Human Resources Committee on June 13th, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, everyone. We are ready to begin.

I'm sorry for the delay. There was an issue and a laptop had to be replaced, but I'm told we're ready to go.

Everybody's been sound tested—those appearing virtually—and we do have a quorum.

I have, to begin, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'll be very quick. We hadn't dealt with this.

Colleagues will remember that we were talking about the Governor of the Bank of Canada, asking them to come and sending a second letter. I think we should simply send a second letter to the governor to make that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Let's formalize that before we conclude.

Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Before we begin, I want to clarify a few points.

Again, for those appearing in the committee room, please, when you're not using your earpiece, set it face down on the assigned spot. Also, while the microphone is live, please avoid, if you can, touching it to ensure that there is no sound popping, which can be harmful to the translators.

As well, I'll remind you to speak slowly if you can, which benefits the translation.

For those appearing virtually, this meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to House of Commons Standing Orders.

You have the option to speak and participate in the official language of your choice. For those in the room, you have interpretation services through your earpiece. You can select which option you wish, through the device. For those appearing virtually, refer to the bottom of your screen and click on the globe icon to choose the official language of your choice.

If there is a breakdown in translation, please get my attention. For those attending virtually, use the “raise hand” icon. For those in the room, simply raise your hand. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

I would remind everyone to please address all comments and questions through the chair. Wait until I recognize you by name and we will proceed.

This morning, we have one witness with us for roughly the first hour. From the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, we have Ms. Marie-Josée Houle, federal housing advocate.

Madam, you have five minutes, please.

[Marie-Josée Houle, Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate]

Good morning. My name is Marie‑Josée Houle.

My role as the federal housing advocate is to take systemic action to ensure that Canada honours the fundamental right to adequate housing. Consequently, I am here today in my role as part of a human rights accountability mechanism.

Thank you so much for the invitation. I'm here today to find solutions.

To end this housing crisis, federal investments must support non-market housing. Here's why. First, non-market housing is fundamental to upholding the right to housing; second, investing in non-market housing is the best use of public money; and finally, the federal government has an obligation to lead.

To start, non-market housing is key to upholding the fundamental human right to housing. Canada recognized the human right to housing in the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. Today's systemic issues, such as unaffordability and encampments, happen because we don't treat housing as a human right and a public good. Our research estimates that Canada is short 4.4 million affordable homes. Disadvantaged groups are overrepresented in core housing need and homelessness.

This committee has heard a lot about supply and that supply is the answer, but it has to be the right supply, the supply that meets people's needs. The way forward is non-market housing—co-operative, non-profit, public and indigenous housing—that puts people and human rights first. Investing in non-market housing creates permanently affordable, accessible housing for a wide range of people. It protects tenants from unaffordable rent increases and arbitrary evictions. People have more money for food and medicine.

Non-market housing benefits everyone because it's non-inflationary. It protects the land and buildings from speculation. The federal government stopped investing in non-market housing over 30 years ago, and the result is that Canada's housing supply is driven by investors. Instead, we must prioritize non-market housing supply and people's right to housing.

Second, non-market housing is the best use of public money for public good.

The use of public funds to create unconditional incentives for the private sector isn't the solution. That doesn't mean that the private market doesn't have its place. However, every investment of public funds must generate a public good.

Non-market housing has proven that it remains affordable over the long term. According to a 2022 study, rents at co-ops stayed affordable over a period of nearly 20 years, ranging from 25% to 33% less than similar market-rent apartments in the same city. Meanwhile, our research shows that nearly 30% of private rental buildings have been acquired by institutional investors, resulting in steep rent increases and high eviction rates.

The non-market sector provides the accountability that governments need to effectively target their investments. It has data on how many homes they provide and what they cost. It accounts for government funding. It's governed by volunteer boards accountable to the community. In contrast, the private market offers little data on housing outcomes. There's a lack of transparency around ownership and financialization, and it's accountable to shareholders and to profits.

