Human Resources Committee on Feb. 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning, everybody.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee on Monday, June 13, 2016, the committee is resuming its study of poverty reduction strategies.

I'm very pleased to welcome a full slate of witnesses this morning.

As an individual, Gavin Still, CPA and CGA at MNP LLP from Fort St. John, British Columbia, via video conference. Thank you for being here.

From the Canadian Association of Social Workers, we have Sally Guy, director of policy and strategy. Welcome. I understand Fred is now here with you? Excellent.

From the Canadian Home Builders' Association, we have the chief executive officer, Kevin Lee. From Food Banks Canada, the director of policy and research, Shawn Pegg is with us. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Munk senior fellow, Sean Speer is here with us today. Finally, from Reena, the head of stakeholder relations, Gary Gladstone is with us this morning. Welcome, everyone.

We do have a very full committee today, so we're going to keep our comments as close to seven minutes as possible. If you can see this microphone light go on, it means that your time is either very close to being up or you're already past time. If I have to start waving you down, I will, but I will try to respect the time you require to finish your comments as much as we possibly can. As I said, we do have a lot to get through today.

We are going to get started right away and we're going to start with Mr. Gavin Still, via video conference from Fort St. John, British Columbia.

Welcome, sir. The next seven minutes are yours.

[Gavin Still, MNP LLP, Fort St. John, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

As a bit of background, as you mentioned. I live in northeastern B.C. and have grown up here. I'm a partner in a national accounting firm. As such, I work with a number of our property development clients.

I'm speaking today specifically on the subject of neighbourhoods and how neighbourhood development relates to poverty reduction and to people's lives. In the north and in smaller centres, certainly where there are burgeoning economies for the most part, in towns like mine, there are unique challenges in the design of neighbourhoods and of towns. What we see is different from larger centres. We have high employment, but in a town like mine the high employment is typically in resource industries where the wages are quite good. This results in a high cost of living, high house prices, and towns and environments based around people who can afford to have a decent-sized house, have some space around it, and a car to get from point A to point B.

Although that is a subset of the population in towns like mine, a lot of pressure is put on those who are not directly employed in the resource industry. Certainly life can be quite hard in towns like this. I'd like to make it clear that I'm speaking for a lot of towns across Canada that are not major urban centres. Life can be difficult for those on more modest incomes.

It's a struggle from an economic standpoint, which is the focus I want to have today since it's in my wheelhouse. Economically, it's difficult for local businesses to develop and for people to want to come to towns like this from other parts of Canada, or for new immigrants to come here and face starting out in a community perhaps at lower earnings, or people who are struggling or on some kind of assistance, looking for opportunities. Typically, we see that these people struggle, or in many cases don't come to towns like mine because they feel the cost of living is high and the lifestyle they would have would be one of poverty and struggle. It hampers the economic growth of towns like Fort St. John, and indeed, many towns like this across Canada.

We have some particular struggles here, and I want to address them.

It's important to realize that in smaller places, and indeed anywhere, it's not just an economic question; it's a question of people and their lives. Certainly, we don't want to see some kind of knee-jerk solution that puts or forces people into an environment that is.... My parents immigrated to Canada from the U.K., and when they came here, many of the lower income neighbourhoods in the U.K. were tenements. Certainly they were inhumane and in many cases created more problems than they solved.

In towns like this especially—I think I speak for many across Canada—we're looking for solutions to poverty that allow people hope and upward mobility. They attract people to places like this where there's a lot of work for people to build their lives and careers.

If I jump to the challenges that are faced—and I think this is something that's common—I'll speak from the perspective that some of my clients face as they have tried to create affordable neighbourhoods, neighbourhoods that would work for people on lower incomes, that would be healthy and certainly livable. To reduce poverty it's important that neighbourhoods and environments are affordable and that they're livable as well.

Really, the challenges that are faced in a town like mine are probably more municipal than anything else. I do appreciate the federal government's concern about this, but I think there's an uphill battle linking what happens federally with what happens at the municipal level. We struggle with high land costs and limited kinds of developable land, to coin a phrase. We struggle with high wage costs for those who are tradespeople, and we also struggle, I think, with zoning that requires a huge amount of green space and parking space. Although those things are good, they all add to the cost of the neighbourhoods being developed in a place like Fort St. John.

