Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

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

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members will be appearing in person in the committee room and virtually.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to take a few moments to review some things with you.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon. Before speaking, click on the microphone to activate your own mike. In the committee room, the microphones will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. I will ask you to speak slowly so that the translators have the ability to interpret you correctly. If something happens with translation services during the meeting, please get my attention and we will suspend while they are being clarified.

If you are appearing virtually and not using a House of Commons-approved headset microphone, then I will not recognize you to participate in the meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, November 21, 2022, the committee will commence its study of the national housing strategy.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical connectivity and equipment tests.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks followed by questions.

Today, from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have Romy Bowers, president and chief executive officer; Nadine Leblanc, senior vice-president, policy; Carla Staresina, vice-president, risk management, strategy and products; Bob Dugan, chief economist; Simon Lahoud, director, financing solutions; and Yannick Monaghan, director, client solutions.

Before we begin, I just want to welcome.... We have Ms. Lapointe substituting for Mr. Long, and we have Ms. Kwan, who is accompanying Madame Zarrillo at today's committee meeting. Welcome to Ms. Kwan and to Madame Lapointe online.

We will start with Ms. Bowers for five minutes, please.

[Romy Bowers, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I’m very happy to be meeting with you today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation. We are always very happy to participate in this very important part of the democratic process and to speak about the work we're doing at CMHC.

I understand that timing issues made it impossible for us to testify here last week, and I would like to apologize for that. We never shy away from committee appearances. Just last week, I met with the public accounts committee, and next week I’ll be back at this committee with the minister.

As Canada's national housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is pleased to be delivering the national housing strategy.

This 10‑year plan is Canada's first national, comprehensive strategy to address housing unaffordability. It includes a suite of programs designed primarily to create more housing supply. It focuses first and foremost on the most vulnerable Canadians. But it covers the continuum of housing, for example shelters, community housing, market rentals and home ownership.

At CMHC, we leverage our close partnerships with the housing sector and all orders of government to make sure federal investments are optimized for the greatest impact.

We're continually improving our programs based on feedback from our partners. For example, we recently streamlined the process of our national housing co‑investment fund and reduced the turnaround time for applications by 50%.

We’ve applied lessons learned to new programs, like the rapid housing initiative. This highly successful program is expected to quickly create more than 14,500 units for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

CMHC has continuously met the national housing strategy’s ambitious targets, and we’ve added new programs as conditions and needs have continued to evolve.

The result is that to date we have made more than $30.28 billion in financial commitments to support the creation and repair of 387,000 units, 170,000 of which are currently under construction or completed, and the continuing availability of more than 38,000 community housing units for which operating agreements expired. These indicators are publicly available on our website.

We are committed to continually improving our reporting to ensure that public investments are delivering real impact to Canadians who need it most. At the same time, we continue to gather and share information on the housing environment and housing needs of all Canadians.

The numbers I've just cited demonstrate our impact, but so do the stories of the people who now have a home as a result of this work, including people like Emily from Vancouver, who was homeless and struggled with addictions. She found a home at Union Gospel Mission’s Women & Families Centre, and she says the support she received there changed her life. The centre was built with funding from the national housing coinvestment fund.

Another example is Bill, a Canadian Forces veteran in Ottawa. Bill went from being homeless to living in Veterans' House, a supportive-housing facility at the former CFB Rockcliffe air base. That project was also financed by the coinvestment fund.

There are also the seniors and the people living with disabilities or with mental health issues in Gravenhurst, who will soon have a home at the brand new Alexander Retirement Care Facility, again, thanks to the coinvestment fund.

It is clear from stories like this that the national housing strategy is making a difference in the lives of Canadians, but this is not to say that there isn't much more that needs to be done to address Canada’s housing challenges, and government can’t do it alone. There simply aren’t the resources in government to address the housing needs of all Canadians.

Yes, there's definitely a clear role for government at all levels to create more affordable or social housing to ensure that vulnerable people can meet their basic housing needs, but when it comes to solving Canada’s more widespread housing affordability challenges, the impact of federal investments is much more limited.

For example, in Canada, about 95% of rental housing is provided by the private sector, so when we think about housing affordability, the private sector needs to be a part of the solution.

We are very happy to be here today to answer your questions, and we welcome all ideas as to how we can work better together to ensure that everyone in Canada has an affordable, suitable home.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Bowers.

