Human Resources Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Carolyn Whitzman]

I'll try to make it quick, Ms. Fancy.

It's really important to think about portfolios that might be regional portfolios. I'm going to give a very concrete example. Mission Unitaînés in Quebec, where eleven 100-unit seniors buildings, using a replicable design, have been built in 11 different small communities. That's the kind of scaling up we need across Canada.

There's absolutely no reason that.... St. Thomas, Ontario, is likely to become the first small city in Canada, since Medicine Hat, to declare functional zero homelessness, so you can do a lot in small communities. It takes a portfolio approach, I would argue, and it takes an understanding of rural realities, which might include greater need for basic water and sanitation infrastructure, but that's what housing and infrastructure, I would argue, is for.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's wonderful. I know in one of my communities, in Bridgewater, some of our municipalities and the town are working together on larger infrastructure projects so that they can help scale both inside and around some of our small towns.

My other question is regarding ways that we can prevent gender-based violence through housing. I'm wondering what connections you see among housing affordability, homelessness and gender-based violence, particularly for women and seniors who could be fleeing abusive situations.

[Carolyn Whitzman]

Thank you, Ms. Fancy. That's an issue that's been very close to my heart for over 30 years.

If you're in an unsafe situation, whether it's with a spouse who's violent or a landlord who's abusive, it's really important to be able to get into a safe space. We often think of emergency shelters and transitional housing. It may require either being able to stay in the home or being able to find a new home that's less expensive for you and possibly your children.

It's really important not to leave out the intersectional analysis that's been in the national housing strategy. It's also really important when we're talking about homelessness to include people who are couch surfing because women are much more likely to be in an informal homelessness situation rather than to present to, certainly, municipal emergency shelters. Those are things that a good strategy would be recognizing in its outcomes and would be incorporating in the way it designs programs.

It's a really important point, and again, I'll keep it short.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you so much. I'd love to talk more because that's also been very near and dear to my heart for many years.

In conclusion then, this is regarding middle-income Canadians. I'm wondering about different recommendations on policy changes that would make the biggest difference for middle-income Canadians when we're talking about affordability measures with housing starts.

[Carolyn Whitzman]

I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning something that was cut off in my last page. I want to talk about limited dividend companies, which were a big part from when Canada was building 10 times as much non-market housing as it is now.

Those were private companies incentivized to construct, hold and manage rental homes—affordable to income-tested, low-moderate, middle-income households—with no more than a 5% return rate per year. Again, I can tell you how it works in Austria and the Netherlands as part of, I would argue, the non-market sector. It's something that still exists in the NHA, the concept of a limited dividend company, and it can be explored. Again, it's something that I can't get into in full detail right now while the bells are ringing.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

If you could provide that to us, that would be very wholesome within the report.

Thank you, Ms. Whitzman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Larouche for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the two witnesses once again for joining us for this important study.

Ms. Whitzman, you raised an important point about the need to respect regional differences and realities. The situation in Quebec is unique because, when it comes to housing, we have the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ. The Bloc Québécois supports Build Canada Homes because the SHQ will have the final say—it is the organization that best understands the realities on the ground. This will therefore be done in collaboration with Quebec.

You also mentioned the Mission Unitaînés. This type of housing is being built in my riding, Shefford. It's true that it's a different model.

There is also collaboration with community organizations. In my riding, the organization Holocie plays a key role in promoting social and community housing. I'm talking about social and community housing because, in Quebec, the issue of affordability arises. You mentioned it, and many witnesses before you have done so. It's extremely difficult to talk about affordability when there's no clear definition of what it should be. That term can mean anything.

Would it be important to return to a definition that uses the term “social and community housing” rather than “affordable housing”?

This would be in accordance with the principle that Canadians and Quebeckers should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. This is a major consideration.

[Carolyn Whitzman]

Madam Larouche, as you may remember, I've often said some very good things about Quebec programs. However, the recent changes to those programs had more to do, I would argue, with provincial politics and federal politics.

Having said that, I think it is really important to have a clear definition, which is different right now in Quebec than it is in the rest of Canada, of what affordability means for different income groups, and also to have a very clear view of the value of various non-market providers, such as public housing, co-op housing, non-market housing and, I'd argue, limited dividend housing.

Having said that, I'll go back to something I said earlier, which is that I think the federal government should set goals and definitions, but then let provinces do what they do best. Quebec has had continuity, it's had a clear financing stream and it's had the wonderful partnership with Desjardins. There are a lot of things that the rest of Canada should learn from Quebec. By no means should Canada say, “This is the one way to do it.” Alberta has had incredibly good homelessness prevention programs. B.C. has had a wonderful acquisition program. Let provinces do what they know how to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll go to Mr. McKenzie for five minutes.

We'll get the last two rounds in.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Whitzman, I'm coming in your direction. I've now looked at three programs. The rental construction financing initiative created in 2017 became the apartment construction loan program, with a budget of $55 billion. The national housing co-investment fund of May 2018 became the affordable housing fund, with $15 billion. The rapid housing initiative from October 2020 had a $4-billion budget.

I add that up to $74 billion and just over 59,000 housing units created. That's an average of $1,250,000 expended by the federal government, or at least budgeted, per unit.

Now we're moving into Build Canada Homes with an extremely aggressive target of 500,000 housing units a year with a $13-billion budget.

We're not really getting this done.

What is the greatest single problem with what the federal government has done over the last 11 years to try to build homes?