These costs have led us basically to a point where many people struggle, and there are people who, even if they're employed and have, we'll say, entry-level or lower-level employment, cannot afford to live in many of our towns because of the costs, the burdens, the complexities, and the red tape created by zoning.

I think in summary I'd say that this is something that really needs to change at a zoning level, at the municipal level. I have some ideas about this, but I think that building neighbourhoods that are a bit higher density that allow people access to good public transit are certainly factors in the north. Also, maybe more co-op housing that doesn't pass along a return to investors but actually allows the tenants to pay as they go, so to speak, may be one solution.

I have a bit more in my notes here, but I can see that the light's on, so I'll wrap that up. However, with some questions, maybe we can drill into those aspects a little more.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excellent. Thank you very much, sir.

Now from the Canadian Association of Social Workers, we have the director of policy and strategy, Sally Guy, for seven minutes, please.

[Sally Guy, Director of Policy and Strategy, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. On behalf of the board of the Canadian Association of Social Workers and our president, Jan Christianson-Wood, I thank you for inviting the social work voice to this important consultation.

When we considered the study's guidelines, we noticed that the words “new” and “innovative” emerged over and over again. Not to be cheeky in any way, CASW would propose that the first step to innovation is actually in better measuring and assessing existing systems and strategies so that we can build upon and lift up best practices and evidence.

To elaborate on that, CASW is often asked which provinces and territories are leading in poverty reduction. It is also asked where dollars allocated for social services through the Canada social transfer are being spent, or in an ideal world, where they are being most effectively spent.

We simply don't know. No one does. At present, there is no requirement that the provinces ensure recognition of the federal payments or provide information to the federal government about how the CST is spent. The dollars flow into general revenue.

With the introduction of the Canada Health Act, the government acknowledged that certain principles should be upheld across Canada in the delivery of health care services. Far from hard laws or regulations, the Canada Health Act serves as a set of guiding principles that are really just meant to ensure that Canadians have access to equitable, quality care wherever they reside.

This is why CASW is proposing a social care act as a piece of a national poverty reduction strategy.

I can see many of you looking at me. I know I probably have pitched this to you, individually, before.

As with the Canada Health Act, the proposed social care act would establish common principles to help comprehensively address poverty. These aren't new—public administration, universality, portability—and this would help set the stage for a framework for reporting on how the CST and other federal social investments are spent.

Enabling such a framework for reporting would not only provide the government with a record of return on investment. It would also serve as a catalyst for the sharing of best practices and evidence between the provinces and territories.

That being said, I'll move on to the study's specific questions, of which there are a number.

With regard to education, training, and employment, I'll go briefly back to the CST and accountability. We think the portion of federal dollars intended for post-secondary education should be separated in some way from the rest of the CST, which is really intended to address Canadians' dignity and basic needs. This doesn't necessarily mean separating it altogether, but rather delineating the funds' intended purposes, which would be, again, facilitated by something like a social care act.

We also would ask that the profession of social work be included under the Canada student loan forgiveness program, which currently includes nurses, for instance. Not only are social workers' skills greatly required in many rural and remote regions in Canada, but we also are trained mental health professionals whose expertise most often comes at a more cost-effective price point than that of psychologists or psychiatrists.

With regard to housing and homelessness, CASW wholeheartedly supports the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association's request to continue and increase direct supportive housing investments, noting that the 2016 federal budget introduced targeted funding to increase affordable housing for seniors and for victims of violence.

CASW recommends that these programs be continued beyond their two-year mandate. It also recommends that this program be extended to include other forms of supportive housing targeted to seniors, LGBTQ individuals, veterans, and also previously incarcerated individuals. Funding for these types of targeted programs would ideally be set a minimum of $150 million per year. It would also ideally flow through something like a social care act as a social policy framework.

With regard to government administrative savings and entitlement programs, we have a lot to be happy about, a lot to reward the Liberal government for. In tying the Canada child benefit to income, the Government of Canada took a bold step towards developing a comprehensive basic income for families with children.

