Human Resources Committee on Oct. 8th, 2024

[Fiona Coughlin]

Well, we definitely know that all houses are not built the same, so we are looking to achieve accessibility on as many builds as possible.

I think the innovation we've found on this great project was partnering with Invest Windsor Essex. They have a virtual reality cave that they use for the automotive industry to test cars. Their collaboration was amazing. They used the technology they use for the Ford Motor Company and adapted it for housing. I thought that was brilliant. They actually took the BIM, the building information modelling, of our home and made a virtual reality rendering. We were able to steer the wheelchair through and see where we needed to adapt our plans before the shovel hit the ground. There's opportunity for collaboration there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Coughlin. Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Mrs. Gray, you have five minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My first questions are for Habitat for Humanity, but first of all I want to thank you for the good work you do. In my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, I've volunteered for my local organization, and they also have a ReStore. Thank you to all of the volunteers and all the people involved in your organization.

I wanted to ask about a commissioned report that was done by Habitat for Humanity Canada last year, studying the housing crisis. That report found that 49% of Canadians were spending 50% or more of their household income on housing costs. Do you think that number has become worse or better over the last nine years, based on your experience?

[Fiona Coughlin]

It has absolutely gotten worse, and we're seeing that even in the applications we're receiving.

When I started working here, the applications we received were from people who had had some kind of significant setback in their life and needed a hand up and out of that challenge. Now we are getting applications from everyday working-class people. It's at the point now where most of us sitting around the table—and probably you in the room—are thinking of our children, our grandchildren and our nieces and nephews, and wondering how they can ever own a house.

We were talking about rent control earlier on. We believe that ownership is a way to democratize rent control. That's because if someone owns their house, they can actually build equity and have control over how much they put into their housing.

Yes, we've seen that the applications have changed. Now we're looking at just general working-class people who can't get a house.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Wow. Thank you for that.

That same report also found that 58% of Canadians were worried about sacrificing basic needs like food or clothing in order to afford rent or mortgage payments.

Based on your experience, do you think that, again, more or fewer people are still sacrificing basic needs to afford rent or mortgages?

[Fiona Coughlin]

Yes, that holds true. That's absolutely correct.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you for that.

There have been testimonies through different committees relating to innovation and the innovation economy. There's been some talk here today about some of the innovative techniques being used in homebuilding. Here is what I wanted to ask you: When we're looking at investment in innovative technologies for homebuilding, do you think the Liberal capital gains tax increases could hurt technology adoption with companies previously looking to invest in innovative home technologies for homebuilding?

[Fiona Coughlin]

I think that's a little outside my scope of expertise. I build houses. I think that's a good question, but I don't have an answer for that one.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay, thank you. I'll move on to something else.

We heard previous testimony at this committee on how the federal government's housing agency requires not-for-profits to build far above standard building codes, and this can add thousands, if not tens of thousands, to any project. Have you experienced this yourself?

[Fiona Coughlin]

Yes. What I was saying in my previous comment is that I worked with the innovation department of CMHC on this project, and I think they really did everything in their power to make this project succeed. I think sometimes other funders have many kinds of strings attached for various motives and reasons that maybe don't prioritize the goal of housing. It depends from funder to funder.

In our world as a non-profit, we're always seeking funding from different groups. It's a little spiderweb to try to figure out how to meet all the benchmarks. It does disadvantage non-profit homebuilders over the for-profit community.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Specifically with reference to the federal government's housing agency, do you have any sense of how much these extra costs might add, say, per square foot, per unit or per project?

[Fiona Coughlin]

Yes. On our particular homes that we build in Windsor, there is an increased cost of, I think, about $15,000 on our houses. We did a little bit of math per house. It does add a cost.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Well, to have the federal housing agency add those extra costs on is a substantial cost, isn't it, when you're trying to build affordable housing?

[Fiona Coughlin]

Yes, it does make it more challenging, because we have to exceed the building code by, I think, 25%, so while a for-profit developer is building to a certain building code, we have to actually exceed the code. My thought is that perhaps it would make more sense to just change the building code so that we're both building to the same rule book.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Those are amazing numbers. That's crazy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

We'll move to Mr. Collins for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to both of the witnesses.

