Human Resources Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Éric Cimon]

Our association has a $200-million operating fund and we are trying to acquire private sector housing to transform it into community housing. We take it out of the market. We take it out of speculation and we make sure that it will be in good condition and make sure that the rent won't be high, because the people who live there will decide and will put the money in to make sure their apartments are okay and will have funding and have an association to help them manage that housing.

One of the big solutions is to take out that housing that needs love, that has been abandoned or mistreated and to renovate it, make it into social housing or community housing, and make sure that it's not in the market and to lower the pressure for the people in the market. Those funds are made with union funds. They are made with foundations. They are made with CMHC, with the SHQ.

We're getting more people from the private sector to fund those acquisitions and to make sure that we have different interventions on the way to get nice, good, durable housing at lower costs.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go on to the next question.

This might be more for the Canadian Real Estate Association.

I'm wondering what the percentage is of Canadians who own versus rent. Of those who own, what percentage have mortgages as opposed to owning outright?

Piggybacking on that would be the challenges with the current government programs to help first-time buyers to get into the market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please make it a short answer. You have 10 seconds.

[Michael Bourque]

The percentage of people who own in this country is somewhere in the high 60%, but I think that number doesn't really tell the whole story. One the reasons we've had such a hot market lately.... I kind of want to discount the two years of COVID, because that was a bit of an anomaly. Don't forget that there was a very active real estate market before then.

The reason for the hot market is that there is a significant amount of new demand, and that new demand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Bourque, could you provide the answer in writing to the committee? We're running out of time. It is a valid question, so if you could provide a written answer to Mr. Dalton, that would be good.

[Michael Bourque]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will now go to Mr. Van Bynen for five minutes.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've agreed to share my time with Mr. Morrice, so I would ask that you interrupt me at two and a half minutes.

I have two questions, and I would ask the respondents to be very brief.

First, Mr. Bourque, you talked about the “missing middle”. Just briefly, what type of housing stock is that? Is it semis, rentals...?

[Michael Bourque]

It's fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, duplexes—things that better use a footprint than a single-family home.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

That's very perplexing. Thank you.

My next question is for you, Mr. Morrison. I like the idea about acquiring other properties. You were saying that this fund should deal with not just the federal lands, but that there should be a provision in this to acquire other properties, such as school properties, municipal properties, etc.

Are there any examples you could provide, Mr. Morrison, that have been effective?

[Jeff Morrison]

Not necessarily at the federal level, but perhaps, due to time, we can send some examples in writing of some similar provincial programs that do that sort of land transfer. We can send those examples to the clerk.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Your suggestion is that the funds from the accelerator be utilized to acquire land from other levels of government in order to advance the federal project. Is that the intent?

[Jeff Morrison]

No. I'm sorry. To clarify, I was referring to the federal lands initiative—in other words, to expand its mandate so that it could serve as the vehicle by which provincial, municipal and private sector lands could be acquired and then distributed to affordable providers. The FLI would be the mechanism.

We can provide some models of other programs doing similar things at a provincial level.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, how many seconds do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 30 seconds.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

All right. I'll cede my time to Mr. Morrice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

I have two questions for you, Mr. Morrison. First of all, thanks for your leadership and that of your members as well. In particular, thank you for your advocacy for the housing accelerator fund to have a greater emphasis on projects that prioritize non-profit housing.

My first question is on your recommendation with respect to pushing back on Nimbyism. I'm thinking about groups across the country. In my community, for example, Waterloo Region Yes in my Backyard is a grassroots organization that advocates for more accessible and affordable housing in Waterloo region. To what extent do you think it would be constructive to allocate funds for municipalities to then deliver through to community groups like this? Is that part of what you were suggesting? I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that.

[Jeff Morrison]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. That is precisely the kind of flexibility but also the kind of focus that we would hope the accelerator fund could take with respect to Nimbyism.

On the whole YIMBY movement, the “yes in my backyard” movement, whether that be through non-profit groups, NGOs or municipalities themselves, we would hope that there would be some flexibility that would allow those various projects and initiatives that are specifically designed to really move Nimbyism to Yimbyism to be funded. There's no question that Nimbyism is a huge barrier to getting projects delivered.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Fantastic. Thanks for your advocacy on that. It's certainly something I'll encourage the committee to consider in their recommendations for the housing accelerator fund.