Budget 2016 also enhanced the guaranteed income supplement, which combined with OAS—old age security—moves forward basic support for seniors. We commend this, and we encourage the government to continue progressively with the concept of a basic income for all, potentially.

We were also really pleased by the CPP expansion in bill C-26. We do remain concerned that it lacks those so-called dropout provisions for child rearing and disability, and we do hope the government commits to amending those as it has publicly promised to do.

On social investments, which is my last piece—I promise—we recently released a paper entitled “The True Cost of Capital”, which was on the potential of social finance in Canada.

Keeping in mind this government's mandate to develop a social innovation and social finance strategy, CASW urges that any approach be guided by social principles as well as economic ones, and that it implement strategies based on evidence and not only the assumption of efficiency and innovation, as ubiquitous as these assumptions seem to be.

Since social finance tools have the potential to impact the most vulnerable in our society, it's imperative that they are not further economically exploited by private investors.

On social finance, we would just advise that any initiatives meant to address poverty or vulnerable populations be guided by a social conscience, and use as a framework the principles proposed by a social care act, which are the same as in the Canada Health Act, namely, public administration, accessibility, fairness, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency, to name a few.

We also hope that the federal government will heed the view provided in the supplementary opinion on this committee's study of social impact bonds, which went on to say that it is important above all else to ensure that the government prioritize the needs and successes of vulnerable Canadians, meaning their needs and successes, not those of private enterprise.

Finally, I think it just needs to be said one more time, because it is so important, that private profit has no place in the provision of services to vulnerable Canadians.

I think I kept that short.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Moving on to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, we have chief executive officer, Mr. Kevin Lee.

[Kevin Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association]

Thank you.

I commend the committee for making housing a priority in this study on poverty reduction. As the underlying principle of housing dictates, people are better able to move forward with their lives if they are housed.

The CHBA and our 8,500 member companies are the voice of the residential construction industry in Canada, a vital partner in developing and implementing housing policy as part of an overall poverty reduction strategy. As you know, the government is also creating a national housing strategy and much of what I will say here today, we've recommended there, too. After all, a national housing strategy and poverty reduction strategy should go hand in hand.

What may not be so obvious—and what I must emphasize today—is that addressing the entire housing continuum right up into market rate, rental, and home ownership is critical to both the housing strategy and the poverty reduction strategy. The ripple effects of deteriorating market-rate affordability and barriers to home ownership cascade right down to those in housing need and impede progress and poverty reduction if not addressed.

I should also note that I'm the chair of the International Housing Association and meet regularly with housing experts from around the world. I can tell you that international experts remark that you cannot fix social housing challenges without fixing market-rate housing affordability too.

With finite resources to address any public policy issue, we need innovative solutions. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in housing need who require help. To be successful, we need to find the tools to house more people in better housing for less public dollars. This can only be achieved if the housing strategy addresses issues across the entire continuum, from homelessness to social and supportive housing right through to affordability for market-based rental and home ownership.

Overall, we need to keep Canadians moving across the housing continuum towards market-rate housing. People need to keep moving along the continuum to make space available for those less fortunate. Even more important, we need to ensure people are not sliding back in the wrong direction. If affordability problems and market-rate housing push those who would otherwise be self-sufficient into a requirement for public support, our system has truly failed.

CHBA is very concerned that ignoring wider market-rate affordability and restricting opportunities for market-based housing will put more pressure on resources better used to help Canadians who truly need housing support.

With this in mind, let me now focus on some innovative approaches to housing Canadians in need. CHBA is part of the National Housing Collaborative, a cross-sectoral group of national housing stakeholders—public, private and non-profit—supported by foundations and charities. The collaborative was formed to develop deep, transformative, durable, and innovative policy proposals. The collaborative landed on four priorities. I'm sure you've heard, and will hear, a lot about the need for more social housing.

Today I'd like to focus on the collaborative's priority that would ease the burden on social housing, and that is a portable housing benefit. The majority of Canadians in core housing need do not have a housing problem. They have an income problem. As many of the front lines of anti-poverty organizations would agree, simply building and offering more and more social housing will be too slow, too expensive, and will not achieve the desired results. Yes, we need social housing. We need more of it and much of what we have needs to be improved, but social housing is not the answer in the majority of cases.

