Evidence of meeting #73 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was affordable.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Steve Pomeroy  Industry Professor, McMaster University, and Executive Advisor, Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative, As an Individual
Tony Irwin  President and Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario
Dan Dixon  Senior Vice-President, Project Finance, Minto Group
Jean-Claude Laporte  Community Organizer, Comité logement Rosemont
Krish Vadivale  Vice-President, Finance, Skyline Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust
Joshua Barndt  Executive Director, Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust

9:40 a.m.

Senior Vice-President, Project Finance, Minto Group

Dan Dixon

Thank you for the question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, supply is the solution to our problem. With our population growing by a million people in 2022, we absolutely need to build more homes. There are programs, as I discussed, that can help with the supply. The challenge with new supply is it takes many years to come online. With approval timelines and construction timelines, it is a minimum of five years before any project of any size comes online.

Looking to preserve existing affordability is an idea that can have immediate impact. CMHC came out with their MLI Select mortgage insurance product last March. I think it's an excellent product by design, where there are enhanced terms for affordability, accessibility and sustainability. However, based on the feedback that I have heard from big lenders and from other borrowers, the vast majority of the MLI Select that is being issued today is for sustainability. It's not for affordability. I think the issue is that the criteria in that product is set too high. You have to put 40% of the units of an existing building at the affordable level before you get any benefits. The loan benefits do not equate with the loss of economics.

That doesn't mean the project is bad. In fact, I think the project is great. We just need to find the right mix between economic incentives and social incentives. I think if we drop that number to 20% or 10%.... Ten or twenty percent of almost every building is a lot better than 40% of no buildings.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Collins and Mr. Dixon.

Ms. Chabot, you have two and a half minutes.

9:45 a.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy.

As you know, our major concern is to see how we can establish a strategy on affordable housing. This is the case in Quebec and in the other provinces. Don’t you think that the definition of “affordable housing” should be reviewed?

In earlier testimony, we heard about the 30% figure. It seems that this notion of 30% varies from region to region. The right to affordable housing means that people shouldn’t have to spend more than 30% of their income on housing. I’m in a riding where people probably have to spend considerably more than 30% of their disposable income on housing.

In your opinion, should we tighten up the 30% criteria, so we have a consistent application and a clear understanding of what’s on offer?

9:45 a.m.

Industry Professor, McMaster University, and Executive Advisor, Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative, As an Individual

Steve Pomeroy

Through you, Chair, an affordability metric like 30% is a relative metric. It depends on people's income, so it varies across income bands.

I think moving to a more explicit affordability criterion, as the U.S. has used for many years.... They defined affordability relative to a percentage of median income. A very low income is up to 30% of the median, which is a very low level. There is some analysis from colleagues here in Canada. The HART initiative is actually developing that same kind of metric in Canada.

I think we need to think more carefully about how we define affordability levels when we are asking both non-profits and developers to include affordable units in their projects. Currently, in the national housing strategy, it gets a little bit confusing because they have a number of different streams of funding that all use different definitions. For example, the RCFI definition, which uses 30% of household income for all households, is twice as high as the MLI Select criterion that Dan Dixon spoke about, which uses 30% of renter income, because renter incomes are half that of owners.

If we are concerned about renter affordability, we do need to examine the metric and come up with more a precise and also an absolute number. Rents below $1,000, rents below $800—we need some number as opposed to percentages of income because they mean all things to all people.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Kwan for two and a half minutes.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Dixon, for the project that you just cited that's being built, can you advise us if the RCFI component for that initiative is under the previous iteration of RCFI?

9:45 a.m.

Senior Vice-President, Project Finance, Minto Group

Dan Dixon

Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, it is through the previous 90% of the AMR.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you.

For the waiving of the property taxes, that's for all the units. Is that correct?

9:45 a.m.

Senior Vice-President, Project Finance, Minto Group

Dan Dixon

That is for the 100 units covered by the open door affordable housing program of the City of Toronto.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Pomeroy, to your question about needing to address smaller investors, who are also contributing to the housing crisis, other jurisdictions have have actually put in a measure, especially on the mortgage side. Outside of primary residences, they add an escalating increase for additional property ownership, as a means to try to control the smaller investors coming in to buy up properties.

Do you think that would be an effective measure here for Canada?

9:50 a.m.

Industry Professor, McMaster University, and Executive Advisor, Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative, As an Individual

Steve Pomeroy

I'm not entirely sure which jurisdictions you're speaking of there. Some jurisdictions like Australia and the U.K. use tax mechanisms to encourage small investors to invest by allowing them to depreciate their asset against their income or use depreciation against their income.

