance for those who are otherwise unable to afford rental housing so that they can choose the appropriate housing for themselves, whether that be in the private rental market, in the co-operative housing environment, or in a not-for-profit building.

That said, we note that CFAA is not in favour of a prescriptive housing strategy. We support making federal housing funding more flexible, not less. For instance, we believe that provinces ought to be permitted to use federal affordable housing money for portable housing allowance programs and others to address affordability issues. We believe that portable housing allowances best allow dignity and choice to low-income tenants and should be an option available for policy-makers across Canada. Better yet, portable housing allowances should be a federal-provincial program available across Canada.

Bill C-304, I suggest, appears to intend to place a particular vision for a housing strategy that may not be optimal for all communities throughout the country. I don't know what level of discussion on amendments has occurred, but for instance, there is, in paragraph 3(3)(a) a requirement that the housing strategy ensure the availability of housing that is “not-for-profit in the case of those who cannot otherwise afford it”. Whether the housing provider is for-profit or not-for-profit should not have any effect on the housing consumer.

I fear that the bill assumes that non-profit housing is a superior model to provide housing for low-income households. We disagree. For instance, portable housing allowances are often a far superior tool to assist those with low incomes.

As a further example, paragraph 3(3)(f) mandates that the strategy ensures the availability of housing that includes, among others, “mixed income not-for-profit housing cooperatives”. Now, while mixed income not-for-profit housing co-operatives may be an important component in some communities, passing a federal bill requiring and mandating that the national housing strategy ensure their presence in all communities is not optimal.

We support the provision of operating funding for housing for special needs that are not met by the private sector and of focusing government funding on building new housing for special needs. We believe that serving the needs of those with mental or physical disabilities is certainly the right thing to do, both morally and for the betterment of public policy, but CFAA is not in favour of imposing priorities throughout the country without discussion with the interested parties, such is set out in subclause 3(4).

That subsection mandates that the policy ensure priority be given to (a) those who have not had secure housing over an extended period; (b) those with special requirements specifically because of family status or size or mental or physical disability; and (c) those who have been denied housing as a result of discrimination. These are all worthy groups for some elements of priority, but the bill appears to preclude choice for other priorities: for refugee claimants, for women who may have suffered domestic abuse, or for the chronically ill who do not have a physical disability.

Again, it seems that we are putting the horse before the cart.

Finally, the CFAA questions the appropriateness of the definition of affordable housing as “housing available at a cost that does not compromise an individual's ability to meet other basic needs”; I would suggest that the definition ought to consider the ability of a “household” to meet its basic needs.

We also note and recommend that more appropriate and accurate measures of housing affordability be developed as part of a strategy. In particular, we suggest revision of the 30% standard for affordability to recognize that one- and two-person households can generally afford to pay somewhat more than 30% of income, while larger families may be able to afford less as a percentage, recognizing recent CMHC research which demonstrated that only one-third of households in core housing in a particular year remained in the core housing for the following two years—it may be transitional.

To wrap up, in our recommendations for a viable housing strategy, as others have brought forward, we recognize the respective roles of housing providers and social service agencies in meeting the needs of low-income or disadvantaged Canadians. That said, the obligation to address people's needs is properly on government, on voluntary charities, and on the community as a whole. It doesn't rest on landlords simply because we are providing the shelter. It's an all-encompassing element.

A viable housing strategy ought to include a universal entitlement to an affordable housing allowance, as I've mentioned, for households that cannot otherwise afford rental housing. Such a program could be delivered by the provinces in coordination, as with medicare plans, or could be delivered by the federal government for the provinces to have a choice. It's important that housing allowances be fully portable within and between provinces. In that way, labour mobility and the economic situation of beneficiaries can be improved.

Second, the strategy must recognize that drawing private capital into the rental market is a very positive attribute of public policy, and that what is needed to do that is a rebalancing of the tax system so the tax treatment of tenants in rental housing is improved, to come closer to the favourable tax treatment provided to owner-occupiers.

New construction subsidies on special needs housing should address accessibility needs, since such needs are a growing issue and it's expensive to retrofit existing housing to universal accessibility standards.

Finally, the strategy should recognize that existing social housing can address the greatest needs if much of it is gradually converted to supportive housing or special needs housing, since substantial supports can often best be delivered in a supportive housing environment, while the private market is less well suited to do so, but is in many ways better suited to deliver only shelter for that component.

My time is probably nearing an end, so I thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lyman. You are bang on. We are just wrapping up the seven minutes. Thank you very much.

Welcome to Mr. Buda and Mr. Bates, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It's good to have you here. You have seven minutes.

4:55 p.m.

Joshua Bates Policy Advisor, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Thanks to the committee for having us here today. I know you've heard from many witnesses already, so I'll try my best to keep my remarks brief.

