Human Resources Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's well over. We're now moving to Madame Chabot.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses. Their comments are quite compelling.

Mr. Sullivan, I had the pleasure of meeting people from your association. I know that you wanted to provide some recommendations. Could you share your proposals for the way forward?

[Raymond Sullivan]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Chabot. I'm sorry, but I'll answer it in English. That way, I can be more specific.

A number of the things we've recommended are starting to get under way with the government, which we're very pleased about.

One is a lot of attention being paid to accessing public lands. It's not just to build housing, but we hope to prioritize non-market community housing. When it comes to federal and provincial lands, I think this is an important opportunity to prioritize urban indigenous housing at the same time.

One of the other things that's very important is to have a stable offer on the table. When we're talking about development timelines, whether for market or non-market development, we're talking about four, five or six years from a project's conception to the point when people actually move into their homes. This means that government programs have to be stable. It also means that, in the case of things like predevelopment funding, they have to remain on the table consistently. This has been a challenge with predevelopment funding from the CMHC, for example.

One of the other challenges, especially as we've seen variable interest rates over the past five years, is how programs that were well designed in 2018 for the economic circumstances then didn't adapt very well to the change in interest rates and the economy in 2022, 2023 and 2024. We would like to see the grants and contributions attached to CMHC loans be flexible and respond to the interest rate, because it's the level of the interest rate that determines the equity gap.

Fourthly, there's a lot of interest right now in how to leverage private capital. In fact, there was a meeting last week in the province of Quebec, where over 400 non-profit housing providers got together to learn from examples in Europe about how we can leverage our own assets, but also leverage private capital. Government investment is a necessary part of that to prime the pump, and I think there are a lot of opportunities to work together on that in the future too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We've lost Madame Chabot. We'll try to reconnect with her.

In the meantime, I'll go to Mr. Desjarlais for six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate members of the committee giving me the opportunity to indulge in my questions. I particularly appreciate the witnesses' patience in this important study.

You've spoken a lot about the need for non-market homes. The history that pertains to Canada is, in many ways, investment, but I think it's also a proud legacy of building homes in the tradition of making sure that it's seen as a human right and that people actually have a home.

Mr. Sullivan, you spoke about how it's important that non-market homes speak to the ability of our economy to flourish.

Dr. Whitzman, you've spoken about the history since the sixties and the postwar era in Canada. As a matter of fact, there was the huge population boom that we had. At that time, we suffered a housing crisis, and we had Canadians step up with solutions for it. In my city of Edmonton, we know that to be the case.

Mr. Gordon, in so many of these cases, indigenous people were left behind, whether it was in the sixties or even up to today. It's troubling to see how depleted the on-reserve housing stock is and how opportunity, both economic.... The lack of infrastructure, from clean water to roads and transport, has largely left indigenous people excluded from the economy and excluded from Canadian society. They've been excluded from the ability to participate fully and fairly, leading to what has been, to your credit, the point you made of having this huge influx of indigenous populations going to small, rural centres and to cities. As a matter of fact, over 50% of indigenous people today now find themselves in urban settings.

You spoke about the 22 important agencies that came together, recognized this problem and said, “We're going to do something about it. We're going to create a for indigenous, by indigenous solution to what is the terrible plight of exclusion from society.” You spoke about the racism that placates not only this place but provincial and municipal governments as well.

I commend you for your work in leading an organization that has created a coalition of over 100 now, including in my city of Edmonton and likely in many cities.

I want to give you some time to speak about the importance of the for indigenous, by indigenous quality. If it's truly for indigenous, by indigenous, the systemic barriers like racism and this exclusion that is experienced by persons in homes, or those who can't find homes and sometimes find themselves in encampments today.... Why is that principle so important?

I know you were just in my city of Edmonton, speaking to a coalition of indigenous operators across the Prairies and across the country who value this principle because of what it really means.

Do you want to speak about the importance and power a for indigenous, by indigenous solution will have for the housing sector and the crisis we're facing?

[John Gordon]

Thanks very much for for the question.

The for indigenous, by indigenous approach is one where 147 indigenous housing providers across Canada have come together and said, “This is what we want. We want to find solutions that work for our community.” They want solutions that aren't government driven, solutions that aren't trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. They want solutions that have indigenous housing providers from across Canada coming together and having a conversation, much like what was happening in Edmonton, on what the solutions are and how the indigenous world view, indigenous perspective and indigenous approach to housing and shelter can come together and be delivered by indigenous people, for indigenous people. They want indigenous communities holding those that are providing the housing accountable for how they're delivering those funds and for the results they're achieving.

For a long time we've accepted government programming to deliver housing. In the 1980s right through until 1993, there was the urban native housing program. It was a deep subsidy, 25% rent geared to income. It worked really well. It provided a great opportunity for a number of indigenous households to flourish in the urban area, to actually rise up, but there were never enough units.

