Human Resources Committee on May 19th, 2022

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

Thanks, MP Long. Thanks Mr. Chair.

Through you to the AMO reps, there's obviously a common theme today and with past witnesses around the whole issue of property acquisition and land. I know that as part of AMO's submission to the province—and I read some of your documents online—you specifically wrote:

Protect lower rent market housing from “renoviction” and conversion through an acquisition program that empowers community land trusts, non-profits, cooperatives and municipal agencies to acquire and preserve existing lower rent market housing at risk of being bought by investment companies.

There's a whole lot wrapped into that statement there.

Following up on what Mr. Long asked, Mr. Ruff, I know that you have a very healthy rural community as part of the AMO membership. I know that on our side of the table, our government and our rural members are looking for land. I know that was one of their top priorities in a recent discussion that we had at a rural caucus.

Mr. Chair, through you to the AMO reps, the comment that you wrote to the province and to the federal government emphasizes land. Is that something that also fits well for your rural members, not just urban ones?

[Brian Rosborough]

I'll let Amber take that one.

[Amber Crawford]

Yes, and thank you for the question.

The short answer is yes, absolutely, and that was one of the recommendations to the federal government in terms of improving outcomes for people.

The more we can empower and provide flexibility for not only land trusts but also the provision of Crown land as well, which I know is particularly of interest to rural members, the more options we have on the table. I think our local communities will be able to assess the best way, and that's exactly why we've put that in as one of our recommendations on the blueprint to not only the federal government but also to the province.

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

I have one quick follow-up question. Infrastructure—water, sewer and other infrastructure—that is required in order to build a residential development, irrespective of its size, is always a challenge for rural communities. Have you made recommendations regarding infrastructure? You know, it's all well and good to purchase a piece of land, but if you can't service it, you can't have people living there at any point in time. Can you comment on that very briefly in the couple of seconds we have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds.

[Amber Crawford]

Sure. We have made a recommendation about the numerous provincial directives, including the provincial policy statement and greenbelt plan as well as the regional growth plans, to deal with addressing that issue that you brought up. It's a very good one and is one of the barriers that rural communities have mentioned to us, so it's certainly part of the solution. It's a complex issue, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Crawford and Mr. Collins.

Go ahead, Ms. Chabot. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for their contribution.

My questions are for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario representatives.

How do you think the federal government could improve the federal lands initiative?

Would it help municipalities to get more land?

[Amber Crawford]

I can start.

I think the issue you raise is a good one. It's talking about redesigning and expanding the federal lands initiative to provide surplus or underused Crown lands to municipal governments, contingent on building affordable or “missing middle” housing options. That's certainly consistent with what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has offered.

Brian, do you want to jump in as well?

[Brian Rosborough]

No, I think that's great, Amber. Thank you.

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

In your opening statement, you talked about a more flexible model, one that simultaneously takes into account the private sector, not-for-profit organizations and a wide range of partners—whom we believe are essential to the approach—and affordable housing.

Affordable housing has been defined in a number of ways. According to Statistics Canada's website, “[a] household in core housing need is one whose dwelling is considered unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable and whose income levels are such that they could not afford…housing”. In fact, 1.7 million households were in core housing need, according to the 2016 census data.

Do you think the housing accelerator fund will, in part, help solve that problem?

If not, how can it address the problem?

[Brian Rosborough]

I'll begin and I'll ask Amber to chime in.

I don't think the fund is going to solve the problem, but it can certainly make very important contributions. We see the role of the not-for-profit sector and the co-operative housing sector as being absolutely essential to affordability, but you also raise an interesting point, which is that looking at questions of housing affordability without looking at incomes is really only one side of the story.

We also have work to do in terms of affordability and in terms of incomes of Canadians who are looking to get into the housing market, either the rental or the purchasing market, so this program needs to fit into a much broader context that includes some of those initiatives as well.

[Amber Crawford]

I'll add something about the need for a rental housing strategy. That's certainly part of it. We've spoken about supply, but previous presenters have done a great job of suggesting that it is two sides of the same coin, so we need to also look at demand and make sure that for everyone in our complete community, there's a mix of tenures, mixes, types, etc.

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

My next question is for any or all of the three organizations represented.

Should building affordable housing units be prioritized under the new fund?

The question is for the representatives of all three organizations.

From what I've heard, I believe two of the organizations said yes. It's even necessary to build sustainability into the affordable housing supply. It's about not just the supply, but also the demand.

I'd be happy to hear from whoever wants to answer the question.

I have two minutes left, so the chair will let you know when you're out of time.

[Brian Rosborough]

I'll simply add that affordable housing must be part of the equation. The extent to which this fund can assist with deep affordability is something that should be seriously considered.

In Ontario, municipalities are keenly incented to increase the amount of affordable housing available, because when housing becomes unaffordable, as our other witnesses will tell you, the result is increased homelessness. In the province of Ontario at least, that's a municipal responsibility. Municipalities are concerned with housing at all ends of the market, and one affects the other. As I said, they're motivated to address this problem, and this fund can be extremely helpful to municipalities of all sizes as we look ahead to doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Who's taking the last 15 seconds?