First, we would like to recognize the support of all parties for a strong federal role in affordable housing and homelessness.

We'd also like to acknowledge the historic commitments recently made by the federal government towards affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. The Government of Canada has committed to renewing the affordable housing initiative, the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and the homelessness partnering strategy. These financial commitments amount to $1.9 billion over five years. In addition, the federal stimulus plan provides $2 billion for job creation through new investments in housing infrastructure.

The FCM welcomes these commitments, which underscore that a shared approach among all orders of government—federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and first nation—is key to a successful housing outcome; however, more needs to be done and more can be done. The next step is to put these funding commitments on a long-term footing within a national housing strategy.

This, of course, brings us to why we are here today. The purpose of Bill C-304 is to establish a national housing strategy, which is a long-standing FCM priority. Chronic homelessness and lack of affordable housing are not just social issues; they're core economic issues. They strain the limited resources of municipal governments and undermine the economic well-being of our cities, which are the engines of national economic growth, competitiveness, and productivity.

This is why in January 2008 the FCM released its national action plan on housing and homelessness, which calls for a national housing plan led by the federal government. Today we have shared copies of this action plan with you, so I won't review the plan with you in great detail.

However, I will say that Bill C-304 is an essential component of our national action plan. In fact, in many ways, our plan goes even further than the legislation we are considering here today.

The goals in our plan are ambitious, but our action plan shows that they can be met if we commit to making housing a priority not just one year at a time, but for good. You will see that FCM's national action plan offers three alternative strategies to meet these targets. Our preferred course of action, which in fact is the mid-range option, would cost just over $3 billion annually. This is only a marginal increase over current spending. These costs would be shared by the federal government and provincial and territorial governments, with municipalities of course also playing an active role through local housing strategies.

Experience has shown that the short-term fixes that have often characterized much of housing policy in this country have delivered much-needed assistance, but they have not fixed the problem. This is why the FCM supports a national housing strategy in Canada to establish a housing and homelessness agenda that is comprehensive, integrated, and, perhaps most importantly, in place over the long term. The FCM and municipal governments stand ready to do their part.

Thank you.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We're now going to move over to Mr. Shapcott from the Wellesley Institute.

It's good to have you back again. Some of us got the chance to hear you in Toronto. I'm glad you're here for the benefit of the whole committee.

5 p.m.

Michael Shapcott Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute

Thank you for the opportunity to make these submissions.

The Wellesley Institute is an independent research and policy institute. Over the last decade we've funded more than 100 research and policy projects that look at the links between housing, income, and health. I'd very much like to take you on a guided tour through those 100 reports and their detailed recommendations, but of course we don't have time to do that.

I'll simply say that what our reports clearly demonstrate is that there are clear links among poor housing, homelessness, increased illness, and premature death. Our reports also show that a good home is a basic requirement for a healthy life and that good housing knits together communities and strengthens the local and national economy.

I know that some people in this building like to tell people outside of this building in the rest of the country what to do; they like to dictate rigid policies and say, “This is what you have to do”. Mr. Komarnicki, in his questioning in the earlier session as I overheard it, was getting at this point. As we read Bill C-304, it doesn't make that mistake.

What this bill does is direct the federal minister to go out and engage with the key partners to create a national housing strategy that will really work and that reflects the needs of local communities. We think that's a very important direction to take.

However, there are two groups that have inadvertently been left out, and I hope they'll be brought back in through the amendment process. These are, of course, the non-profit and the private sectors. They both have valuable expertise. They deserve to be at the table along with the various orders of government and aboriginal communities. We'd encourage the committee in its review to amend in particular subclauses 3(1), 4(1), 4(2), and 5(1) to include representatives of the non-profit and private housing sectors in those processes.

Canada, as noted in the preamble to Bill C-304, has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes the right to adequate housing. In February, the United Nations Human Rights Council held its first Universal Periodic Review of Canada's compliance with its international obligations, including the right to adequate housing.

The federal government formally responded, in fact, on June 9, 2009, when it accepted the UN recommendation on housing and stated, in the formal federal response: “Canada acknowledges that there are challenges and the Government of Canada commits to continuing to explore ways to enhance efforts to address poverty and housing issues, in collaboration with provinces and territories”. As we read that, we see that the federal government is saying that it's keen to work with the provinces and territories on housing and poverty issues.

We know that the provinces and territories have been asking the federal government for at least four years to come to the table to develop a new national housing strategy. Of course, the federal government and all the provinces and territories did sign the Affordable Housing Framework Agreement in 2001. That was a five-year agreement.

By 2005 the provinces and territories said there needed to be a new national housing framework. All of the provinces, incidentally, have joined together on that. On September 22, 2005, all of the provinces and territorial housing ministers released a set of principles to guide a new national housing framework. They put that on the table, and since 2005 there hasn't been a meeting of the federal, provincial, and territorial housing ministers.