Secondly, in my community, one of the big challenges is the supply of housing needed to meet our needs, specifically family-oriented two-, three- and four-bedroom units as opposed to simply one-bedroom options. I'm wondering if you have any recommendations for the committee in terms of how the housing accelerator fund can help address the need, particularly when it comes to building non-profit co-op housing, for example, and how critical it is to be providing the kind of supply we need. The supply for whom? For families.

[Jeff Morrison]

I think it's important to recognize that the accelerator fund in no way, shape or form is meant to be a silver bullet that will address the direct supply needs. It does not cover construction costs. It doesn't cover the renovation costs that were mentioned in the previous question. The accelerator fund really needs to work in tandem, and by the way, to be stackable, with other more direct supply measures such as the co-investment fund and the rental construction financing initiative that the minister referenced.

You had this conversation with the minister in the previous round. Those programs absolutely need to be improved in terms of how people can apply to them, their simplicity and the time frames in which approvals are granted. There needs to be a complementarity between the accelerator fund and the direct supply programs that are in place.

However, I think to look to the accelerator fund to meet those supply challenges in Waterloo and elsewhere, it's probably not the right place. It's meant to complement, but it certainly won't address the problem directly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Chabot, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their invaluable insight.

The committee is tasked with studying this new fund, and with the help of people like you, the witnesses, we are examining the possibilities it opens up. The government is investing $4 billion in the fund over five years. That's a lot of money. Like you, we are interested in where the needs truly lie and how the money should be spent to meet those needs.

My question is for Mr. Cimon.

Mr. Cimon, I first want to commend you on the work your association is doing in Quebec.

Earlier today, I asked the minister the same question I had previously asked the general manager of Bâtir son quartier, Ms. Cyr. When she appeared before the committee, she said that increasing the housing supply would not automatically result in a greater supply of affordable housing units, specifically affordable rental housing units. This program seems to focus on supply, but it strikes me that addressing demand would be a better idea.

I'd like to hear your take on that.

In my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, the housing committee of the Table de concertation sur la pauvreté Thérèse‑De Blainville just created 40 community housing units in Boisbriand. There were numerous roadblocks along the way, but the effort proved very rewarding.

One of those roadblocks was the “not in my backyard” mentality. Nevertheless, the project was successful. I don't only mean in terms of price and affordable housing. I'm also talking about the fact that the people who live there are empowered going forward. It's a great model.

Should the government invest in community housing and these types of models on a broader scale?

[Éric Cimon]

Thank you for the question.

When it comes to housing construction projects, what matters is ensuring that the focus is on the community. Governments and programs have to take into account the real needs of the people in the community. The government cannot simply issue a call for proposals and direct its investments accordingly, while it leaves everything up to the market or whatever initiative it may be.

Quebec's AccèsLogis program is based on three-way participation: the Quebec government, municipalities and the given group all contribute. It relies on co‑funding from not-for-profit organizations and housing co‑operatives, but in the private sector. We don't provide all the funding for housing construction projects. We fund community housing projects that meet the needs out there.

It's hard to get housing groups to recognize that our ecosystem, which leverages the involvement of co‑operatives and not-for-profit organizations, provides a beneficial way of doing things. It's also hard to extend that model to the entire country. We don't have the dedicated resources or programming that would allow for community engagement, in conjunction with developers.

As mentioned, when a region needs social housing, we usually conduct a needs assessment together with the municipality. Then, we design a project and apply for government funding so programs can move forward. The Quebec government's share of the funding should be 50%, and the municipalities', 15%. That way, if the federal government were to get on board with this approach and contribute a share, we would be able to do more and do it better.

Having a network of developers is also important. As you've come to understand, getting housing projects built is a complicated affair, so it requires people who have the needs and interests of others at heart, not people who are willing to build housing just so they can make a profit. It's really important to take the commodity dimension out of housing construction in order to meet people's needs. That is the model we have successfully implemented in Quebec for more than 40 years, and I repeat, it's working.

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

It's a model that could be applied to a number of programs.

Mr. Cimon, I have one last question for you.

We talked about the surplus of federal real property and its untapped potential for housing development.

Where do you stand on that?

Many people believe that those buildings could be used precisely for community housing.