Human Resources Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Shawn Murphy]

Currently, there's CHF in Canada, the Canadian Housing Federation, who have done a ton of work on housing co-ops. I think it's not one or the other. I think it's using a mixture of what we've heard from Tim and, in my view, co-ops incorporating more cooperative housing.

Again, as Tim was pointing out, it's the empowerment of the people. When people have a roof over their head, they feel good and take ownership and take pride in it. I am just speaking off the top of my head. Through different tax credits or different incentives, either to the builders or owners or to a cooperative group of individuals, to keep rents lower so that people who couldn't afford traditional housing methods can get it, I think, this capital up front will in the long run save you a ton in the back end.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Good, thanks.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much.

I think I'm going to wrap it up. I've got a couple of questions for Tim.

My background is in housing, as well as Mr. Butt's. We've watched programs for 20 or 30 years be developed mainly at the provincial levels of government. Because we come from the private side of housing provision, we've seen the cost per door be exceptionally high. Mr. Mayes is nodding as well because he comes from this frame of reference.

Speaking from that frame of reference our being used to market-based housing, what's your view of the best possible way governments can restructure delivery? You talk about the most effective way being to deliver through bricks and mortar. I'd like you to help us along the way here because we've had lots of discussions about some of the renewal agreements when it comes to renewing cooperative housing in this country when mortgages are finally paid off. Yet the co-ops still want the same amount of subsidy from the government that included the mortgage payment portion. They don't want to see it reduced. In the larger scheme of things, what's your view of the most effective way to deliver that bricks and mortar?

[Tim Richter]

There's a question on how you deliver and who you target. If you imagine the homeless population in Canada, you take a population and think about it like a pie chart. Think about an inverted triangle. At the bottom of that inverted triangle is about 15% of the overall homeless population—85% to 90% of all homeless people get themselves out of it. It's purely an economic issue. They get themselves out with little help from anybody else.

The vast majority of affordable housing investment, whether from the Government of Canada or through the provinces, is spent a mile wide and an inch deep on a range of projects. There's no defined strategy and there's no sufficiently effective targeting of that limited resource. If you prioritized the chronic and episodically homeless individuals for public investment, the 15% who take up over 50% to 60% of the emergency shelter spaces, who represent the highest costs in the public system, you would dramatically reduce the homeless population.

As for the market, with some incentives, we've recommended, for example, in our state of homelessness report a housing benefit for people who are living in rental housing to maintain housing affordability for them and keep them stably housed. That would be more than enough. You don't need to invest a lot of extra capital infrastructure in the short term. But again, there's a range of different opportunities. I would start with whom you're targeting.

Second, I've noticed that the cost per unit in the public delivery of housing is quite high. We tend to end up with, for example, $300,000 a door. Here in Calgary, in one of the more expensive markets, I was able to create new housing—stick built, with four floors—at $170,000 a door. It really depends on your built form. As one of the other speakers mentioned, it depends on all the other stuff that comes with it. If you're going to build a concrete high-rise in downtown Calgary with a fire station at the bottom, it's going to be $300,000 or $350,000 a door.

The federal government has to be a bit more explicit about prioritization and a bit more explicit about what you're prepared to pay and who you want to pay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Those are very useful comments. I really appreciate your bringing up those points.

Both witnesses, on behalf of the committee, I thank you for being here. This is a study that we've recently decided to expand with more witnesses, because a lot of people in this country have an interest in it. Thank you so much for your time.

The meeting is adjourned.