We have a willing federal government, we have willing provinces and territories who want to discuss these things, we've heard that we have willing municipalities, the private sector wants to come and talk about these things, and the non-profit sector wants to be at the table as well. What we don't have is a mechanism or process that gets everyone together. Bill C-304 gives us that process. It also puts a nice timeline on it of 180 days and creates a sense of urgency around what is an urgent national issue.

Without a national housing strategy, as set out in the goal of Bill C-304, Canadians won't know whether the $17.5 billion that the federal government is investing this year in various housing initiatives is being spent effectively. I repeat that: $17.5 billion that the federal government is reporting this year that it's investing in various housing initiatives. This was actually a bit of a surprise to us when we started to do the tally.

Earlier this year, the Auditor General for British Columbia released a comprehensive review of that province's housing and homelessness programs. Some of his comments I think are relevant to your deliberations today. He said: Clear goals and objectives for homelessness and adequate accountability for results remain outstanding...government has not yet established appropriate indicators of success....We found significant activity and resources being applied, but...no provincial [housing] and homelessness plan with clear goals and objectives...When there are no clear goals or performance targets, accountability for results is missing. How will we know we are successful if we have not identified success?

That would be the same for the federal government. If people want it, I'd be happy to give the full shopping list of what the federal government reports it's spending. It reports that it's spending $3.57 billion this fiscal year in direct spending on affordable housing.

Furthermore, the government says it's going to spend $13.9 billion on housing-related tax expenditures: the home renovation tax credit, capital gains exemptions, homebuyer tax subsidies, and so on. That's a lot of money. Are we getting value for results from that money? We don't know. We don't have a national plan against which to measure all the spending.

I'd say that we need a national housing strategy fundamentally to ensure that the nine million or more Canadians who are precariously housed will get the practical and pragmatic housing help that they require in their communities.

Even before the recession hit, the numbers were quite grim. I won't take the time to go through all the numbers, but the federal government says 300,000 Canadians are homeless, and we think that number is probably a bit shy of the real mark. About 3.3 million households live in substandard housing, three million households live in unaffordable housing, 1.5 million households are in core housing need, and 705,000 households are in overcrowded housing--and that was before the recession.

Since the start of the recession, half a million jobs have been lost and 150,000 households have been evicted from their homes because they couldn't afford to pay their rent. Canada's housing supply deficit, which is the gap between the number of new households formed on an annual basis and the amount of new housing that's created, is growing at an estimated rate of about 220,000 households annually.

I know the committee members will know that housing needs in Grimsby are different from what they are in Weyburn, and they're certainly different from Dartmouth, and different from Halifax, and different from Richelieu. A national housing strategy takes account of that, and it puts in place the tools and resources to ensure that the appropriate resources are available.

We have a willing federal government. Our federal government says it wants to; it told the United Nations it wants to work with the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories want to work with municipalities. The private and non-profit sectors and the aboriginal communities all want to work. We think Bill C-304 provides this mechanism to move forward, so we'd urge this committee to give swift consideration to this draft legislation so that we can move forward to the important work of debating the real details of a new national housing strategy, the kinds of things that Mr. Lyman raised. That's where we should be focusing our discussion. Are those the right kinds of tools? What other models should we be looking at?

Finally, I'd say that there's already been work at the provincial level. The provinces are not waiting for the federal government: Alberta has already made a billion-dollar down payment on its commitment to a 10-year housing plan to end chronic homelessness, and Ontario says it will have a comprehensive housing plan by midsummer of 2010. In the last decade or so, Canada's provinces, territories, and municipal governments have all significantly ramped up their affordable housing investments. They're all demonstrating that they want to be partners in housing progress.

We'd say that Bill C-304 will ensure that the federal government plays its vital role in creating this comprehensive new national housing plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Shapcott, for being here.

We're going to start again. I asked everyone for five minutes last time and got seven, so let's just go with seven. Let's keep in mind that we're probably going to go over time a little, but let's start off again with seven minutes for each questioner.

Go ahead, Mr. Kennedy.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Shapcott, in terms of what this bill can bring, the change to improve the dynamics of housing action in the country, you said we need to have a means of bringing people together. We want that to be effective; we don't want people to meet for the sake of meeting. What do you see in the bill to make that happen, and is there anything that isn't in the bill that you would see as necessary to make it happen? You've been doing this for a little while.

For example--and I don't mean to be provocative on this point--there's nothing binding in the bill. We could meet, we could have a strategy, and no one goes to jail if we don't come up with x number of units. Because you really endorsed the idea of bringing people together, could you elaborate on why that would be helpful in terms of getting the different people into the room and coming up with some kind of joint declaration of strategy?