Human Resources Committee on June 6th, 2023

[Tim Richter]

Really quickly, I want to take issue with one data point that Mr. Dickie presented.

Just to put the Stats Canada data in real terms, there are estimates that, between April 2016 and April 2021, 253,000 to 331,000 renter households containing 531,000 to 770,000 renters were evicted. As a percentage it can seem fairly small, but you're talking about 770,000 people who were evicted in that five-year period.

In terms of the tools that the federal government has, I think there are a couple of things.

One is that, if the federal government is getting into leadership on housing and will make major investments, there are usually agreements between the federal government and the provinces and/or the municipalities they're contributing cash to. If they can put conditions on those transfers obligating or pushing the provinces and the municipalities to respect the right to housing, they could do that. Under international human rights law, all subnational governments are bound by the treaty signed by the federal government. Canada is bound by international human rights law to respect the right to housing.

Also there are tax measures, as I mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Ferrada.

Just before we go to Madam Chabot, Mr. Richter has advised me that he has to leave at 5:50.

Madam Chabot, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also to the witnesses for being here. I will use the remaining five minutes to ask Mr. Richter some questions.

Mr. Richter, my first question is one to be developed. You listed all of your recommendations to promote, strengthen and ensure long-term affordability. We are talking now about stopping financialization, which our study wants to support. One of the options you suggested is to “make purchasing existing rental housing less economically attractive”. You also propose to “tax purchases of rental housing by private investors above a certain number of units”.

Can you elaborate on these proposals?

[Tim Richter]

I wish I were a tax policy expert, but I am not. I do think, though, that you can apply taxation to purchases of property. In that case, you can then apply some kind of tax. Ultimately, you don't want to damage the overall corporate structure. You don't want to necessarily damage their REIT structure. You just want to even out the economics between purchasing and construction.

You could apply a tax over a certain number of units, so you wouldn't necessarily also damage the smaller investors, but I think there could be a targeted federal tax on large-scale purchases, because some REITs are buying and selling thousands of units, like 25,000 units in a single transaction. That's incredible. If you can slow that kind of change on the large scale, and on the larger end of the small owners—50 to 100 units—you could have a significant impact on financialization.

I think probably the most efficient way to slow financialization is through provincial regulation on vacancy decontrol.

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

In your view, in addition to stopping financialization, should non-market affordable housing be developed at the same time?

[Tim Richter]

Absolutely. We absolutely have to.

I think at least 350,000 units of—

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

Why do we have to do that?

[Tim Richter]

We need to do that for no other reason than there are lots of Canadians who will never be able to afford to live in market housing on their own without assistance. The market simply cannot house people living on income support, unassisted. If you're on welfare in any province, you will not be able to afford to live in market rental housing without some assistance.

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

Thank you. We agree.

Dr. Fedida, thank you for being here today. I would like to commend you on your organization's excellent work. We know how important it is for women to have a place where they can receive support and services safely, and you contribute to that.

You talked about the importance of making the distinction between “affordable housing” and “social housing”, a distinction that is perhaps not made often enough. Social housing is different from affordable housing because it guarantees that women will be housed safely, among other things.

Can you tell us what is missing?

[Dr. Gaëlle Fedida]

What more needs to be done with regard to shelters and to help women find housing?

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

I mean so that women can find housing.

[Dr. Gaëlle Fedida]

The shelter workers spend their day looking for housing so the women can get out of the shelters. Shelter space is very limited. Women who are in danger have to stay longer because we cannot find other housing for them. That's the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

In principle, finding housing should not be your job, should it?

[Dr. Gaëlle Fedida]

No, finding housing is not easy at all. We practically have to go door to door to find it. In the Laurentians, for instance, finding housing requires very close follow‑up.

Then the property owner has to be convinced to accept a single-parent family, since they might have problems paying the rent. Event though the women we help receive an income supplement, which is an excellent feature that must definitely continue, this is of course a clientele that could be problematic for private owners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

We have Madam Zarrillo for five minutes, and that actually may conclude us.

Madam Zarrillo.

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

Thank you.

I am going to carry on with questions to Madam Fedida, because the gender-based violence problem in Canada is only growing, especially through the pandemic. I just note that my colleague, the member for Nunavut, brought this into the House on April 26, saying that in the territory that she represents those women are forced to live with their abusive partners. The government needs to hear that these women are forced to live in abusive situations, because of the lack of housing, because there are no shelters and because the justice system is not protecting them. Also, the government needs to recognize how failures in investing in indigenous housing leave women living in fear and unable to find safety.

I hear that too in my own community. Tri-City Transitions, in my community of the Tri-Cities, can't find enough housing to keep women safe.

Ms. Fedida, perhaps you wouldn't mind just sharing how the pandemic has affected your clients looking for housing.

[Dr. Gaëlle Fedida]

During the pandemic, the number of women in shelters was much lower because they could not leave their homes. The housing availability problem got worse during the pandemic. Some women were able to leave their homes during the pandemic and went to shelters, but it is always difficult to find housing after they leave an emergency shelter or a second-stage shelter. That is always the challenge, and since our role is to help ensure their safety, we cannot let them leave the shelter until they have found an appropriate place.

With regard to second-stage shelters—our latest statistics were just released—, we are able, with continuous support, to provide adequate shelter for 72% of women leaving their home. That means that a third of them do not find adequate housing. Either those women go back to live with their violent partner, which unfortunately is the case for 5% of the women we provided shelter to this year, or they end up in other types of housing that is not adequate. In this regard, I'm not sure there is a direct link between the COVID‑19 pandemic and the fact that there is less housing available. The market being what it is, these women are not given any special priority. They have no way of convincing a landlord to grant them a lease. There are no further resources, since there is no particular incentive either, even in the private market.

In Quebec, we are testing rent supplement programs specifically for victims of domestic violence. That does provide some financial support in the private market, but the problem is that landlords are not inclined to wait because there are a lot of procedures involved. By the time the procedures are complete, the landlord has already found three other tenants to sign the lease. That is another factor.

Earlier, I mentioned the administrative burden of all the provisions. That prevents us from taking advantage of certain opportunities related to development projects, for instance. Today, we received confirmation of funding from the National Housing Co‑Investment Fund (NHCIF), which is a federal fund, but those confirmations were from April 2022. It is now early June 2023, and the agreements have still not been signed. Once the agreements are signed, we will still have to wait several weeks to receive the funds.

At the beginning, I talked about the problems with the various programs and especially the procedures. I heard a witness say earlier that it takes five years to approve an initial development project. That is certainly too long, and part of that time is taken up with the internal administrative procedures of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. That is really under the government's control.

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

Thank you so much.

If I have just a few seconds, I also wanted to mention, just for the record, a UBC study that came out recently and said that B.C. has the highest rental eviction rates in the country, at almost double—10.5% versus 5.9%. I wanted to echo what Mr. Richter was saying about how we are in a hole and we need to stop digging.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

There's not enough time left to begin another round. We have a hard stop at six o'clock.

With that, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing this afternoon on this important study.

I will just remind you that I was questioned on a timeline for written submissions on this report. It looks like we can go to the end of June for any party that wants to provide to the committee a written submission on this study that will be used in consideration of the final report, so that will be the end of June.

With that, committee members, there being no further business before the committee, is it the wish of the committee to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We're adjourned.