The challenge here, of course, is that if we want to have a rental sector, we need rental investors. We're trying to find the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting tenants. That's the soft spot we're trying to get to.

Regulation certainly can do that. I can't speak specifically to the examples because I'm unfamiliar with them.

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

From your perspective then, the best measure is rent control?

9:50 a.m.

Industry Professor, McMaster University, and Executive Advisor, Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative, As an Individual

Steve Pomeroy

No.

Rent control is very good for tenants, but as I'm sure my industry colleagues would suggest, if we suppress rents too much, they simply won't build.

We saw that through the 1990s despite the fact that rent regulation was removed. In Ontario's case, rent regulation was removed in 1998 at the behest of the industry on the promise that if you deregulate we will build. Sixteen years later, they only just started building. I think [Technical difficulty—Editor] there's a whole bunch of other things going on in the market. It's rather a blunt instrument. It's desirable to protect tenants, which is why protecting sitting tenants is very important, but over-regulating can have unintended consequences as well.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

That will conclude the first panel.

We thank the witnesses for appearing this morning and providing answers to these important questions.. We'll suspend for a few moments while we do a sound check on the next panel.

10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study on the financialization of housing.

To assist the interpreters, I want to kindly remind all members and witnesses to introduce themselves and to please speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Translation services are available here in the room and virtually using the globe icon at the bottom of your surface.

I would remind those appearing not to take screenshots while the meeting is in session.

As well, if there's a breakdown in the translation services, please get my attention and we'll suspend while it is corrected.

Please direct your questions through the chair.

Today we have, from Comité logement Rosemont, Jean-Claude Laporte, community organizer; from the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust, Joshua Barndt, executive director; and from the Skyline Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust, Krish Vadivale.

Welcome to the committee.

We will begin with Monsieur Laporte for five minutes.

10 a.m.

Jean-Claude Laporte Community Organizer, Comité logement Rosemont

Good day. Thank you for inviting me to appear.

I must apologize in advance, because as soon as I’ve finished my presentation and answered questions, I’ll have to leave you, as I’m currently attending a convention.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, as we have him to thank for letting us know about this study by your Committee. That allowed us to submit our brief, which I hope you have read. Normally, the member for Hochelaga, Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada, is also present. I wanted to mention her, as the eastern part of the Rosemont neighbourhood is part of her riding. I’d also like to thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, Ms. Louise Chabot, who sent us an invitation to appear. In closing, I would also like to thank the clerk and the interpreters, whose services are essential.

Speaking of translation, I’d like to point out that there’s still a contradiction, in French and English, between the terms “logement social” and “logement abordable”. In French, “logement abordable” means anything and everything, unfortunately, whereas the term “logement social” is clearer. It refers to cooperatives, non-profit organizations or low-cost housing. However, in English, we say “affordable housing” to refer to both social housing and affordable housing. So, when discussing social housing, it would be better to say “social housing”, as this is more in line with the types of housing in question.

To discuss the financialization of housing, we still need to establish some clear guidelines, because housing isn’t just any old thing. I think we all agree that housing is a right. Canada is a signatory to the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As housing is a right, it must be financially accessible, healthy and safe. Being safe doesn’t just mean that it’s well located and there’s no danger of being mugged, it also means that you’re not at risk of being evicted by a developer because they want to make more money by raising rents or by some other means.

This whole definition of housing, as written in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, corresponds to the definition of social housing. It’s not expressly stated, but, if we look at the definition of social housing, we see that it’s accessible, healthy and safe housing.

If we say that housing is a right, then it’s not a commodity; and if it’s not a commodity, we must treat it as such. But by financializing housing, we do treat it like a commodity. So, if we say that housing is a right and not a commodity, then we must fight the financialization of housing in all its aspects, whether in terms of taxation, subsidies or construction assistance. All public money, the funds managed by the government, must be invested in social housing. This will put the brakes on speculators who cause housing crises and harm tenant households, mainly those on low or modest incomes.

The aim of the financialization of housing is to make investments to make money. This runs counter to the right to housing. The government has a duty to discourage such dubious practices and, above all, to put obstacles in the way of the people who engage in them. In this sense, Canada’s national housing strategy should focus on funding social housing, rather than spreading itself too thinly, as is currently the case, and stop funding developers whose sole objective is profit. Since the money available is not unlimited, we must prioritize government investment in social housing to help low and moderate income households.

Thank you.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Laporte.

We will now go to Mr. Vadivale for five minutes. We're still having issues with the next witness.

Go ahead, Mr. Vadivale.

10:05 a.m.

Krish Vadivale Vice-President, Finance, Skyline Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Krish Vadivale, and I'm the vice-president of finance for Skyline Apartment REIT, which owns and operates over 22,000 apartment units and employs over 1,000 Canadians from coast to coast. Skyline is also a direct member of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, or CFAA. I have been a member of that board since 2019, and in the most recent year, served as its chair.