[Seth Asimakos]

I can just say that in New Brunswick, the municipalities don't really have an impact. In Saint John, for instance, the municipality doesn't have an impact on housing so much, so that's one thing, but I think there has to be a discussion on a bigger scale of equity caps in terms of how much a property can actually appreciate in value. Housing shouldn't be a commodity and it shouldn't be a quick way to get rich. That's what's happening right now.

In the rural area, all through the province, it's happening. We can talk about rent caps, but really an equity cap is the only way we're going to prevent this from continuing. That's a huge discussion. This is not the place that's going to solve it, that's for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

We could bring forward another motion to discuss that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Chabot.

Madam Zarrillo is next, for six minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I'd be supportive of Madam Chabot's motion.

I wanted to thank the witnesses today. It's incredible testimony, and so important.

I want to revisit the CMHC, and I'm going to start by just reiterating the goals and the aims, which are “to remove barriers and help municipalities build housing more quickly in an ambitious and innovative manner”.

Mr. Asimakos, you mentioned CMHC, and I've heard this before, so I'd like to hear your experience. I've had experience of a project having waited 12 or 18 months to hear back that there will be a partnership. Meanwhile, nothing can happen at the municipal level.

I'm going to ask, Mr. Asimakos, if you could share other barriers, including what's happening at CMHC, and any others.

I'm going to take a moment to mention that I've heard the word “Nimbyism” a couple of times today. Before you speak, Mr. Asimakos, I have to make a statement about that. It isn't an argument, and I'm sure there are many in this room who would agree. Mayors and councils have the freedom to vote for rezoning at any point in time. It's due only to a lack of courage that they continue to hide behind this Nimbyism, so I just want folks to know that I don't buy into the argument of Nimbyism, because the NIMBYs don't have the gavel.

Mr. Asimakos, could you just tell me what your experiences are with CMHC?

[Seth Asimakos]

I'll address what you just finished there. It's really important for municipalities to have a very strong urban plan or rural plan or what have you, one that talks about revitalization and the mixed development that's needed in neighbourhoods. We do have that in Saint John. That only happens when council actually goes in that direction, and we have a very strong council that's in favour of mixed uses and so on.

The experience with CMHC is on two fronts. One is our own projects that go through. I just looked at our application that went in, and the timelines on everything were itemized in the return email. It was crazy: It was 14 days to review this little application, then another 30 days, another 60 days, and another 60 days. When you add that up, it's almost six months to know whether you're going to have money flowing or not. Meanwhile, if I go to the credit union and say, “Here's our plan with financials and everything”, it can turn something around within three weeks.

I don't know what the issue is and why it takes that long. For us in financing developments, if it comes to us really well put together and we work with existing developers, it shouldn't take that long. It just shouldn't. That's my experience. In financing others, we've seen organizations go into the process, and because it's such a volatile market in the supply chain, on pricing and on everything, quotes at the building store for supplies are limited to seven days now, and as far as contractors go, it's getting to be under 30 days. When something takes so long and you have to go back and get more quotes...These are quotes that are quantity surveys at a high level that don't get turned around that quickly. There's an expense to that. Something has to be done there. Those are my experiences.

I'd like to mention a couple of other things that I wasn't able to mention before. With forgivable loans, there's a lock on equity, so in a non-profit you are locked out of leveraging that equity for other financing for up to 20 years. If you're a housing developer in the non-profit sector, your whole purpose is to actually develop housing, so why put a lock on that? I just don't understand that. That should be taken off. That would free up a lot more equity to leverage financing.

The other thing is subsidies on renovations. Social development, which basically flows the money from the feds through the province, did increase its subsidy on new builds, but the subsidy on renos did not increase. That has to change. When you're talking about maintaining existing housing, well, it's about renos. It think it's $24,000 a unit, and there's nothing right now.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's another motion we should put forward to look at that.

Mr. Braithwaite, you talked about innovation. Thank you for those examples. They were amazing. It's part of this ask. They're asking for innovation. I wanted to talk to you specifically about your experiences with CMHC, and also about persons with disabilities and universal design. What kind of innovation are you seeing there to get these units and homes built for persons with disabilities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 20 seconds.

[Michael Braithwaite]

One of the things that we haven't talked about is partnerships. We say innovation, and it's groups like my organization, Blue Door, working with groups like Community Living in York Region to make sure we're serving them and that we're listening to those lived experts, people with lived experience, about what their needs are, especially when it comes to people living with disabilities.

When we work with them, we're looking at the purchase or design of new properties, and they're telling us about their lived experience. We're able to work with them and then work with architects to make sure that not only are we meeting the standards of accessibility but that we're also actually meeting the needs of the people who are going to be living in those units moving forward.

With CMHC—