To ensure that public money is resulting in public good, we need better accountability for taxpayer money spent on housing. We need better data collection to measure long-term results. We need measurement not just of outputs of housing but of outcomes for people based on human rights. We need to prioritize non-market housing.

Finally, the federal government has an obligation to lead the way out of this housing crisis. I know you can do it.

Investing in a housing system that respects human rights is both a wise choice and a government obligation under international law and the National Housing Strategy Act.

The 2024 budget and Canada's housing plan provide for significant investments in non-market housing and an acquisition fund. To be effective, those investments must be viewed from a human rights perspective and sustained over the long term.

Canada must implement a short-term plan to double its non-market housing stock from the current 3.5% to 7%. We must aim higher. Our research shows that we need a long-term target of 20% of all units dedicated to non-market housing.

Lastly, it's not just about spending. We must support Canada's non-market sector. That means new approaches to financing, governance, capacity building and approvals so that non-market providers can scale up; embracing community land trusts so that public lands can be used for development by non-market providers; and legislative change so that non-market providers can leverage their assets to build and acquire more properties.

Federal investments must support a plan to grow non-market housing. When everyone in Canada has their right to housing upheld, Canada benefits, our economy benefits, communities benefit and people benefit.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Houle.

Mr. Aitchison, you have six minutes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Houle, for being here, and thank you for the work you do.

You just indicated that your analysis indicates that of our housing stock, upwards of 20% should be non-market housing. Is that fair?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Yes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That's an indication, then, that you do see a role for market housing in our system as well. You're not opposed to market housing. You just recognize that we need to have more non-market housing.

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Yes, absolutely.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

In terms of the impediments of getting that non-market housing constructed and people living in that non-market housing, I would assume you would agree that the cost to build is a big part of that problem.

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Yes.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Those costs are driven by inflation and by government charges and fees at all levels.

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Yes, and I have done some development myself over the past, about 15 years ago, so things have changed a lot.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Can you speak to the impact of local charges and fees and development approval processes to the cost of getting not just market housing built but non-market housing constructed as well? What does that add to the cost of these desperately needed safe homes?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

When a proposal is created either to get government funds to build or to just put forward a proposal to be approved for city planning, the architect has put work up front, the contractor has put work up front and the developer has put work up front. While you're waiting for approval, these people haven't been paid, or if they have been paid, there is interest because your project isn't generating money through rents. That has an impact.

The longer it's in that interim period, the more money it costs. As well, with the interest rates being higher, as you've heard from the private market as well as co-ops and the non-market housing sector, it's having a huge impact.

That being said, we have the municipal governments that have an important role to play through zoning and planning powers. At the same time, during my review of encampments, I've heard over and over again that municipalities bear the brunt of the housing crisis but lack the resources and powers to address the root causes.

There is no guarantee that savings from reduced development charges will be passed on to new residents, so that's one thing, whether they're homebuyers, renters or people living in non-market housing. Whatever municipalities or whatever incentives are in place, whether it's tax cuts or funds given, there have to be strings attached, because the development charges do play a really important role. That's income to make sure that you have the housing-related infrastructure in municipalities and that they can support non-market housing.

To say that we just need to cut development charges...where are the municipalities going to make up that loss of funds for these really important things? It really comes down to the federal government and provincial governments. They have to take the lead and provide the resources municipalities need to end the housing crisis.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

If I can continue with this train of thought, it sounds like you read some talking points from the FCM there maybe, but I'm teasing you a little bit.

Clearly, we need all levels of government going in the same direction. You're arguing that we all need to be heading in the same direction, that the cost of government overall is too high and that we can't make one level of government bear this burden solely on their own. Would that be a fair statement?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Absolutely. We've seen too much finger pointing saying this is terrible, but....