Most families in core housing need are already properly housed. The problem is their income. Rent is the largest item in the family's budget and simply leaves too little for other essentials. A portable housing benefit would alleviate this basic challenge. The design put forth by the collaborative can be implemented in steps to first meet those most in need. However, if and when fully scaled up, it would move a massive 800,000 people out of housing need, and contrary to myth, it would not cause rent inflation nor would it reduce rental availability. A portable housing benefit is probably the single most cost-effective and far-reaching anti-poverty measure open to the federal government.

It would move people into, or keep them in, market-rate rental housing, freeing up social housing for those who need more comprehensive support. One of the greatest strengths of the housing benefit is that it promotes individual autonomy and choice because it is not tied to a particular housing unit. People choose where they want to live and find accommodations that meet their specific needs. This flexibility has the potential to improve labour-market mobility and promote mixed-income neighbourhoods.

To make this system work, it is also essential that we keep home ownership within reach of would-be first-time homebuyers. This is because over 80% of rental units that become available each year for rent are those vacated by people moving into their own homes for the first time. Thus, keeping entry-level home ownership accessible makes more rental stock available. Moving people along the continuum from rental properties into home ownership, for those that want it, percolates back to those most in need.

With market-rate affordability in jeopardy in our most successful cities, action is required to support access to home ownership. CHBA has many recommendations on how the government can help with market-rate affordability, and we have submitted these recommendations to the national housing strategy—from mortgage rules, to transit-oriented development, to development taxes, and more.

I won't go into all those here, but it is important for the poverty reduction strategy that upstream affordability be addressed. For today though I'll focus on an innovative measure that can help both typical first-time homebuyers, as well as responsible hard-working lower-income families for whom affordable home ownership programs provide an excellent hand up.

I'm talking about shared equity down payment plans, sometimes referred to as shared appreciation mortgages. It's an approach already used on a small-scale by some 40 organizations across Canada. These initiatives provide access for home ownership for lower-income families through a third-party financial equity interest in the home that either reduces the amount required for the down payment, or the size of the first mortgage, or both.

The third party then shares in the house value appreciation or depreciation, as the case may be. There are many successful home ownership assistance programs across the country. They should now be facilitated in the scaling up of their efforts in particular to unlock private capital to invest in entry-level housing and support first-time homebuyers.

Before I finish I would like to turn briefly to housing supply.

It is worth noting that we estimate that given current demographics compared with current construction trends, we will be 300,000 family-oriented units short over the next decade, further driving up home prices and rents. Supply shortages are already driving up home prices in our largest urban centres.

With respect to rental properties, there has been a significant lack of purpose-built rental being constructed over the past few decades. Tax policy has been part of the problem, but if amended could be part of the solution.

First, we need to amend the tax regime to avoid GST being applied to new purpose-built rental developments. This increases rents for tenants and renders the business model for investing in purpose-built rentals less attractive, hence discouraging the construction of affordable rental units.

Second, we need to fix the tax on tax for accessory suites, such as granny flats and laneway housing. The current tax system, which incorporates land value rather than just construction cost, is discouraging this important form of of infill housing that is favoured by more and more municipalities. These innovative infill projects increase the number of affordable homes in established neighbourhoods.

Finally, the government needs a national NIMBY, not in my backyard, to YIMBY, yes in my backyard, campaign. New developments, especially densification and mixed-income housing, are often met with local public opposition even when aligned with community plans. A national NIMBY to YIMBY campaign can facilitate a smoother transition into the communities of tomorrow.

I'll conclude by reiterating that a national housing strategy that addresses the full housing continuum is an essential part of a successful poverty reduction strategy.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Moving to Food Banks Canada, we have Shawn Pegg, director, policy and research.

[Shawn Pegg, Director, Policy and Research, Food Banks Canada]

Good morning.

Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to the committee today. I'm glad I didn't come to talk about housing because I couldn't top that.

I'm here on behalf of Food Banks Canada, which is a national organization that unfortunately has member food banks serving residents in every riding represented in this room today.