We will now open the floor to questions and discussion, beginning with Mr. Aitchison for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bowers, thank you very much for being here, along with your army of support. We appreciate that.

I just want to set the base here a little. CMHC is the lead agency for the national housing strategy. Is that correct?

[Romy Bowers]

Yes.

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

I read in the 2021 final evaluation report on the national housing coinvestment fund that this program supports the creation of new affordable housing stock and also the repair of existing housing stock.

Is that also correct? Is that the verdict?

[Romy Bowers]

That's correct.

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

What's troubling, though, is that in the Auditor General's report that we just received, the Auditor General reported that rental housing units considered affordable and approved under this program “were often unaffordable for low-income households across Canada in 2020”.

How do we reconcile the fact that the program is to construct and repair affordable rental units—of which there are a defined number—with the Auditor General's report, which says they were often not affordable?

[Romy Bowers]

First, I'd like to thank the Auditor General for the comments made in that audit report. CHMC has accepted all the recommendations, and we are judiciously working on the action plans.

With respect to the question, the national housing strategy, although it is focused on vulnerable populations, has a number of programs that serve the housing needs of all Canadians. The affordability that's achieved through the different programs depends on the intent of the program.

For example, we have a program called the rental construction financing initiative, which is intended to provide market housing supply or units at slightly below supply. The affordability definition for that will be very different from something like the rapid housing initiative, which is geared toward those experiencing homelessness.

Therefore—

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

I'm going to stop you there. I don't want you to describe all six of the programs. I know the national housing strategy is broken up into a lot of different categories. I get that.

Very specifically, this was a report on the national housing coinvestment fund, which is specifically for affordable rentals. The AG has reported that this program, specifically, often produced or delivered units that were not actually affordable.

I'm asking very specifically how we reconcile that. I'm sure there's a reason. I'm curious to know what it is.

[Romy Bowers]

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Simon, to answer specifically on the national housing coinvestment fund. However, I'd like to note that the national housing coinvestment fund often supports mixed-income units.

We have some units that are affordable and others that are closer to the market. The idea is that the more market-oriented rents support those that are more deeply affordable.

I'm going to turn to Yannick, because he has the details on the affordability achieved through that program. Maybe, Yannick, you can give the chair some indication of the level of affordability achieved to date.

[Simon Lahoud, Director, Financing Solutions, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation]

I'm sorry, Romy. I'll jump in there.

[Romy Bowers]

I'm sorry, Simon. I had the wrong person.

[Simon Lahoud]

Thank you.

As Romy mentioned, our program is definitely meant to achieve different levels of affordability. Our program criteria define affordability as units that are at or below 80% of median market rents, and our program criteria requires at least 30% of the units to be affordable—

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

I'm going to stop you. I'm sorry. I don't need you to explain to me how the programs work and what affordability is. We get that.

I'm talking very specifically about this program that is supposed to deliver affordable rental units. The Auditor General has reported that, in many cases, they were not affordable. I want to know specifically what caused that, not that there are a dozen different programs. We know that.

What, specifically...?

You're burning up a lot of my time here.

[Romy Bowers]

The Auditor General was focused on chronic homelessness, and she applied the affordability lens of homelessness to all of our programs. When you look at something like the rapid housing initiative, it produces the greatest number of units that are deeply affordable. When you look at something like the coinvestment fund, some units are affordable for those most in need and others are not. That is by policy intent.

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

The Auditor General specifically said the national housing coinvestment fund, which is for affordable units, did not always deliver affordable units. There must be a reason for that. That's all I'm asking.

[Romy Bowers]

It produces a mix of affordable units, depending on the individuals or communities being targeted by a particular project.

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

She said that some of them were not actually affordable.

[Romy Bowers]

That was by policy intent. It produces mixed-income communities, with some deeply affordable units and others that are less deeply affordable.

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

Yes, I know. Okay. There's a mix.

The definition of “affordable rental” is that the household spends less than 30% of their income, before tax, on rent. Is that correct?

[Romy Bowers]

That is one definition of affordability.

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

Do we have multiple definitions in this country of what “affordable” is?

[Romy Bowers]

As I mentioned, given the nature of the programs, we have different affordability definitions. It depends on the type of housing we're trying to create.

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

Is that part of the reason we can't quantify whether these programs are always really, truly helping? I know we have some anecdotal support, but is that one of the reasons the Auditor General couldn't measure whether these programs were working or not?

We have different definitions, depending on who you're talking to, I guess.