Human Resources Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Coleen Volk]

They're both effective, but they are different.

The housing accelerator fund is a program that was brought in several years ago. Essentially, if municipalities are willing to make commitments to change the way they do things in order to speed up housing, in turn, they will get money they can use to build and expand housing in their municipalities. They're rewarded. It's a carrot program. You're rewarded if you do things to speed up the pace of housing. That includes zoning changes to make missing middle developments easier. It includes making the permit application process quicker.

They're different. They're not cookie-cutter agreements. Each municipality made a commitment to very specific things that it could do. These agreements were negotiated with the federal government, and there was an award, a payment. The agreements run over several years. As they make their commitments, they get these monetary rewards.

We have seen a number of changes that have sped up housing, and now we have started to see the actual increase in units coming from that program. The first few years were very much around enabling quicker acceleration of the projects themselves. Building takes awhile, so you don't see the new units until later in the program. We're in the part of the program now at which you're starting to see the acceleration of units. We are seeing some great successes with that program.

The deal between the federal government and the Ontario government was specific to development charges. In the housing accelerator fund, DCs may have been a part of that agreement. This agreement really takes on DCs. It says for these kinds of reductions in development charges, the federal government will come in and support in a particular way. It's far more targeted.

My understanding is that it's offered by HICC, not by CMHC, unlike the housing accelerator fund that we administer. My understanding of that agreement is that it's much more targeted at DCs in particular.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

In the economic statement that was done a month ago, there was $6 billion put in to train and hire Red Seal workers.

What kind of impact do you think that's going to have in the long term? Do you think that's the right program?

[Coleen Volk]

[Inaudible—Editor] on the Red Seal workers. That's not a part of our research ambit, so I'm not sure that we have an opinion on that. I'm sorry.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Cost development charges are a big thing. I represent one of the ridings in Vancouver, so I hear that every unit costs $80,000 to $90,000 in development charges. Similar stories are happening in Toronto.

Is there a permanent solution, whether it's the federal government or the provincial government? Who should be looking after all of that infrastructure?

I see that this has continued to be a bigger and bigger problem over the last 40 or 50 years.

[Coleen Volk]

There are many solutions to development charges. It's absolutely true that if the municipality charges less in development charges, it will need to find a source of revenue for the infrastructure the municipality is depending on, but there are other ways to get this. We haven't done any research, so we don't have any empirical comment on the best way to do that. I know the municipalities could...what's in their control would be to increase property taxes. That tends to be unpopular at the municipal level.

There are also some regions in which municipalities issue debt. In some countries, the federal government, state government or provincial government may be involved in that, but we haven't done any empirical research to say which would be the best or the most appropriate for Canada's context.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have three seconds, Monsieur Saini.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Three seconds...? I'm good, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you so much for keeping on time.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This will probably be my last round of questions.

Mr. Laberge and Ms. Volk, I'm going to come back to the issue of affordability.

CMHC often considers housing affordable when it is below market price. However, in many regions of Quebec and Canada, even housing slightly below market price remains inaccessible for seniors and families. Do you feel that the current definition of affordability actually reflects many households' ability to pay?

[Coleen Volk]

When Build Canada Homes was launched, I think they talked about 30% of income. If a household spends less than 30% of their household income on lodging, that's their definition of affordability. More than 30% is not good.

What we find in our programming, though, is that we tend to be more flexible, because affordability used to mean something very clear. In today's context, it can mean many different things. When we used to talk about affordable housing, we talked about it in the sense of social housing, of subsidized housing. Now, affordability has come to be an issue in middle-income families. It's a much larger issue now.

Depending on the type of market we're looking at and the type of problem we want to solve, sometimes, flexibility around the definition for programming purposes is good. On the day BCH was announced, that was a definition that they said they would be trying to work with.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

This is the famous issue of 30% of income going toward housing, and some people are paying more. It's more related to household income than to list prices. We see that the issue of affordability has been mentioned at this committee.

In closing, the Canadian Home Builders' Association said: High sales taxes and development taxes, restrictive mortgage policies, municipal red tape causing delays, excessive building code changes and escalating material and labour costs have significantly driven up the cost of construction and reduced the viability of ownership housing projects.

Of the factors mentioned by the association, which is most responsible for rising costs?

[Mathieu Laberge]

If we look at the cost of construction as a whole, we see that regulations, regulatory timelines and taxation play a role, but there has also been an increase in materials costs that is particularly significant for smaller units.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Aitchison, you have five minutes.

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

It's very exciting to get a second chance. Thank you.

I'll just say this right now: I'm on the record as saying that I don't know why they had to create a fourth federal housing agency, but that's not your problem.

One of the things we have talked a bit about around here is this notion of targets. When the national housing strategy was created in 2017, much of that was plopped into the lap of the CMHC, which was really not in the business of delivering programs anymore—even though its creation back in the late forties was all about building homes.

What I find interesting, though, is all the research the agency does. It's really good research. From that research, the CMHC has concluded that we need to build between 430,000 and 480,000 units per year for the next several years to restore some semblance of affordability.

Build Canada Homes does not have any targets attached to its mandate. I'm wondering if, based on the research you do, you could.... Ninety-five per cent of the housing in this country is market housing, and they're focused on non-market housing. Here's a question: What target should they set? What target should be set for Build Canada Homes in terms of achieving part of this overall goal?

[Coleen Volk]

That's a really good question, but I don't think I have a really good answer for it. I would say it will be up to government to determine a target, but it will be related very strongly to the amount of capital that is put behind it.

They're operating in a—

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

Hold on a second, though. I'm sorry to cut you off, Ms. Volk.

Will it be related to the capital behind it, or will it be related to the need that exists?

Your target that the CMHC published, based on the number of units that need to be built for the next several years, is based on the need, not on how much money you have at your disposal.

Should the target not be based on the need that exists?

[Coleen Volk]

I understand what you're saying.

If we determined the need—so, if there was a quantification for the need—and the expectation is that they would completely fill that need, then the amount of capital that they would be given by government would have to be sufficient to extinguish that need.

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

Therefore, we don't know the answer to that question. We don't know if they have enough capital or how much they....

Here's another question: Have there been discussions between the CMHC, your research department, the folks at Build Canada Homes and/or maybe the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities about an analysis of what that target should look like?

[Coleen Volk]

I don't know, Mathieu, if you've been involved.

I'm not sure that we would be privy to those conversations; they would likely be happening between the minister, Build Canada Homes and HICC, the portfolio department. I'm not sure that we would have been involved.

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

Would they not talk to your...? No one does more research on housing in this country than the CMHC, I'm assuming.

[Coleen Volk]

I would think that's true, yes.

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

You strike me as the ideal organization to talk to about doing the research necessary to come up with an appropriate target for non-market housing in this country.

[Coleen Volk]

I'm not aware of those conversations having been—

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

Maybe I'm making you some more work.