We were very pleased by the minister's announcement that the poverty reduction strategy will be released in the fall of this year, as we recommended in our “HungerCount 2016” report. We recommended a quick rollout of the strategy because food bank use has been hovering at record levels for an unprecedented amount of time. More than 830,000 people have accessed a food bank each month since 2010. Our neighbours who are struggling with food insecurity cannot wait years for the federal government to act on this file. They need help now, today.

Many people think that food bank use is ever increasing but this is not true. Food bank use decreased for four consecutive years between 2004 and 2008. In late 2008 food bank use quickly began to expand as the recession set in, and it is now 26% higher than it was before the global economic downturn.

The need for food banks exists across the spectrum. More than one-third of individuals helped are children; more than 40% of households helped are families with children. While more than half the households accessing food banks are on social assistance or disability-related income supports, one in six tells us that employment is their primary source of income.

One of the most striking trends in the food bank network is the growth of single, unattached individuals walking through our doors and asking for help. Single people have grown from 30% of households helped by food banks in 2001 to 45% in 2016.

Without taking away from any other group at high risk of poverty and food insecurity, in my remaining time I'd like to focus on this population of so-called unattached individuals.

Depending on which measure you look at, between 9% and 13% of Canadians can be defined as having low incomes. Using the market basket measure, the figure is just over one in 10. If we look at single, working-age, unattached people the figure jumps to 33%. One in every three single adults in Canada lives in poverty. This group of single people living in poverty represents a population of 1.3 million people and this group lives in deep poverty with average incomes that are 50% below the poverty line. This means they're living on an average of about $10,000 per year. That bears repeating. There's a population of 1.3 million people in Canada who are living on an average of $10,000 per year. That doesn't even get you to the basic personal amount on your tax return.

This is a population that from a government program perspective has few places to which they can turn. A large number are receiving social assistance. If they're working—and many people cycle between welfare and work—they can access some assistance through the working income tax benefit, but the amounts are small. There's very little cash support and very little in-kind support, such as labour market training for this population, particularly outside the larger cities.

The advisory council on economic growth estimates that we could add $38 billion to Canada's GDP by increasing the labour market participation of low-income, low-skilled Canadians like the group I'm talking about. To accomplish this will require major changes to the relationship between governments and working-age singles living in poverty. It has implications for income supports, job training programs, indigenous policy, and chronic mental and physical health strategies.

Again, we don't want to take anything away from other populations at high risk of poverty in Canada. We strongly urge the federal government to make the large population of single, unattached people living in poverty a central focus of its poverty reduction strategy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much, sir.

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute we have Munk senior fellow Sean Speer.

[Sean Speer, Munk Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the committee for inviting me to participate. I want to congratulate all members for the study's comprehensive terms of reference.

Implicit is a recognition that there's no silver bullet, that poverty's underlying causes are multi-faceted and highly personalized, and that Ottawa's principle role is an enabling one; i.e., the federal government is primarily responsible for creating the conditions for economic opportunity and social mobility.

Former British prime minister David Cameron referred to his poverty reduction strategy as a “life chances” agenda. I think there's something to that type of thinking. Life chances, I would contend, are what this committee is ultimately studying, and what we're talking about today.

There is, of course, plenty to say on the subject of a federal poverty reduction strategy. I would be remiss, for instance, if I didn't observe that any such strategy must place a significant and major emphasis on improving the life chances of our indigenous people on and off reserve.

I'll focus my presentation on what we know about poverty, how we think about it, and what practical steps we can take to create the conditions for greater economic and social opportunity, particularly for those at risk of persistent poverty who, I'll argue, ought to be the focus of the government's efforts.

Let's start with some basic facts. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of Canadian households in poverty has declined from 6.7% in 1996 to 4.8% in 2009. The share living below Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff has also decreased from 15.2% in 1996 to 9.7% in 2013. The progress is broad-based. The incidence of low income among children, seniors, and persons in lone-parent families has also dropped.

