Mr. Chair and committee members, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
I'm Sam Watts. I'm the CEO of Welcome Hall Mission in Montreal. I also serve as an appointed member of the National Housing Council of Canada, and I chaired the working group that produced the council's March 25 report, “Scaling-up the non-market housing sector in Canada”. In it, I argued very strongly for something that, today, looks like Build Canada Homes. The report that we issued forms a part of the evidence base for my remarks today.
I must say that I'm here before you as a strong supporter of Bill C‑20.
Before talking about these matters, I would like to briefly discuss the other challenges and not just housing construction.
We aren't facing the challenge of a broken system. Rather, we're operating within a system designed to address the realities of people in need in the 1970s. It's now 2026. Successive governments have simply tried to do the same thing. However, these things worked 50 years ago. The Canadian safety net components that serve the most vulnerable people need an overhaul to reflect the realities of the 21st century.
Bill C-20 is a step in the right direction, but it addresses a downstream challenge—we desperately need more affordable housing—and BCH must be accompanied by parallel upstream efforts. These upstream efforts would reduce the inflow into core housing need that no building program can address on its own.
These upstream efforts include agreements across all levels of government to fund targeted rental support and support services. Four walls and a roof are important. That said, the support that helps people maintain residential stability remains the key part of the equation.
I say let's move ahead with Bill C-20, but let's also be very clear that BCH on its own is not the only piece of the puzzle.
I'm going to make one suggested amendment to Bill C-20, which I know the committee has touched upon already, and that's the definition of affordable housing. Dr. Whitzman, who was here, pointed out that there are many different definitions of affordable housing.
Build Canada Homes has put one on its website that I think all of us tend to agree with, at least those of us in the sector. My suggestion is this: Why not put it in the legislation and not just on a website? A website can be changed, but for legislation, it's a little more difficult.
I'm asking the Parliament of Canada to make these developments permanent.
Good intentions are good; let's make those intentions an act of law.
Beyond the act itself, I have four other asks for the Government of Canada. They are not amendments to the legislation, per se, but they are upstream conditions under which this legislation can be successful.
First, Build Canada Homes should establish permanent and dedicated funding for transitional and supportive housing.
This is important, because those are component parts to permanent housing—getting people in the process.
Second, the federal government must negotiate with provinces and territories to implement a targeted rental protection fund. Rental protection falls under provincial jurisdiction—it can't be done unilaterally—so the federal government needs to lead it, but with urgency. If you can protect rental housing, it helps people stay in housing and is much less costly than having to build housing for them.
Third, when public funds are created for affordable housing, the affordability must be maintained in perpetuity.
We have to avoid the possibility that affordable housing eventually becomes unaffordable.
My fourth ask should be an easy one. I think the CEO of Build Canada Homes should sit on the National Housing Council as an ex officio member. If BCH becomes the most significant federal housing instrument, its leadership should be accountable to the broader ecosystem that it's meant to serve.
I'll flag something else as well. There are many different players in the housing space in the Government of Canada: HICC, CMHC, BCH and Canada Lands Company. Without any formal coordination mechanisms—I've been around, peripheral to government agencies, for a while now, sitting on the council—there are going to be some mix-ups, and we need to fix that.
In conclusion, BCH is the right way to go; however, its credibility will eventually be measured not in units built but in lives changed.
Thank you very much.