I'll start with Mr. Chouinard.

Mr. Chouinard, you talked about both the supply issue and the rapid housing program. Of course, all three levels of government want to construct as much housing supply as possible as quickly as possible. By all accounts, the rapid housing initiative program was incredibly popular. As a former councillor, I know it was incredibly popular with my municipality for the support that it provided to the vulnerable populations that you highlighted. It was incredibly popular among non-profit organizations that took advantage of that program as well.

I've been to Fero in the Stoney Creek part of my riding, to NRB in Cambridge and to BECC's facility in Ancaster. Last year I visited your facility in St. Thomas with my friend and colleague Mr. Fragiskatos. At all the facilities that I visited, almost all suppliers talked about how the rapid housing program drove innovation, because hundreds, if not thousands, of units were being constructed in facilities like yours across the country.

We're looking for recommendations here today for the purposes of creating a report. Can you talk about how programs should and could be tailored to housing innovation, much like rapid housing, and about the benefits that accrue to suppliers like yours in terms of building upon some of the technologies that you're currently using today?

[Patrick Chouinard]

Sure.

The majority of the projects that we have delivered to date—let's say 80% of our projects—have been supportive housing projects. These projects require government funding in order to go forward. Let's see.... Yes, 80% of those projects have been funded through the government's rapid housing initiative. Clearly, none of those projects would have gone ahead without funding.

I know that there is talk about the rapid housing initiative being expensive, and there is some consideration on changing it or abolishing it. I think it's the single most effective program in place for developing the kinds of housing that we have been doing so far, and I think it would be a huge mistake to eliminate it. If you do decide to eliminate it, then you need to replace it with other programs that are going to contribute the funding that's necessary to build the kind of housing that we've been doing previously.

Certainly, when these programs are funded and we know we have revenue streams to be able to build buildings of this type, it encourages us to continue to invest in our form of construction. We're building a brand new plant immediately adjacent to the current plant, and we're doing that because now the affordable housing work we do represents about 30% of all of our work. If you abolish programs that limit our ability to do those kinds of projects, then it's going to discourage continuous investment on our part.

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

Thanks for that answer.

I'm going to turn to procurement, Mr. Chouinard.

With regard to the rapid housing initiative, the first two rounds—if my memory serves me rightly—required that those buildings be constructed in 12 months. Of course, it was born out of the pandemic, as emergency shelters were closed. Those army barracks-style designs were abandoned, and we had to pivot to a different model. Round three, I think, took us to an 18-month timeline. Those forced municipalities that weren't looking at conversions of old motels and hotels, for example, to turn to your industry, so the procurement specs that were in that program essentially led affordable housing providers to your door and to others.

What recommendations do you have around procurement as it relates to...? You know, we have some requirements that relate to greenhouse gas emissions, and you talked about the benefits that mass timber provides as it relates to the environment. Do you have recommendations around specifications for future programs that speak to materials and/or other related issues?

[Patrick Chouinard]

When the first rounds of the rapid housing initiative came out, there was a stipulation of 12 months. In our first project, the first time we did an affordable housing project, we not only assembled a 23,000-square-foot building in only 20 days, but the project from beginning to end—from the original funds from the rapid housing initiative to occupancy—was 12 months.

A comment came up earlier about the importance of collaboration. We did that in a collaborative environment, with everybody dedicated to the task. Now that we have an additional six months, it's a bonus. It just makes it a lot easier for us to accomplish that objective.

On the procurement side—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Chouinard.

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

Could I get that in writing, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, if you could provide that last thought on that question to the committee in writing, that would be most helpful.

Madame Chabot, we have two minutes left.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chouinard, I will let you finish your comments, even though you could have done that when you answered questions.

You talked a lot about the Rapid Housing Initiative, one of the most well-received programs in the federal government's National Housing Strategy, particularly as regards the supply of affordable housing. You say that in your case, it accounts for 30% of your work.

Given that you use lumber for material, are there specific constraints or challenges associated with using that material or with your desire to build affordable housing?

[Patrick Chouinard]

I'm sorry, Ms. Chabot.

I am not receiving translation.

I have a French name, but I am strictly anglophone.

I wasn't able to hear the interpretation.