Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Kailee Brennan, and I'm the executive director of Matthew House Ottawa, a local NGO providing transitional reception housing and settlement support to refugee claimants. Less than two years ago, I was also working as a policy strategist for the Province of Nova Scotia in the department of immigration when Nova Scotia relocated asylum seekers from Roxham Road, and I later co-chaired the FPT asylum working group examining the potential of a national relocation model. Therefore, I come to this from both a policy and an operational perspective.
From my perspective, the pressures facing Ontario and Quebec are real, but the solution is not as complicated as we want to make it seem. Canada does not have a capacity problem; it has a coordination problem. Across Canada, experienced NGOs already operate reception homes, transitional housing and integration supports for refugee claimants. Much of the infrastructure for a national reception model already exists in pieces across this country. What has been missing is the mandate of coordination and strategic investment.
Having been a part of these discussions since 2023, right now I believe there's a real risk that this conversation is simply becoming an academic exercise about provincial distribution rather than a serious discussion about how to actually build a system that works, one that can endure beyond jurisdictional debates and shifting political priorities. The reality is that building a coordinated national reception system does not need to be particularly complicated.
At Matthew House, we scaled from one reception home to 27 homes in the last few years, and we now operate approximately 230 beds across Ottawa at a cost of less than $3 million per year, because we already possess the operational expertise and partnerships required to grow effectively. If you break down our expenses, our housing program operates at approximately $37 per bed, per day, with an average length of stay of roughly three months. It's an incredibly effective model. We aren't unique. There are dozens of reception homes just like ours across Canada.
It is not a capacity problem; it is a coordination problem. If done properly, a national reception model could be stood up at a fraction of the cost of prolonged emergency hotel responses, while also creating a more organized, accountable and trusted system. That system could include coordinated referral pathways to provinces and municipalities with capacity, supported by trusted NGO reception hubs already operating across the country. Successful relocation also depends on ensuring claimants are aware of opportunities outside of major urban centres, including lower housing costs and employment opportunities in regions facing labour shortages.
The role of the government should be to establish outcomes, provide strategic resourcing and support coordination infrastructure. That will allow the sector to do what it already does best, which is to collaborate, scale and deliver effective community-based models. Provinces and municipalities should absolutely be partners in this work, but building effective systems and networks first is likely the best path forward towards eventually reducing long-term federal involvement in emergency housing responses altogether.
With the renewal of IHAP, Canada could strategically support a backbone organization responsible for mapping existing beds and coordinating referral pathways, operational standards and regional collaboration amongst existing providers.
We're already seeing promising examples of this type of approach. In British Columbia, the provincially funded BC Charms has created a shared housing referral and coordination system amongst organizations serving refugee claimants. In Newfoundland and Labrador, IHAP-supported relocation initiatives have shown encouraging early outcomes related to housing and integration. Matthew House continues to have discussions with partners there about acting as a referral hub for future voluntary movement initiatives.
Canada also has a blueprint for this type of collaboration. During the response to the Ukrainian displacement, Operation Ukrainian Safe Haven brought together different orders of government and NGOs to support reception and integration efforts across our country. Canada has already taken significant steps to tighten and manage the asylum system, but regardless of policy changes, individuals with legitimate protection needs will continue to arrive in Canada. The question is whether we respond through coordinated planning or continued crisis management. One approach has a significantly lower price tag and delivers better long-term outcomes.
My recommendation to this committee is straightforward. Do not treat equitable distribution as a transportation problem. Treat it as a reception infrastructure problem. Invest in a national coordination body among existing refugee reception providers. Invest in shared referral and data systems, standardized claimant support training and dedicated IHAP funding for coordinated community-based reception models, not emergency hotel beds.
Canada already has much of the expertise required to do this. What's missing is the coordination infrastructure and strategic investment needed to bring those pieces to life. If we get this right, Canada can create a more equitable, efficient and humane asylum reception system that supports both claimants and the communities welcoming them.
Thank you.