I also happen to be the chair and president of Victoria Park Community Homes, one of Ontario's largest privately run, non-profit housing providers. It owns and manages over 3,000 affordable homes across Southern Ontario, and is currently endeavouring to build an additional 200-plus affordable homes in Hamilton, Ontario.

I would like to begin by addressing what, in my opinion, is a fundamental truth to the landscape of rental housing in Canada. The rate at which rents are increasing today is largely driven by demand for rental housing outpacing its supply.

Before contemplating solutions to this problem, I think one must first understand the causes.

On the demand side, you have a growing population, driven largely by immigration, dovetailed with stricter rules for mortgage qualification that came into force over the past decade. This makes home ownership less attainable to first-time buyers, so they rent.

On the supply side, which is where we operate, you have increasing costs of operation and increasing costs to build. You have a growing “not in my backyard” syndrome, or Nimbyism, with respect to new developments, especially those of the non-profit type. You also have increasingly hostile sounding political rhetoric aimed at the largest providers of rental housing.

To unpack these points further, with regard to operating costs, the breakdown of how $1 of rent is allocated by cost, as presented in the brief submitted to this committee by CFAA, is largely consistent with our own financial measurements. Additionally, over the past three years, we have seen double-digit percentage increases in insurance costs, increases in the cost of labour, and mortgage rates have almost doubled. In contrast, over those same three years, the maximum allowable rent increase for most units in Ontario has totalled just 4.3%.

These factors make building new rental housing projects less attractive, which results in less new rental supply. Over time, the lack of supply drives up market rent at all price points. If the goal is to increase supply, one must either incentivize new housing supply, or remove or reduce current disincentives, including the risk of negative outcomes like vacancy control, which would surely dry up supply.

I would like to conclude with four points.

First, I'll address the concept of financialization. Skyline investors currently receive a 4% yield on their investment. Some of our public market peers pay out less than this. By comparison, for the past few months, the five-year Government of Canada bond yield has hovered at just about 3.5%, which is a near risk-free investment.

Said more simply, rental housing providers are not more financialized than any other investment, especially when evaluated on the trade-off of risk for return. Moreover, if we truly were overearning in economic terms, the rental housing market would already be saturated to a point of economic equilibrium, which we clearly do not see today.

My second point is that at the end of our last fiscal year, Skyline's in-place average monthly rent across Canada was just $1,276 per unit, per month, which on an annualized basis would be just over $15,300. CMHC's definition of affordable housing is rent that costs less than 30% of a household's pre-tax income. This would mean that the average Skyline unit would be considered affordable to households earning a little more than $51,000 per year. According to StatsCan, the average renter household had an income of $54,800 in 2021, which would mean that many of Skyline's units are affordable to many renters today.

My third point is that at Skyline, we value our tenants. We do not conduct renovictions and we never have. Conversely, in recent years, Skyline has gone as far as to create a tenant relief program that provides rent relief to tenants in our portfolio who have fallen on hard times. In 2022 alone, our tenant relief program saved over 200 tenancies.

Finally, at 22,000 rental units across Canada, Skyline would qualify as one of Canada's largest landlords, yet of the five million rental units available in Canada today, we own only four-tenths of 1%. That's not four out of every 100 units, but four out of every 1,000.

If the end goal is to have a rental housing landscape that is dynamic and provides Canadians with choice, both in terms of location and amenities, but is also largely affordable, large operators like Skyline Apartment REIT should be part of that solution, and we want to be.

Thank you for your time.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mr. Vadivale.

We'll now go to Mr. Barndt. You have five minutes.

June 9th, 2023 / 10:10 a.m.

Joshua Barndt Executive Director, Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust

Thank you so much.

My name is Joshua Barndt. I am honoured to depute here today on behalf of the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust. I'm coming to you from the neighbourhood of South Parkdale in Toronto.

In South Parkdale, 11,000 households are tenants—

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Mr. Barndt, the interpreters cannot translate due to the sound quality, unfortunately.

10:10 a.m.

Executive Director, Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust

Joshua Barndt

I'm using your device.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Yes. I realize that. Two of our members who are using our devices cannot be translated either. My apologies.

At this stage, I have to—

10:10 a.m.

Executive Director, Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust

Joshua Barndt

Will you be compensating me for my time in being here and preparing for this? I'm here for this activity, to depute. I was invited by an MP.

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Yes. I realize that, Mr. Barndt. Under the rules of the House of Commons, the committee has to have sound quality at a consistent rate that can provide the proper translation. The translators have advised me—