I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there's a $636-million gap between indigenous and non-indigenous communities in regard to housing. The indigenous housing providers have solutions. They're not always within the confines of government programs.

We have extended families in some communities. In some communities, like in the north, there is a need to have a traditional room where they can prepare their traditional foods. This is very important, but not something that's thought of by non-indigenous people delivering a housing program.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

When you say that, Mr. Gordon, I think of a comment that was made at the conference you were at, that you can't fit a teepee inside of four walls and a roof. You're really encapsulating that message.

In terms of additional supports that are needed, particularly for those living with addiction or those living on the streets or those who are suffering intergenerational trauma, the solutions you're speaking about, the for indigenous, by indigenous solutions, become imperative. Is that correct?

[John Gordon]

It empowers people. It empowers the community organizations to rise up and find their own solutions to their housing challenges. Then as the youth come up, they see their own community finding solutions. They see their own community delivering programs and delivering services. It gives them a different perspective: “Hey, I can be successful because, look, we can do this together for us.”

I think that's a kind of spinoff that isn't often seen. It's not just about a roof over a head. It's about allowing a community to take something, deliver it and then succeed and have the community actually see that success.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Wow.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'm going back to Madame Chabot for two minutes to conclude her six-minute round.

Madame Chabot is still having an issue.

We're going to conclude with Mrs. Falk for five minutes and Mr. Fragiskatos for his five, which will take us to five to six.

Mrs. Falk, you have five minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you for being here today.

We know that to restore housing affordability, we need housing supply, including housing supply dedicated to low-income households. The need for housing supply is very clear, but the reality is that housing starts across the country are down 9% year over year, and multi-unit starts in particular are down 11%.

Mr. Sullivan, I was wondering if you could confirm what you said in your opening remarks about investment in affordable housing creating over 400,000 units.

[Raymond Sullivan]

Yes, it was a successful program that leveraged matched provincial dollars to create a fair amount of housing over that decade.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I guess it would be fair to say that previous Conservative government policies helped create and protect over 400,000 units.

I think it's imperative that we also take note of the Liberal era numbers with some of their programs. The apartment construction loan program has only built 11,511 units since 2017. The affordable housing fund has only built 15,303 units for a total of just over 42,000 units. Their so-called rapid housing initiative has built 5,900 units.

Are you aware of these numbers?

[Raymond Sullivan]

I have looked at some of the numbers from those programs, yes.

The challenging thing is that the published numbers also include units for funding committed that are either under construction or will begin construction.

This is one of the challenging things about having a stable pipeline of affordable housing. It's that we can't have programs that start and stop and begin and end. We need to have a long-term predictability of what kind of financing and what kind of offer is on the table for a decade at a time.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Then would you say the units are fewer, actually, because it's just funds committed?

[Raymond Sullivan]

Well, those units will be built. They're committed and the units will be built.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Committed, but—

[Raymond Sullivan]

This is the challenge, and the rapid housing initiative is a good example. It's a really important step that the most recent federal budget commits to a dedicated stream of rapid housing and deeply affordable housing.

The rapid housing initiative was on-again, off-again, for three years and one at a time. Having the stability and knowing that this is an ongoing program will allow the sector to respond creatively to make sure that those homes are built.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I would just respond as well that this has been nine years. Committed is one thing; houses built are another thing. Is that right?

[Raymond Sullivan]

Yes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

In the middle of a crisis, if we don't have houses built, what does commitment mean, especially when we look at bureaucracy that is being put in place at every level? It seems that every level has additional bureaucracy that people like you then have to jump through in order to get houses built to get people housed.

We know that it's important to have people housed because that helps with living. When we look at wraparound services and all the things, it very much not black and white.

I just want to go to Ms. Whitzman now.

I am just wondering if you believe that it's just that Ottawa and Toronto are increasing development fees on new home builds.

[Dr. Carolyn Whitzman]

Do you want my opinions on that, Ms. Falk?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

That's what my question was, yes.

Do you believe that it's just and right that places like Ottawa and Toronto are increasing development fees?

[Dr. Carolyn Whitzman]

I think that development charges are really problematic, as is the whole notion of “growth pays for growth”. Any form of development charge is going to penalize newcomers or people who are searching for new, purpose-built rental or housing at the expense of many people, including me, who would benefit from those services but aren't in the need of a new home.

I think that there is a broader problem being exposed, which is that the municipal level is responsible for something like 70% of infrastructure, with 9% of tax revenues. There are a number of other countries that have dealt with that fiscal inequity better than Canada.

The problem with development charges is that they definitely are a regressive tax on new renters.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

What impact does that increase on development fees have on the supply?