Low incomes tend to be transitory. Research from Statistics Canada shows that only 1.5% of Canadians were in persistent low income from 2005 to 2010. I don't cite this data to claim that the committee's study is superfluous or to diminish its importance, but rather to celebrate our advances firstly, and secondly, to focus the rest of my discussion.

The development of a federal poverty strategy must start from where we are presently and understand who we're targeting. The progress that we've achieved to date is largely the result of a growing intellectual and political consensus on the role of government and public policy to address poverty and enable life chances.

Notwithstanding occasional political rhetoric, the left and right agree more on these issues and questions than we think. The left has come to understand the limits of state action and sees poverty as more than a problem of materialism, and the right has come to recognize the solution is more than simply pulling oneself up by his or her bootstraps. It involves a role for carefully designed government intervention.

This consensus has manifested itself in specific policies including generous child care benefits, low-income grants for education, targeted income subsidies for the working poor, and public pensions for low-income seniors. These policies, which draw on the best ideas and traditions of the left and the right, have had an important effect on poverty and economic participation in Canada.

The committee's eventual study, therefore, ought to ensure that it's accounting for post-tax and transfer measurements of poverty. It is simply a fact that a child born in a poor household today is better off in several ways than he or she would have been a few decades ago. We shouldn't lose sight of this progress.

Nor should we rest on our laurels. We must continue to reform and improve programming to help low-income Canadians climb the economic and social ladder. I've recently written an essay, for instance, with a former NDP adviser on expanding the working income tax benefit, which was created by the previous Conservative government, supported by the New Democrats, and poised to be expanded by the current Liberal government.

The key priority must be to target those at risk of persistent poverty, including persons with disabilities, those with less than high school education, and individuals from lone-parent families. This is where the problems are most intractable and for which we have a clear societal obligation to help our fellow citizens.

These aren't cases of people temporarily experiencing low income following graduation or because of job loss, or who need a helping hand in the short term to pursue their goals. These are cases where individuals face health-related or other forms of major barriers to paid work. Progress with these groups won't be easy. Factors that contribute to persistent poverty are complex and varied. Solutions will thus differ. It will require trial and error, and highly personalized programming and services, and of course, federalism will have to play an important and critical role.

More generous cash transfers are part of the answer for some, especially for persons with severe disabilities whose employment levels are one-third of the non-disabled population. The government should make the disability tax credit refundable, for instance.

Cash transfers aren't the solution for everyone. In fact, they could be detrimental for someone with a substance abuse problem, as an example. The point is that those at risk of perpetual poverty should be the chief focus of a federal poverty reduction strategy, and this will invariably involve different policies and tools than those to address transitory low income, or to help Canadians climb the economic and social ladder. It's essential that we understand the distinction and develop policy agendas with both objectives in mind.

I'll just conclude by saying, again, I'm grateful for the chance to participate. I think the work that you're doing is critically important. I have a key recommendation: first, to recognize the progress we're made and to recognize the extent to which that progress represents the results of a growing political consensus; and secondly, to make sure we understand who we're targeting and then develop a policy agenda to focus on those people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much, sir.

Now, from Reena, we have Gary Gladstone, head of stakeholder relations.

[Gary Gladstone, Head of Stakeholder Relations, Reena]

Good morning.

My name is Gary Gladstone. I'm the head of stakeholder relations for Reena, and also representing the intentional community consortium.

On behalf of the thousand people with developmental disabilities who we serve, thank you very much for having me here today.

Rob is 42 years old, with muscular dystrophy, developmental delay, and schizophrenia. He uses a scooter and wheelchair to get around, and up until eight months ago he was homeless, having lived at Seaton House and then at Amsterdam House transitional housing in Toronto. Parts of his scooter were stolen, his mobility was lessened, and this social person who liked to talk and interact with new people, who was caring and always willing to help others, had nowhere to go. Thanks to Reena, and the innovative Reena community residence in King—Vaughan, Rob is no longer homeless. He has a wonderful affordable housing apartment to call his own, complete with supports as and when he needs them.