You need cohesion.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

In the context of the latest federal programs, where there are multiple different funds and different programs that the federal government has enacted to support all kinds of different types of housing and to support other levels of government, one of them is the housing accelerator fund, which is a $4-billion fund out of the entire group of funds that is being given to municipalities based on agreements with those municipalities to speed up the process. We've never seen the agreements. We don't know exactly how they're going to speed up, just that there have been reports that they will.

In the context of the need for social housing, supportive housing, non-market housing, do you think it makes sense for any federal programs to be focused on helping municipalities hire more bureaucrats or whatever they're going to do with that money, or do you think that money would be better focused on the non-market side?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

Unlike you, I am not privy to these agreements, so I don't know whether they are hiring more people, except that when I was doing a project—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Let's go back to the simple question without my preamble.

In a housing crisis, to your mind, does it make any sense for public dollars to be spent on anything other than meeting the need for non-market housing?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

No. We need to bring up the percentage to at least 7% or be really ambitious and bring it up to 20%.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Aitchison.

Mr. Collins, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to the committee, Ms. Houle.

I'll pick up where Mr. Aitchison left off.

I come from the municipal sector. I spent over 25 years as city councillor for the City of Hamilton. Many of those years I spent serving on our non-profit housing authority, through which we managed 7,000 affordable units.

One of the things I complained about before I arrived—I was even very critical of our own government after the national housing strategy was released, because to my mind it was taking too long for the dollars to flow. They eventually flowed in 2019, and I was happy to see that.

However, if I had my FCM colleagues around the table, even those who sit on the board today, they would be sitting here talking about the story of municipalities being left to their own devices for a period of 30 years. Steve Pomeroy was at our last meeting. He highlighted how through three consecutive administrations there was $4 billion invested in the housing sector. Most of that flowed through to the non-profit sector. That was over a period of 25 years.

Our government, as you know, through the national housing strategy, is probably near the $100-billion mark for a period of five years, so a lot has changed. To be that constructive critic, I still think we need to do a lot more, from a financial perspective, to invest in the non-market area, but if my FCM colleagues were here, they would talk about some of our provincial partners not being at the table. The federal government can't do it alone.

Can I get your ideas and your comments on how we deal with those provincial partners who aren't at the table? Some of your work talks about—and you referenced it today—how all three levels of government need to be working on this issue. We don't need finger pointing, but it's no secret that a number of provinces aren't investing in affordable housing. I live in a province where that's the case. I can point to others that are laggards. In the case of Manitoba, that is probably soon to change. Saskatchewan, I think, is a great example in terms of trying to look for affordable housing programs there.

What do we do with our provincial partners when we need all three levels of government at the table and we have only two?

[Marie-Josée Houle]

It's a really great question, and I think it is the multi-billion dollar question.

Through my work as a federal housing advocate, I focus a lot of our files on different geographic regions so we can build relationships with the provincial governments to have these conversations.

Through the bilateral agreements, the provinces did agree to the principle of the human right to housing. There was something in the Globe, I think, on the provinces being asked what they felt about the human right to housing. A lot didn't understand what that meant, or they were worried it would result in their being sued. However, it meant they're investing in outcomes for people, and anyone who gets involved in government and in politics has that at the heart of their intentions. They want to see real change for the people they serve.

It's about having these discussions in a way that doesn't end up with there being turf wars. On the other hand, with the federal government's being involved at this level for the first time in a very long time, there need to be strings attached.

It is about building these fences and having coordination. My call to have a comprehensive encampments response plan by August 31 is an example of getting all the players at the table and having a coordinated approach rather than a piecemeal one or one behind another. I understand why provinces sometimes come out being very upset. It's not just about a turf war, but it is about proper consultation.

Every region is different. I come from the land of libertarians. I grew up in Alberta. The politics there are very different. If I talk about having meaningful relationships with people with lived experience to get to real solutions, the meaningful relationships need to exist across the board. That means between me and you, as government. It also means among all levels of government as well.