[Carolyn Whitzman]

With all due respect, Mr. McKenzie, I think you need to have a talk with your colleague, Ms. Goodridge. What we've been doing hasn't been working terribly well. It's time for a reset, absolutely. It can't just be what the CMHC or what the Canada Lands Company was doing in the past.

Having said that, I would 100% agree with you that a reset is needed. I would suggest, as I did in my deputation, that the reset start with very clear goals: We will end homelessness by X date. We will have adequate housing for everyone by X date. That's followed up with a very clear sense of what our definitions are moving forward. It includes assisting non-market housing, with the recognition that even at the highest possible rate I could imagine, which is 20%—it's now 4%—you'd still have 80% to 96% being provided by the private market. Also, it needs to be a lot more comprehensive in terms of its agreements.

There isn't a magic wand. There isn't one simple thing. When you look at what's worked in other countries, it starts with clear goals, clear definitions, clear financing pathways and clear targets for the sublevels of government.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Dr. Whitzman. You've been very clear in the advice you've provided to the national housing advocate. What I'm trying to understand is why more of it hasn't been accepted. I'm sure that's the frustration of your existence.

I'm also trying to get at what we have to do differently.

[Carolyn Whitzman]

I'm not sure I can sum it up in 10 words or less, other than to say, treat the housing crisis seriously. Canada is worse off than other similar countries right now, and I don't feel we're giving this the seriousness it deserves.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Some of the testimony from both you and Mr. Irwin, and from the prior panel, is that we do this best when we do it closest to the people who need the housing. Why, then, do we have yet another federal government program writ large—big numbers and big election promises—that fails to get it done?

Before I give you an opportunity to answer that, I want to move to Mr. Irwin and talk about specifics.

Build Canada Homes is a tremendously ambitious target that is not in any way, shape or form going to be realized. I think we all know that by this point. Instead of having a new program—as you indicated, we've been between programs for a year, and that's not helpful in getting houses built—wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just increase funding through the rapid housing initiative, an existing program administered by CMHC?

[Tony Irwin]

I think that's a difficult question, and I don't believe I have all the knowledge and capacity to fully answer it.

What I can—

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Those whom you represent build rental homes. You at least know how that program works.

[Tony Irwin]

Sure, we do, and I can talk about CMHC all day long.

Regarding Build Canada Homes, I think it's fair to say that my members are not the primary audience for that program. We are trying to figure out how we can engage with it, and I think there are opportunities. I'm just being forthright by saying that it is meant to be supporting and building non-market housing. That's not, primarily, what my members do. We support its goals, and I want to work with them to see if....

I have always said that we should be building. The government shouldn't be building. It should be the ones who do what they do best, and that's what we do best.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

We'll conclude with Mr. Saini for five minutes.

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

Thank you, witnesses, for your time.

I want to talk about something different.

In listening to both of you, the three things that I see as the biggest problems are the amount of time permitting at the city level takes, the development cost charges, which are compounding at $80,000 or $90,000 per unit, and the financing of these projects. In the mid-1970s, the interest rate was 10%, 12% or 13% for years and years.

Why are those issues a problem? Do we need to find a different way of doing development cost charges so municipalities are not burdened with this?

I just want to see a solution where housing affordability becomes a reality.

[Carolyn Whitzman]

I think long-term secured financing, which was, frankly, the secret sauce or baguette magique from the mid-1960s to, let's say, the mid-1980s, is terribly important. If I were to answer with one thing that needs to change, it's long-term financing for as low a rate as possible.

Why didn't that work? Well, it was in the early 1980s when interest rates started going up and the federal government freaked out because it was locked into a lot of long-term, low-rate financing for non-market housing. That's when the wheels fell off.

Even if it's five-year renewable, etc.—I'm sorry, but I'm a wonk, so I start getting into the details of finance—there needs to be a clear financing stream and federal leadership for that kind of capital cost. There needs to be assistance with operating costs and rent assistance from provinces. There needs to be assistance with rapid approvals from municipalities. They each have their roles.

I completely agree that local leadership and local coordination are key, but there needs to be national leadership as well. Since I'm speaking to a national group today, I'm calling for national leadership.

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

Mr. Irwin, should development cost charges be the responsibility of municipal governments or should the federal and provincial governments be the ones building infrastructure?

[Tony Irwin]

Based on where we are today, the current structure around how development charges are addressed isn't working, so we need to think about how we address paying for development-related infrastructure and housing-related infrastructure differently. Municipalities only have so many revenue tools. They are feeling very overwhelmed with it.

You talked about how, decades ago, there were different interest rates. Of course, development charges weren't nearly as impactful or they didn't even exist many decades ago. It wasn't the same impact on the cost to build. When it's $900,000 to build an apartment in Toronto or $700,000 to build an apartment in Ottawa, we have a problem. That's not the sole problem, but I think it's a big one.

On amortizing the cost over the life of the infrastructure, you're putting pipe in the ground, and that pipe is going to be useful for 30, 40 or 50 years. Right now, development charges mean that's paid all up front. We have to look at how we can better amortize the cost, how we can better finance the cost and who is responsible, ultimately. We don't have enough time today to get into that.

I do think it's fair to say that it can't be the municipality alone. Developers are going to do their part. We're not looking to get out of our obligation. If we want to build more housing, and we want it to be more affordable, then we can't keep doing things the way we've been doing it. We have to do things differently, period.

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

I represent one of the ridings in British Columbia, and the permitting process in the City of Surrey takes up to a year from the beginning until they're ready. On top of that, you have $80,000 to $90,000 per unit on the development. How can we survive?

[Tony Irwin]

Did you say it takes up to a year for the permit process? Can I come shake your hand?