The Ombudsman of Ontario reported in 2014 that there were 12,808 adults on the provincial wait-list for residential services, and now over 18,000. Over 25% of adults with development disabilities do not have adequate housing; many do not even get to the application process. Dr. Sylvain Roy found that fully 18% of individuals using an adult male shelter in Toronto were developmentally disabled. There are numerous people identified and housed inappropriately in our hospitals, in alternative levels of care, or in our prisons, and some are locked up at home. These people deserve better.

I've come here today to request your support to change this deplorable situation by, first, allocating 5% of all affordable housing investments to support housing solutions for individuals with developmental disabilities, and second, allocating $11 million a year, for three years, for matching funds for innovative housing solutions developed by the intentional community consortium, the ICC.

Reena, celebrating its 44th year, has an annual operating budget of $40 million, is managing housing assets of nearly $80 million, and is the third-largest transfer payment agency of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario. We also support over 150 people in affordable public and private rental units. We know housing matters, and we know that across the country those with intellectual disabilities are amongst those most at risk in regard to homelessness and are living in inappropriate settings, such as shelters, hospitals, long-term care, and prisons. Ninety per cent of adults with a development disability live below the poverty line, and 70% of the population has experienced abuse of some sort, and for women with an intellectual disability it's higher. This is a vulnerable population, and we know from data that supportive housing makes a difference and improves their quality of life.

The link between poverty, risk of homelessness, and living with disabilities has been well documented. According to one Irish report, people living with disabilities are twice as likely to live below the poverty line. Additionally, living in poverty is likely to increase instances of disability. This can be changed by dedicating 5% of national housing funds. With the financial support of MCSS in Ontario, Reena has created the intentional community consortium, with other agencies, to pilot a series of affordable housing projects for mixed use to be scaled out across Canada. Reena and partner agencies will build projects currently, but is expanding in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa, Vaughan, Oshawa, Scarborough, Hamilton, Peterborough, Markham, and Burlington, with phone calls last week coming in from Calgary and B.C. Private funders will fund one-third and the government, two-thirds.

My message is that it's imperative that those with developmental disabilities who require supports are housed in the community with appropriate care. The cost to our health care system and our municipal social supports to provide inadequate and inappropriate care is driven by the absence of housing. The innovative Reena Community Residence, opened in 2012 in King—Vaughan, with the support of federal and provincial funding, provides apartments for 84 adults with developmental, cognitive, physical, or mental health needs. Everyone is welcome to come for a tour. The residence is designed as an intentional community for individuals with special needs.

Jason's parents were constantly worrying as it was getting harder to take care of his personal needs. They were getting older, and where could Jason, wheelchair-bound and requiring multiple and complex supports, live so that he could have a full life?

The innovative, collaborative partnership of the Reena Community Residence complex care team of March of Dimes, the Community Care Access Centre, and Reena provides him with all the medical and therapeutic supports he needs to flourish. His parents no longer need to worry, as their son is well cared for in an independent, supportive, and accessible setting. Thanks to the Reena Community Residence, Jason is not warehoused, as he would have been in the past.

The ombudsman's report clearly highlighted that the development of and investment in developmental disability sector-specific housing are almost non-existent. Municipalities are not building housing to meet this need, and the community is looking to the Government of Canada to make this a priority. The majority of those seeking affordable, supportive, and accessible housing are currently not even being counted on the housing waiting list, although this is in the process of changing.

We are seeking $33 million from the federal government and a matching $33 million from the provincial government, over three years, to support and implement these 10 projects.

Being part of the community and living as independently as possible are among the most important values and goals shared by people with disabilities, their families, and advocates. A home of one's own is the cornerstone of independence for people with disabilities. Reena can deliver on the government's commitment to build strong communities and help vulnerable Canadians obtain a home.

If you met Mark, one of the individuals we support, he would tell you that after living in a hospital for 15 years, moving to a home in community has given him a life. If you spoke to Sameesh, who, for 14 years, was floating between sheltered workshops and boarding houses, experiencing neglect and abuse, you would know how much housing matters. Today, she works 15 hours a week, and her home is her pride and joy. These stories cross our country and are reflected in every community. Across the country, the message is the same—this is a small population and not a priority. This cannot be the government's message.

A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members, said Mahatma Gandhi. Through budget 2017, you can ensure that Canada takes care of those who cannot advocate for themselves. Rob and Sameesh were homeless, Mark was warehoused in a hospital, and Jason wouldn't have anywhere to go. Now, we need to assist the over 18,000 individuals on the wait-list in Ontario alone, homeless, and without supports.

To reiterate, as I close, in budget 2017, please allocate 5% of all affordable housing investments to support housing solutions for individuals with developmental disabilities, and allocate $11 million a year for three years to matching funds for innovative housing solutions developed by the intentional community consortium. For further information about Reena and the consortium, visit www.Reena.org.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, sir.

Now we move on to our first round of questions.

MP Poilievre will start us off.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Lee, you said that there is a double taxation of secondary suites. Can you explain what you meant by that?

[Kevin Lee]

Right now, the way secondary suites are assessed for GST purposes, it's not just the construction cost; they incorporate the value of the land. A secondary suite is on land that's already owned by somebody, so in the assessment process they'll include the land to create a value for the property, which obviously—especially in an infill situation in an urban environment where property values are very high—will dramatically increase the taxation on that house, making it very undesirable or expensive.

The result is either not building the suite, or often, building the suite in the underground economy for cash, which is a whole other story unto itself, which is a problem.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Is that with respect to property taxes?

[Kevin Lee]

No...GST.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Okay, that's good.

Can you provide us with a one-page technical backgrounder on that so we can address it in our report?

How does that relate to the other issue you raised, the GST application to purpose-built rentals?

[Kevin Lee]

The way GST is applied to purpose-built rentals.... In most situations, when businesses are paying GST, it's meant to flow through to the customer, and the business will get its GST refunded through input taxes, but of course there is no GST applied to rental. When you charge GST to people constructing purpose-built rentals, there is nowhere at the end to get the input tax credits back from, so that just ends up buried in the cost of rent. That either makes rent more expensive or makes it a less desirable investment from the private sector to build more purpose-built rentals.

Unlike groceries, which are considered a mandatory essential and there is no GST, and so accommodations are made for grocers in that chain, that isn't happening in the purpose-built rental market.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Can you also provide us with some very short technical background on that?

Sometimes governments think that if they impose new costs on developers who provide housing that's fine because the rich developer will just take that out of his profit margin and it won't matter to anyone else. Is that true or do the costs of governments get passed on to the renter?

[Kevin Lee]

Yes, of course they always do. Calling it a development charge is a very inconvenient name; that's usually the case at the municipal level. It is of course a tax, and that tax ends up every time in either the purchase price of a home or in the rental price. It has to.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Some of your research has shown massive increases in the development charges paid by your members. Supporters of those fees will tell you that the price of servicing the development ought to be embedded in the original project, not passed on to taxpayers.

Do you have evidence that these increased development charges are being used to subsidize government activity that is not related to the development itself?

[Kevin Lee]

We're seeing acts opened to fund more and more, so not only is it going to other places but the development acts, at the provincial level, are being opened so that more and more can be charged to new homebuyers. It's not just our numbers. If you look at the Statistics Canada numbers on the dramatic increase of development taxes over the past couple of decades, it's astronomical. You end up with new homebuyers having to pay for a lot of things that in the past were covered by more of society.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right, and in the past it didn't exist because the cost of municipal government has skyrocketed. Municipal government revenues have gone up about two and a half times the combined rate of inflation and population growth just over the last 15 years. Most of that has been going to fund personnel, not services or infrastructure. Some of these development charges, which price low-income people out of a home, are going to fund municipal bureaucracies.

Moving on now to the issue of Nimbyism. Do you see evidence that building restrictions imposed by municipal and provincial governments are preventing low-income people from getting affordable housing?

[Kevin Lee]

We see that it's often not even the regulations; it's the process. You'll go forward where the plans are all in place and you're having higher density, mixed-income, some support for some sort of assisted dwellings, and then it goes through more of a political process at the municipal level where you get objections from the local community and then all of a sudden the plans get cancelled or they get delayed for a long time, densities decrease.... That's probably the most common thing, people opposing increased density. You have a desire to increase density and a lot of the time the local community will oppose it and as a result, you end up with more expensive housing, both for ownership and for rental.